Viewpoint neutral: Court rules that University of Wisconsin must fund a Catholic student group 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Gay marriage splits factions, not friendship
Gay marriage is an issue in New York once more. Gov. David Paterson called a special session (to solve the state’s budget woes) and gay marriage advocates wanted on the agenda a bill legalizing same sex marriage. It seems that the bill will not come to a vote today, and that Democrats are having a heated discussion about whether or not it will come to a vote at all.
The New York Times profiled one of the bill’s most outspoken opponents, State Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. The even-handed portrait shows Diaz, a Democrat, as conflicted: “He relishes the role of the lonely dissident, sometimes practically taunting Democratic leaders to throw him out of the party. Still, the senator resents those who brand him a bigot for his views, and seems to plead for understanding.”
He and his gay chief counsel, Christopher Lynn, actually go out on double dates with their partners. Lynn said despite his differences with Diaz, “He is a true believer in Christian values, in treating people the way you want to be treated.”
Diaz told the Times about balancing his religious views with his personal friendships:
My religion doesn’t allow me to dance. But that does not mean I don’t go to the party. My religion doesn’t allow me to drink. But that doesn’t mean I can’t hang around with my friends. My religion is against gay marriage. It means, I don’t agree with what you do. But let’s go out. Let’s go to the movies. Let’s be friends.
back to top93 Comments to “Gay marriage splits factions, not friendship”
This is what is wrong with the GLBT Community an trying to force their moral values and ideas, views on to States.
“Gov. David Paterson called a special session (to solve the state’s budget woes) and gay marriage advocates wanted on the agenda a bill legalizing same sex marriage. ‘
The issues is the budget but the GLBT Community want to make it about them.
Report comment to moderator
Sadly, Diaz does not realize that he is elected to respond to the people, not his personal deity.
Having long ago convinced the State to recognize the concept of marriage and to grant various rights and privileges to the married, religion now finds itself trying to force the state to discount the importance of marriage and set up rival institutions. My guess is that religion will eventually regret this.
Report comment to moderator
“My religion doesn’t allow me to dance. But that does not mean I don’t go to the party. My religion doesn’t allow me to drink. But that doesn’t mean I can’t hang around with my friends. My religion is against gay marriage… ”
That just means you don’t have to marry someone of the same sex. It doesn’t mean you have to oppose same sex marriage of others.
Report comment to moderator
To be consistent, Diaz should introduce legislation to outlaw drinking and dancing!
Report comment to moderator
arcadia, Spinoza – the meeting is for the budget not gay rights.
Report comment to moderator
“It means, I don’t agree with what you do. But let’s go out. Let’s go to the movies. Let’s be friends.”
No thank you. Until you realize that your religion is not a justification for continuing structural inequality, there are better people I would rather hang out with. If you want to people to not call you a bigot, start supporting less bigoted, more ethical policy.
Report comment to moderator
this is funny you people are upset at Diaz views but give a pass on teh fact the GLBT Community are trying to hijack special meet that should be about the budget not their speical rights.
Report comment to moderator
this is funny you people are upset at Diaz views, but give a pass on the fact the GLBT Community are trying to hijack special meeting that should be about the budget not their special rights.
Report comment to moderator
“[A]rcadia, Spinoza – the meeting is for the budget not gay rights.”
Gov. Patterson, who called the special section, quite explicitly asked the Senate to take up the issue. And even if he didn’t, same-sex marriage haters don’t get the privilege of unilaterally setting the legislative agenda.
Even if reality conformed to your ignorance, you don’t actually make anything resembling a valid point by saying that the special secession is also tasked with finding solutions to the budget, which appears to be it’s primary focus anyway.
P.S. — Your factually incorrect “point of order” is also not in anyway a refutation to Arcadia and Spinoza’s points. So, why are you directing it them by name?
Report comment to moderator
But for Diaz, this bill would likely have been passed months ago.
Report comment to moderator
mynock – sorry it is about the budget
Report comment to moderator
@ pastor roy: the governor has the power to call legislative sessions about whatever he thinks is in the best interest of the state, right? and when he called this session, he specifically raised the budget and marriage equality.
and you have a lot of nerve accusing gay people of attempting to force their moral views on others. In fact, it is the antigay folks who have a stranglehold on the **legal** definition of marriage. No one will be or could be forced to change their moral/religious views. The current state of inequality for gay families actually violates our constitution’s establishment clause by promoting the particular religious views of a segment of the population while punishing those of others.
Why should your religious definition of marriage receive legal preference by our government over the religious definition of marriage by such mainstream confessions as the Quakers, Unitarians, United Church of Christ and Reform Judaism?
Furthermore, Governor Patterson has a long history of a commitment to marriage equality. The issue’s inclusion on the special session’s agenda is clearly his idea. Gay folks haven’t hijacked anything.
Report comment to moderator
“No one will be or could be forced to change their moral/religious views.”
Unless you are a photographer or caterer who doesn’t want to do Gay weddings or an adoption agency who doesn’t want to give children to gay couples.
Report comment to moderator
@ kbells: to my knowledge no caterer or photographer has ever been forced to take a job they didn’t want, including in states where marriage equality is the law.
The issue of adoption is totally unrelated, since gay folks can, in virtually all states already adopt children and it is not tied to marital status. The state certainly has the right to regulate adoptions. Luckily most US laws acknowledge that it is in the best interest of children to be adopted, even by gay folks. If you cannot abide by duly enacted rules regulating adoption for the benefit of the children involved, you do not belong in the adoption business.
