Target is Forced to Change Their Campaign Contribution Policy
So now you can’t even support a candidate for elected office if he’s not pro same-sex ‘marriage’:
Target attracted the ire of many LGBT rights supporters — some of whom pledged to boycott the company — after it was revealed last year that the retail chain donated $150,000 to MN Forward. The group ran ads backing Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who opposes same-sex marriage.
Well how dare they!
But if they thought they could allay the hatred of the lavender thought-gestapo, the first comment on the article would indicate that they were probably wrong:
Learning how to appease the LGBT community through tokenism does not change the fact that Target’s ultimate interests lie with Right wing fascist nut jobs.
Yep. That’s what attempting to appease tyranny will get you…
We’re not ‘just’ fighting for marriage people. This is also a battle for the right to participate – on an equal basis, and without fear of retribution – in our own democratic process.
Loading ...
So, why is it that when the AFA boycotts, it’s right but when LGBT people boycott it’s tyranny?
Seesh, biased and paranoid?
It’s not the boycotts that are the problem – the problem is the rhetoric and inflammatory charges made along with it, not to mention the outright lies.
Boycotting when a company engages directly in some behavior or activity – or maybe when they directly fund a cause – is one thing. (Although sometimes – in fact usually – even that is uncalled for, especially if it goes beyond boycotting and turns into harassing people’s customers and such…)
But supporting the candidate of your choice is sacred ground as far as I’m concerned. That goes to the core of the democratic process and our ability to engage in civil discourse.
It’s not that people shouldn’t have the right to do so even then if that’s what they’re going to do; but it says everything about their attitudes and intentions toward democracy
Supporting candidates for public office is the only effective way we have to participate in a representative democracy.
I’m fighting to be a member of society. Sorry that gays don’t like straight supremacy, just like blacks didn’t like white supremacy.
From the article: “Learning how to appease the LGBT community through tokenism does not change the fact that Target’s ultimate interests lie with Right wing fascist nut jobs.”
The SSM campaign is first and foremost about the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics over all of society. The SSM idea is bigoted — as are the ways and means used to promote the SSM idea.
Attempts at appeasement only whets the appetite as the SSM campaign has demonstrated over and over and as that quote from the article boldly proclaims.
Jamie, nobody cares about your orientation OR your skin color. Get it together girl, the 1970’s are OVER.
Leland: thanks to Citizens United, corporations can now donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to whatever politician they see fit, undermining the small economic count we individual citizens had. And by making large political contributions, corporations have opened themselves up to such situations as being boycotted for those contributions. Consumers have the right to shop wherever they want, so I’m not sure what your problem is with that.
That aside, much of this particular issue wasn’t just that Emmer was against extending marriage rights to gay couples, but rather for his public defense of a “Christian” musical group who claimed that Muslim countries are more moral than American Christians because they call for the execution of homosexuals.
It’s one thing to be against gay marriage. It’s another thing to give money to groups who believe gays should be murdered.
………Pity our representative democracy pays more attention to corporations then people.
corporation = group of individuals pursuing their interests in concert
Fighting for society to publically approve a maladaptive behavior, such as men having sex with men, is not similar to anything blacks fought to achieve.
Blacks fought for “racial equality.”
They did not fight for vice and virtue to be “morally equal” which is what gays are effectively doing in their fight for “membership in society.”
Even if we supposed the maladaptive behavior could not be helped, at most that’s a reason for society to tolerate the private behavior, not a reason to publically approve it.
@Jamie Anne That claim was about as illogical as it comes, comparing “apples and oranges.” Race – i.e. skin color – is not something people are able to change. It is immoral to treat people differently because their skin is a different color. “White supremacy” is only in the minds of demented people who see themselves as superior human beings. There is no such thing as “straight supremacy.” Sexual behavior is always a choice; no one has to have sex. Sexual relations between members of the same sex is deviant, biologically violates the body, and violates the law of God. Only 2-3% of the entire population is homosexual, so why should 98% of the population be forced to sanction what these people do?
boycott = group of individuals pursuing their interests in concert, just without funneling unfettered millions of dollars into political coffers.
Do you really think that corporations are what the founding fathers had in mind when discussing individual freedoms, citizens’ rights, etc.?
@Emma
Do you mean as opposed to things like abortion and same-sex so-called ‘marriage’?
okay you know what, everyone here saying being gay is a choice; masturbate and orgasm about having sex with someone of your same gender. No cheating, no inventing threesomes with this person and the opposite sex. If you can’t do it, then