Even on the outside possibility that antidiscrimination laws would “force” photographers and caterers into taking jobs they do not wish to have [unlikely though that may be], they would still not be forced to change their views on what constitutes marriage as a religious concept. Just as a restauranteur who is a racist must comply with public accommodation antidiscrimination laws, s/he is not forced to quit being racist.
Report comment to moderator
I know virtually nothing about Sen. Diaz except what is described here. But what is described here is a man who seems to have strong religious convictions about various behaviors, including the definition of marriage. He seems to also be a good friend to some people who believe and behave differently. Yet even with this exemplary tolerance he is criticized. Apparently some homosexuals do not want tolerance but endorsement of a redefinition of marriage that changes it at it’s fundamental levels.
Report comment to moderator
Is Diaz trying to ban dancing and drinking? Why not? Why ONLY gay marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Blogger Nathaniel has quite a bit here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/eviscerating-ruben-diaz-o_b_352628.html
Here’s a good piece of it:
People are entitled to their beliefs. They are even entitled to use their beliefs as a basis for their vote to deny others the same rights as they enjoy. But if we’re going to bother to have a public discussion about the merits of a proposed law, one thing people are not entitled to is a free pass when their position on said law is utterly devoid of moral or intellectual consistency.
Díaz never offers an argument against gay marriage. “The people of the nation don’t want gay marriage,” he told the Times. But then he argues the issue should not even come to a vote. If the people don’t want equality, why shouldn’t their representatives be able to express that will democratically, after debate, in the senate chamber? More to the point, why should the rights of a minority be granted only at the whim of a majority vote? Was it right in an earlier era to deny blacks and women equal rights just because the majority of the nation wished to do so?
Díaz said the vote should not come to the floor because the legislature has “more important issues to attend to.” Right now I’m watching a live feed of the Senate chamber. And what are those more important issues? The senators, called together in an “extraordinary session” by Gov. David Paterson, spent the first hour grandstanding about the troops in preparation for Veterans Day tomorrow. And the last hour has consisted of a still shot of a stained glass image of scales, eagles and flowery swirls with a sign saying “The Senate Stands at Ease” while creepy flute music plays somberly in the background.
In addition to the majority tyranny argument, Díaz offers his Pentecostal religion as the reason for his effort to deny gay couples the right to marry. “My religion doesn’t allow me to dance,” he says, “but that does not mean I don’t go to the party. My religion doesn’t allow me to drink. But that doesn’t mean I can’t hang around with my friends. My religion is against gay marriage. It means, I don’t agree with what you do. But let’s go out. Let’s go to the movies. Let’s be friends.”
Okay, where to start? It’s fine, Senator Díaz, for you not to dance, but are you leading the effort to make dancing for others illegal? It’s fine for you not to drink, but where is your fierce leadership on reviving that super popular and effective age of Prohibition? It’s fine for you not to get gay-married, but why insist on denying others the rights you enjoy? And where is your outrage about all the Jews and Muslims and atheists who are legally allowed to get married even though, according to your religion, they’re all going straight to hell? And where is your righteous effort to outlaw Jews’ right to observe the Sabbath on the “wrong” day, or to keep Kosher? Might that seem a bit anti-Semitic? And maybe a bit absurd?
So, about this notion that you can ban others’ rights because your religion “doesn’t agree” with what they do: Have you ever given a moment of thought to how stupid this sounds? Millions and millions of people get married every year in this world. You have no idea what they all do and I bet you don’t really care, so long as they’re straight. But one thing you can be sure most of them do at one point or another is violate the tenets of their own (and your) religion. To be morally and intellectually consistent, don’t you need to give a litmus test to all of them, about “what they do,” to determine if you support their right to marry? Or just the gays?
Diaz is not well-spoken in person, and I bet that interview was heavily edited.
Report comment to moderator
mikhastur did you read the article?
“when he called this session, he specifically raised the budget and marriage equality.”
Sorry but you are wrong.
“New York once more. Gov. David Paterson called a special session (to solve the state’s budget woes) and gay marriage advocates wanted on the agenda a bill legalizing same sex marriage. ”
So put aside your anti-Christian views, “gay marriage advocates wanted on the agenda a bill legalizing same sex marriage” Governor Patterson called it for the budget not gay rights.
mikhastur last time I look the GLBT Community were the one’s running to judges to force the American People to support their (GLBT Community) moral values, views and ideas. Why? Because you are 0-31 when the American People get the chance to vote on the GLBT Community moral values, views and ideas.
It is not the Christian who force their moral values, views and ideas, it is the GLBT Community .
the Quakers, Unitarians, United Church of Christ and Reform Judaism are not main stream Churches
Report comment to moderator
Things change. The noble Constitution, perhaps inspired by God, or so people here tell us, defined black people as 3/5 of a person. Now every white person reading this is sure he or she and his or her parents and his and her grandparents were never raced and never opposed letting black and white people marry.
Most of your children will not be homosexuals. This will be fortunate for you and fortunate for them. I am old and conservative; I am perfectly happy to settle for domestic partnerships, as just passed with a majority vote in Washington state.
Regardless, you are losing. Homosexual marriage is on its way. As human civilization is going to collapse by the end of this century, this is the least of your worries. Christianity is amazingly flexible and adaptable; perhaps it will survive your sects’ fascination with ultra-right-wing conservatism and obsession beyond all common sense with abortion and birth control, but this ship has left.
Report comment to moderator
wow so much hate for Christian coming from arcadia, Spinoza, mynock, mikhastur, Random Name, someone might get the impression this was not a Christian stite.
Report comment to moderator
The purpose of the meeting was NOT the budget. From the AP:
ALBANY, N.Y. — After weeks of uncertainty and pleas for action by Gov. David Paterson, New York’s Senate failed to vote on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage during a special session Tuesday.
Advocates and opponents say the Senate lacked the 32 votes needed to approve the measure, which Paterson strongly supports and the Assembly already passed.
By evening, Paterson put same-sex marriage on agendas for new special sessions for Monday and Tuesday. He urged senators who support the measure to ignore “an almost cowardice about battles.”
“I implore them that I would rather see an up or down vote, than no action at all,” the governor told reporters. “Historically, I think we have lost touch with how movements of equality were reached. There were a lot of ups and downs,” he said, citing the civil rights movement as an example.
“If this bill is put on the floor, there are a lot of people whose consciences will let them vote for the bill, but who just don’t want to stomach all the activity around them if they take a position before the vote,” he added.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – so then this is wrong? “Gov. David Paterson called a special session (to solve the state’s budget woes) and gay marriage advocates wanted on the agenda a bill legalizing same sex marriage”
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, yes, it is wrong.
The people at NOM thought it was serious enough to issue a threat to the NY Senators: (note – this is from NOM’s website.)
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE SENDS A MESSAGE TO NEW YORK STATE GOP LEGISLATORS: “Vote for Gay Marriage and We Will Fund a Primary Challenge.”
WASHINGTON – Following up on its successful campaign to defeat Dede Scozzafava in NY-23, The National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Executive Director Brian Brown announced plans to build a $500,000 war chest to fund a primary challenge to any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage – regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s vote in the State Senate.
Report comment to moderator
RN, you join a long line of people who have declared the demise of Christianity. Why do you think that Christianity has outlived them all?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 so you are saying Alisa Harris did not post the issue corrcetly?
As for “NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE SENDS A MESSAGE TO NEW YORK STATE GOP LEGISLATORS: “Vote for Gay Marriage and We Will Fund a Primary Challenge.”
what about Moveon.org tell the Dem if they vote against Obama Care they would run ad’s attack them?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Pastor Roy, that is precisely what I’m saying, Alisa got it wrong. I do live in NY, you know.
And I’m ignoring your red herring.
Report comment to moderator
fisherman 11.10.09 AT 8:44 PM
RN, you join a long line of people who have declared the demise of Christianity. Why do you think that Christianity has outlived them all?
–
the sad part fisherman, we know we win in the end and these people can not see it coming
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 says, “Is Diaz trying to ban dancing and drinking? Why not? Why ONLY gay marriage?”
I’m not sure pointing this out to you will make any difference, since you didn’t have the insight to avoid making this error in the first place, but…
Dancing and drinking aren’t illegal. Gay marriage, technically, is. This is a point of semantics that you pro-gay-”marriage” advocates ought to be able to keep “straight” (no pun intended).
What you are trying to do is make something legal that is not currently legal. Trying to prevent something that is currently illegal from becoming legal is not “banning” it. Banning occurs when one tries to make illegal something that is currently legal.
Can you spot the difference, with you your superior, gargantuan brains?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 8:51 PM
Yes, Pastor Roy, that is precisely what I’m saying, Alisa got it wrong. I do live in NY, you know.
And I’m ignoring your red herring.
–
I have family in Moapac, NY (I think I spelled that right)
Report comment to moderator
Cheap semantics, David L, especially since dancing was illegal in some places and drinking everywhere in America was likewise, illegal.
Go rent a copy of Footloose, have a beer and get back to us.
You might need several beers. It has Kevin Bacon in it.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, it’s Mahopac, and I think they will tell you that our Governor put this on the agenda. It’s all over the internet for anyone to see.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 8:57 PM
Pastor Roy, it’s Mahopac, and I think they will tell you that our Governor put this on the agenda. It’s all over the internet for anyone to see.
–
thanks for the correction. I hoping nexts year to go see them. An you Gov. is wrong but most people know that.
Report comment to moderator
Mahopac is pretty country – you’ll like it.
You think he’s wrong… but! You don’t know why he thinks what he does, what his motivations are, how he came to his conclusions.
Those are not necessary items for you to disagree with him. But they would add a LOT of weight to your opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 9:04 PM
Mahopac is pretty country – you’ll like it.
You think he’s wrong… but! You don’t know why he thinks what he does, what his motivations are, how he came to his conclusions.
Those are not necessary items for you to disagree with him. But they would add a LOT of weight to your opinion.
–
I spent summer in Mahoapc as a kid,
he needs the support of the GLBT Community to win relection. That is his motivations.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, you’re so wrong.
Supporting gay people has cost him votes. We do have anti-gay people here, believe it or not.
Here’s an interview with Paterson that explains things more clearly.
http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Politicians/A_Legacy_Considered/
Report comment to moderator
“No one will be or could be forced to change their moral/religious views …Unless you are a photographer or caterer who doesn’t want to do Gay weddings or an adoption agency who doesn’t want to give children to gay couples.”
I hate to break this to you, Kbells,(I am actually delighted.) But there are already laws banning discrimination in private business and they are on the books in New York. Is a bigoted event photographer going to feel more willing to photograph a gay “commitment ceremony”? If your a business offering services to the public in New York, you can’t deny those services to people because of their sexual orientation. Bigot event photographers already lost! Legalizing same-sex marriage won’t change that.
Nom (nom nom), is currently on a fevered power trip. While they might have cost Scozzafava the seat and run her out of the race, they delivered it to Owens and the Dems. I can’t think of a better reason for the Dems to move the vote forward. If they do so, they are practically guaranteed a fractured, self-destructive GOP in the next election.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 10:17 PM
Pastor Roy, you’re so wrong.
Supporting gay people has cost him votes. We do have anti-gay people here, believe it or not.
Here’s an interview with Paterson that explains things more clearly.
http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Politicians/A_Legacy_Considered/
—
Why do you have to be anti-gay to say no to gay marriage. I know many gay people who disagrees with gay marraige.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 – we have anti-gay as you put it, but we also have anti-Christian just look at this board alone -
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: I know many gay people who disagrees with gay marraige.
Even if true, that’s hardly a basis to deny rights and responsibilities to gay people who do want them.
Can you show me in the Bible where the verse is that talks about CIVIL marriage, and why gay people shouldn’t have it?
You can’t. It’s therefore unBiblical to conflate civil and religious marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 10:45 PM
Pastor Roy: I know many gay people who disagrees with gay marraige.
Even if true, that’s hardly a basis to deny rights and responsibilities to gay people who do want them.
Can you show me in the Bible where the verse is that talks about CIVIL marriage, and why gay people shouldn’t have it?
You can’t. It’s therefore unBiblical to conflate civil and religious marriage.
—
Our Nation History on Marriage has been between one man and one woman, so why do we need to change it now?
An no one is being deny rights.
An is Biblical for a Christian (which you claim to be) not to support sin in any format.
Report comment to moderator
‘Can you show me in the Bible where the verse is that talks about CIVIL marriage, and why gay people shouldn’t have it?”
Now Thomas Marriage is marriage as a Christian, God’s word it clear on marriage. Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
We need to surrender our views on the issue of marriage to God and His Word.
Report comment to moderator
Our Nation History on marriage started as a guy trading a couple of cows to another guy for a wife, who would not be consulted on the trade and would not be able to own property of her own.
We need to change it now because that wasn’t fair, and it’s been changed to be a commitment between two people who love each other.
The current state of civil marriage can be construed by those people as monogamous or not, lifelong or not, for life or for not.
There is therefore no reason to deny it to gays.
My analysis says that gay couples are being denied rights, and my Biblical exegesis says that gay couples aren’t sinning. You disagree, I get it.
But you’re wrong. I posted a link explaining why, from a Scriptural standpoint, you’re wrong. Did you read it? Any comment?
Report comment to moderator
Now Thomas Marriage is marriage as a Christian, God’s word it clear on marriage.
You DO realize that not every American is Christian, and that even among Christians, there is difference of opinion on this issue, correct? Therefore, civil law on this issue can’t reflect one religious group’s views.
I know that’s troubling for you, but it is indeed a fact.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 11:28 PM
Now Thomas Marriage is marriage as a Christian, God’s word it clear on marriage.
You DO realize that not every American is Christian, and that even among Christians, there is difference of opinion on this issue, correct? Therefore, civil law on this issue can’t reflect one religious group’s views.
I know that’s troubling for you, but it is indeed a fact
—
An those who view difference of opinion on that issue. Have a problem with God’s Word. I an not address non-Christian, I am address Christian. We can not support gay marriage in any form, God’s Word has set the standard by which are to believe in marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.10.09 AT 11:25 PM
Our Nation History on marriage started as a guy trading a couple of cows to another guy for a wife, who would not be consulted on the trade and would not be able to own property of her own.
We need to change it now because that wasn’t fair, and it’s been changed to be a commitment between two people who love each other.
The current state of civil marriage can be construed by those people as monogamous or not, lifelong or not, for life or for not.
There is therefore no reason to deny it to gays.
My analysis says that gay couples are being denied rights, and my Biblical exegesis says that gay couples aren’t sinning. You disagree, I get it.
But you’re wrong. I posted a link explaining why, from a Scriptural standpoint, you’re wrong. Did you read it? Any comment?
—
I read them an they are not of God. They have deined God’s Word.
Any sexual relationship out side of marriage is called a sin.
Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
This is clear on what marriage is. Thomas, true Biblical exegesis has proven this to be true. Church History has proven it to be ture. So you are telling me know that Church History on this issue is now wrong? You are telling me that past teachers of the Gospel through History are wrong?
Report comment to moderator
We all use the reasoning machinery built into us. We can’t not use it; it is inherent to who and what we are as human beings. The ability to reason is a quite amazing set of tools that can be refined or degraded by how they are developed in us, by how we use them and what we use them for, and – most especially – by what we want most deeply in life.
In our engagements with others, we all appeal to implicit, and either well- or poorly-understood explicit rules of logic to justify ourselves, and to attempt to validate our own reasonings and conclusions, or invalidate those of others. Whether we use those rules in an open-hearted search of truth and understanding, or for less noble, hidden purposes, and whether we use them as tools to persuade, illumine, instruct and guide/correct those we engage, or as weapons with which we seek to ridicule and beat down the views and values of those others – by attempting to obscure/neutralize truth – or, sadly, to demonstrate our imagined personal superiority, all depends on our own, individual hearts and what they are centered around. And sadly, we often do not/can not/will not recognize in ourselves what those truly are.
A short way of saying this is ‘we believe what we believe, because we want what we want’.
The reasoning ability itself can be shaped through intelligent, disciplined instruction; or become shriveled through neglect ; or conditioned/manipulated by those skilled in employing the “arts” of illusion (convincing others that what is true, is not true; or that what is genuinely important is trivial or even contemptible, etc.) and illogic (mis-applying the inherent rules of reasoning in an attempt to cloud, rather than clarify the reference points that we need to distinguish falsehood from reality). We humans even possess the toxic capability of deceiving ourselves – we will baldly deny truth and goodness, call them falsehood and evil – if doing so allows us to see ourselves justified in pursuit of our desires.
Aleksandr Solzhensitsyn has said “It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes… we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions – especially selfish ones.”
In all of this – whether serving truth and goodness, or falsehood and illusion – this incredibly powerful, flexible ‘mental equipment’ we are furnished with is ours to use in the service of whatever inner motivations we possess. To use our intelligence and creative force to deflect the truth, to defend the immoral, to vilify the virtuous, these are great, profound perversions of the gifts given to us in our humanity that are intended to aid us in navigating truth and moral reality. The tragedy is that by misusing them so, we soon lose the ability to distinguish reality from the evasions and deceit we craft.
If we were to come to love our Creator appropriately – recognizing His worth and elevating Him to the top of our system of values and beliefs; and because of that, we loved, respected and treated our fellow human creatures as if we believed that they mattered as much we do (simply because our Creator says that they truly do!), then I think we would find our reasoning capabilities engaged in the purposes they were designed and intended for; and vastly more useful, helpful and satisfying.
Report comment to moderator
The Dems won’t bring up the bill if they don’t think there are enough votes to pass it. They have a slim 2-vote majority and and Diaz is only one of around 4 votes against it, so the Dems are also scrambling for Republican votes. When votes are tallied they’re not identified by religion because this political!
I completely agree with everything DAVID L said. Disingenuous semantic games, illogical arguments and red herrings simply cloud the issue for sympathy. The Empire Pride Agenda also does this.
Diaz IS representing voters in his district who don’t have to reelect him next year if they’re unhappy with his votes. Gov. Paterson will never win a primary over Cuomo, or anyone else for that matter. He was a superb minority leader in the senate and now the Peter Principle has kicked in. The Dems in NYS are in a much bigger mess than Republicans. NYS’s crisis will continue until there’s some real leadership.
Report comment to moderator
#46
As far as using more words to say less, I have been surpassed.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, RN – earlier this morning I thought it was my sleepy brain. Might it be a “sock puppet”?
Report comment to moderator
How about this…’a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest’ (many thanks to Paul Simon)
And that same man believes what he believes for reasons he cannot see.
Report comment to moderator
That tune swings both ways WMOORE9. But I can’t “see” a reason I put on a jacket while everyone else is comfortable in t-shirts and I feel cold.
Report comment to moderator
‘I’m right because I feel right, and since I’m ME, what better evidence could I want?… And everyone that I think is cool, that I like and respect agrees with me, so that proves it. WE ARE RIGHT! I think an unspoken subtext exists that we most often won’t even admit to ourselves, that goes something like this: “Besides, believing this way not only shows others how cool I am (and I really like seeming cool to those folks I think are cool), it lets me pursue the stuff and pleasures I want most out of life”.
I have also seen the ugliness on the other side, and heard them justify it, too. We are all made out of the same stuff. We are so right, so superior because of the beliefs and values we say we hold, that we are excused from any requirement to treat those other bastards with any dignity or respect; and they are so wrong, and stupid, and downright evil for not sharing my obviously correct views (and of course, my personal superiority) that they deserve nothing but contempt and hatred from me.
To be honest, I have done my share of thinking and acting like that. The measure of certainty we have about the positions/beliefs/values we adopt have very little to do with their usefulness in sorting out what truth and reality are all about. What they reveal much more is about who we really are, and what we want most at the heart of our being.
My basic point is that the beliefs we find to suit us often have little to do with their connection to what makes the most sense out of reality, and most everything to do with what justifies our pursuit of the lifestyle choices we want most. How we treat other people, especially those who have landed in different places philosophically and ethically than ourselves, also says a great deal about us, as people, and something at least about the value/worth of those beliefs we have chosen as reference points in life.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas (#42) writes:
“My analysis says that gay couples are being denied rights, and my Biblical exegesis says that gay couples aren’t sinning. You disagree, I get it.
But you’re wrong. I posted a link explaining why, from a Scriptural standpoint, you’re wrong. Did you read it? Any comment?”
As far as I can tell Thomas, you have posted only two links on this thread (@ #17 & 35), neither of which deals with any form of biblical exegesis. Where is this phantom link of yours?
As far as your personal biblical exegesis is concerned, It probably has about as much credibility as a three dollar bill—sort of like your nonexistent credibility with this phony argument of yours:
“Can you show me in the Bible where the verse is that talks about CIVIL marriage, and why gay people shouldn’t have it?”
Of course there is no such verse, just as there is no Bible verse against writing bad checks. However, that does not mean that writing bad checks is OK—because the Bible has plenty to say about the thievery that is involved in writing bad checks. The Bible also has plenty to say against homosexual depravity. Make no mistake about it, civil marriage is NOT the basic issue. It is only a tactical devise aimed at achieving a form of legal sanction for the basic behavioral perversion of homosexuality. The civil rights angle is a similar smoke screen wherein a perverse sexual behavior is passed off as being on a par with race or gender. Again, the basic aim is to achieve another form of legal sanction for the behavioral perversion of homosexuality.
Any thinking American with common sense, Christian or not, should be able to see the destructive effects of homosexuality upon the whole society. Do we want to foster these things in our society?
Serial promiscuity (a behavior) is the norm among most homosexuals along with the many STD’s that come with that, including their fatal signature disease, AIDS. The monogamous homosexual couple is, for the most part, a propaganda lie designed to portray them, in a perverse way, as among the mainstream of American family life.
The traditional family, the backbone of our culture and the energy of our progress, is attacked and diminished in direct proportion to the rise of homosexuality. The traditional family is our primary means for producing successive generations of morally responsible, properly motivated, properly educated, energetic and healthy individuals to continue and grow our society so that it will thrive and prosper. On the other hand, the homosexual version of a “family” is completely sterile, mostly dysfunctional, twisted in its values, unstable, physically unhealthy, and, if left to itself, would die from its own defects. The only children such a family possesses, are those that they procure (steal), from outside of themselves. America dies in direct proportion to our acceptance of, and the growth of this cancerous behavior.
America has been propagandized and lost its focus in this debate. It is not about civil rights or civil unions. It is about successive steps to have our society legitimize and sanction a behavior that will ultimately destroy us. We are being pressured to sacrifice everything good and decent for the short-sighted sexual lust of a minority that cares about little beyond their next orgasm.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin – well written
Report comment to moderator
Micheal Martin:
Here’s the link: http://www.dioceseny.org/pages/372-let-the-reader-understand
As far as your personal biblical exegesis is concerned, It probably has about as much credibility as a three dollar bill—sort of like your nonexistent credibility with this phony argument of yours:
Aw, a neener-neener! Who knew puerile attacks came with cliches attached! Double points… but not for you.
Serial promiscuity (a behavior) is the norm among most homosexuals along with the many STD’s that come with that, including their fatal signature disease, AIDS. The monogamous homosexual couple is, for the most part, a propaganda lie designed to portray them, in a perverse way, as among the mainstream of American family life.
More lies than Legion! Good job!
We are being pressured to sacrifice everything good and decent for the short-sighted sexual lust of a minority that cares about little beyond their next orgasm.
If that’s truly what you believe, you need more help than I can offer you on a blog. Like, this kind of help: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.11.09 AT 5:10 PM
Micheal Martin:
Here’s the link: http://www.dioceseny.org/pages/372-let-the-reader-understand
As far as your personal biblical exegesis is concerned, It probably has about as much credibility as a three dollar bill—sort of like your nonexistent credibility with this phony argument of yours:
–
another far left web page that does not understand God’s Word does not help your cause.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Boy,
“This is what is wrong with the GLBT Community an trying to force their moral values and ideas, views on to States…The issues is the budget but the GLBT Community want to make it about them.”
It is good to hear that Good Christians like you neither possess rhetorical skills or even a grasp of basic grammar. The mental incontinence of your position is humorous and the logical and moral foundations for them are confused and only poorly disguise bigotry and hate.
By the way, we run a Church that ordains all people online (even homosexuals) for the purpose of performing marriage and respect the right for them to marry gay couples. Have a blessed day!
Report comment to moderator
AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTTRIES, forget theology, you couldn’t be more off-base in decency or Christian compassion. Thanks for showing the true colors of your insolent, intolerant attitude. Get over yourself, grow up and behave yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 (#55):
Your first link, from the Episcopal Diocese of New York, provides you with a flimsy source of the usual homosexual apologetics. Their case they make sounds sophisticated and intellectual, but in substance, it is no different than your own crude and self-justifying ramblings. However, it is camouflaged as authoritative by carrying the name of a once respectable church—but now a thoroughly deviant church who recently elected a practicing homosexual as a bishop and thereby approves of the practice by one of its highest leaders.
It is interesting to note the Gene Robinson was married to a woman, Isabella McDaniel, in1972 and had two daughters by her, the last in 1981. He met his current “lover” in 1987 and they began living together in 1988. The Wikipedia info on Robinson lists the dates of his marriage to Isabella in this fashion: (1972–?). In other words, neither the text of the biography or this cryptic question mark gives us any information about the dissolution of Robinson’s first marriage. Did it end in divorce, and if so when? Did he ever even get a divorce? (Another web site hinted at one in 1985.) Was he still married to Isabella when he began having sex with various homosexual lovers? The answers to most of these embarrassing questions are hidden or shrouded in ambiguity. At the very least, Robinson is a man who failed to keep his original marriage vow to be faithful to his wife until, “death do you part.” At the worst, he was a promiscuous and adulterous homosexual who broke his vows to his wife and to God on a regular basis. In either case, such behavior should be totally disqualifying for anyone in a leadership position in a church faithful to Christ and the Word of God.
Yes, Thomas, I can see why you chose this fraud of a church for your example of “biblical exegesis.”
Your second link on “homophobia” and the slur that your opponents are themselves closet homosexuals is typical of the last ditch tactics employed by homosexuals when they have run out of excuses for their behavior.
It is ironic and sadly revealing that your greatest insult is to accuse others of being like yourself— incredible! You don’t see it, but there is a self-hate in your comments that is clearly evident. I am forced to ask, where does such self-loathing come from? Paul gives us the answer in Romans 1:
Self-loathing would seem to be natural reaction for a depraved mind that does such things, that is if it had any spark of conscience left. So, maybe there is some hope. Thomas, I would urge you and any other homosexuals to reread what the Bible says about your affliction and the remedy that Christ has to offer. You don’t have to continue as you are. You can find rescue from depravity. Many homosexuals have been saved. The “Focus on The Family” website has several good links and resources for homosexuals who have some spark of conscience left and who recognize the extent of their problem. I hope and pray that you will do that, rather than relying on the “help” of the Episcopal Church and its homosexual apologists like Gene Robinson—all you will find there is the entrapment of a theological “quicksand” that will draw you deeper and deeper into a sin unto death.
Report comment to moderator
Mike, tell us how you really feel.
I don’t have time today to refute the numerous falsehoods in this post.
I do have time to tell you that your nasty tone and obvious anger suggests that you have a deeply personal stake in this.
I also think that you might want to work on being more ecumenical. There are a lot of Christians in the world who don’t believe what you do, and if you plan on winning them over… this sort of thing isn’t going to work.
Good luck with your troubles.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy says, “God’s word i(s) clear on marriage.”
Yes, and perhaps this is a good time to remember exactly what constitutes a Biblical marriage. Betty Bowers, America’s “best” Christian tells us, and provides all the biblical references:
Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
Report comment to moderator
#59 Paul was 1) NOT GOD, and 2) kind of a dork, so that 3) there really is no reason to apply his ancient superstitious advice to today’s world.
Still, even if you believe Paul was somehow God whenever he sat down to write a letter, your interpretation of Romans is carelessly heedless of what he actually said!
Paul was speaking in the very specific context of idol worship. He says that heterosexuals that worship idols will become homosexuals. Besides being a completely stupid idea, it is of no relevance to those who are homosexual by natural, and for whom heterosexual relationships would be UNnatural!
Now many right-wing religious homophobes claim this passage has a double meaning, so that it actually refers to “idols” symbolically and to all homosexuals, but this is truly messing with the text. There’s no evidence that Paul intended that at all. And, of course, no reason to care whether or not he did!
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL,
Thank you once again for your excellent posts. Your understanding of the homosexual community, devastation, clever/not so clever techniques, including the church are valuable.
THOMAS – “I also think that you might want to work on being more ecumenical. There are a lot of Christians in the world who don’t believe what you do, and if you plan on winning them over… this sort of thing isn’t going to work.”
“Ecumenical” isn’t the answer, the truth IS. Those who continue in this lifestyle aren’t going to be won over by soft strokes for their sinful practices. They will either seek the truth through the LORD, realizing that GOD is real, and HIS words and directives aren’t negotiable, OR they will continue to do what they wish, making all the excuses you offer, the Episcopal Church and their apologetics, and adding a few of their own.
Report comment to moderator
The Word of GOD is difficult for those who cannot heed the warning, or deceive themselves of the truth, but rather making excuses for their sin.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – when it comes to truth, I’m pretty sure that you think you’re approach is the truth. I disagree. That’s okay with me.
Not, apparently with you – and it seems to have sent Mr. Martin into a lake… of bile. Hope he’s a good swimmer and pray that God guides him out.
There are about as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians. Many Christians in the same faith traditions differ on different aspects of their faith – we see it here every day.
When you say that His words and directives aren’t negotiable, do you mean the Christ worshiped by Baptists, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians (and which of those)?
Because they all have negotiated one way or another.
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS
THOMAS, of course I believe that the Biblical approach is the truth, that’s why I post it.
THOMAS, have no worries about Michael, he knows the Scriptures, and he’s straightforward – that troubles many who try and distort the Word of GOD, but make no mistake he knows what he’s talking about.
THOMAS, there is only one Bible – there are those who make up their own rules, mixing law with grace, changing the very obvious meaning of many Scriptures to suit the sin they wish to keep like a pet.
GOD is to be worshipped, the Bible is GOD’s Word – many churches have turned from the truth, mirroring that of the the seven churches which are mentioned in Revelation.
Have you ever studied the 7 churches mentioned in Revelation? I’m not talking about ‘google’ I mean the Word of God.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – “The Word of GOD is difficult”
Not so difficult as the Word of Victoria!
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.12.09 AT 2:00 PM
Victoria – when it comes to truth, I’m pretty sure that you think you’re approach is the truth. I disagree. That’s okay with me.
Not, apparently with you – and it seems to have sent Mr. Martin into a lake… of bile. Hope he’s a good swimmer and pray that God guides him out.
There are about as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians. Many Christians in the same faith traditions differ on different aspects of their faith – we see it here every day.
When you say that His words and directives aren’t negotiable, do you mean the Christ worshiped by Baptists, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Quakers, Presbyterians (and which of those)?
Because they all have negotiated one way or another
—-
What does God’s Word say?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – the seven churches are discussed well here:
The seven churches in Revelation are literal churches from the first century AD. However, the seven churches in Revelation also have spiritual significance for churches and believers today. Indeed, the primary purpose for John writing his letters to the seven churches was to deliver Christ’s “report card” for the churches of that time. However, a second purpose for John’s inspired writings was to describe seven types of churches (and individual believers) that would surface time and again throughout history. These short letters to the seven churches of Revelation act as quick and poignant reminders to those who call themselves “followers of Christ.”
I’ll tell you Victoria – neither you nor Mr. Martin are members of the Church of Philadelphia.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 11.12.09 AT 1:42 PM
The Word of GOD is difficult for those who cannot heed the warning, or deceive themselves of the truth, but rather making excuses for their sin.
—–
We have two groups of people who can not heed the warning – the upfront unbeliever who do not know God, His Son Jesus, His Holy Spirit and God’s Word.
Then there are the group who calls themselves Christian but due to false teachings and a unyielding spirit they have a false understand of who God is, His Son Jesus, His Holy Spirit and God’s Word
To me the second group is more dangerous then the first.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.12.09 AT 2:33 PM
Victoria – the seven churches are discussed well here:
The seven churches in Revelation are literal churches from the first century AD. However, the seven churches in Revelation also have spiritual significance for churches and believers today. Indeed, the primary purpose for John writing his letters to the seven churches was to deliver Christ’s “report card” for the churches of that time. However, a second purpose for John’s inspired writings was to describe seven types of churches (and individual believers) that would surface time and again throughout history. These short letters to the seven churches of Revelation act as quick and poignant reminders to those who call themselves “followers of Christ.”
I’ll tell you Victoria – neither you nor Mr. Martin are members of the Church of Philadelphia.
—-
As a world, the Christian Church is in the last of the seven Churches.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas
You COPY PASTE from a site, not giving the URL, just doing the GOOGLE –
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/seven-churches-in-revelation.htm
And then you don’t even give the LINK, so much for your study of Revelation.
Thomas, you don’t know what the churches mean, if you did, you would be able to understand the differences and what they represent.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria 11.12.09 AT 2:46 PM
Thomas
You COPY PASTE from a site, not giving the URL, just doing the GOOGLE –
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/seven-churches-in-revelation.htm
And then you don’t even give the LINK, so much for your study of Revelation.
Thomas, you don’t know what the churches mean, if you did, you would be able to understand the differences and what they represent.
—
Please forgive Thomas it is not his fault. He is only repeated what he was taught to say. He is just having a very bad day.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas (#60):
If you think my simple opposition to your beliefs and practices is a display of anger, you will have a very unpleasant surprise when you experience the real thing:
My task as a Christian is to warn and to point you to the way whereby you might be saved from the very real wrath of God. If you do not heed the warning and repent of your sins, as God demands of every human being, then, when you experience the wrath of God, you will not be able to say, “No one ever told me.”
You belittle and accuse and Spinoza mocks, just as other little men have done in times past. But a day of reckoning is coming:
You say that I have a personal interest in this whole scenario. You are correct, and so do you, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Your eternal soul is hanging by a thread Thomas!
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin – great post but I believe it is over thomas’s head / heart. We need to be praying for him and othe like him.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy:
You are right, and so is Victoria. God bless you both for your faithful witness!
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin 11.12.09 AT 3:08 PM
Pastor Roy:
You are right, and so is Victoria. God bless you both for your faithful witness!
—-
keep strong in the Lord, and keep praying for Thomas, I believe he can be reached.
Report comment to moderator
This thread reads like Flowers For Algernon.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, if we didn’t care we wouldn’t bother – that’s why we pray for you. Pastor Roy is right to ask for prayer for your understanding, that’s not sarcasm, it comes from the heart.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.12.09 AT 3:30 PM
This thread reads like Flowers For Algernon.
—
Thomas we care for you and that is why we are praying for you
Report comment to moderator
I think I need to be praying for you, because based on all the incomprehension of Christ’s teaching misspellings, pretzel logic, selective application of scripture, inability to listen, think or analyze that is reflected by your comments towards the end of this thread… you confused the word pray with the word prey.
*shudders*
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.12.09 AT 4:12 PM
I think I need to be praying for you, because based on all the incomprehension of Christ’s teaching misspellings, pretzel logic, selective application of scripture, inability to listen, think or analyze that is reflected by your comments towards the end of this thread… you confused the word pray with the word prey.
*shudders*
——
Sorry what is wrong with my Christ’s teaching ? Please put to one item that I have posted that is not back by God’s Word and Church History?
Please point to one passage that I have selective application of scripture?
Please show in God’s Word that your view on Gay Marriage is ok with God?
Report comment to moderator
Point to one item that Victoria or Michael Martin
have posted that is not back by God’s Word and Church History?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.12.09 AT 4:12 PM
I think I need to be praying for you, because based on all the incomprehension of Christ’s teaching misspellings, pretzel logic, selective application of scripture, inability to listen, think or analyze that is reflected by your comments towards the end of this thread… you confused the word pray with the word prey.
*shudders*
—
Thomas was are praying for you so why are you upset?
Report comment to moderator
“Thomas, you don’t know what the churches mean, if you did, you would be able to understand the differences and what they represent.”
They don’t mean anything – they’re mythic hallucinations from the book’s author, who certainly wasn’t the apostle John. The early choosers of the western canon had fierce debate as to whether Revelation should be in the “canon” at all, after which a narrow majority mistakenly decreed it, too, should be considered the word of God.
God, meanwhile, had nothing to say on the issue.
Report comment to moderator
“Thomas, if we didn’t care we wouldn’t bother – that’s why we pray for you. Pastor Roy is right to ask for prayer for your understanding, that’s not sarcasm, it comes from the heart.”
Victoria this is one of the most disingenuous claims you have ever written here! Your tone is supercilious, haughty, patronizing and condescending as ever. It shows that you care only about being right or winning an argument. I’ve never detected the slightest iota of evidence in any post you’ve written to indicate that you have anything but condescending disdain for those with whom you disagree!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza observes: Victoria this is one of the most disingenuous claims you have ever written here! Your tone is supercilious, haughty, patronizing and condescending as ever.
This has been pointed out to Victoria many, many times by many, many people, including those who share her faith and views on social issues.
When “liberal” people say it, her response is all dismissal. When people she respects say it, she dials it down to a dull roar for a few posts. But there’s no real introspection in her posts, no humility, no grace. And most of all? No joy. No peace.
That’s why I pray for her
Report comment to moderator
“And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
Mark 11:25
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.12.09 AT 11:39 PM
“And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
Mark 11:25
—
great passage
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Pastor Roy – hope all is well with you today
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.13.09 AT 1:28 PM
Yes, Pastor Roy – hope all is well with you today
–
great hoping for some snow. Found out my son (who is adopted) grand parents and haft brother are coming to visit nexts years.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas (#87) writes:
“That’s why I pray for her”
Who do you pray to, Thomas?
Report comment to moderator
It has been three days and apparently, Thomas is not going to answer the question—most likely, he has no truthful answer.
The haughty exchange between Spinoza (86) and Thomas (87) is not about Victoria. Their accusations are applicable only to themselves.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!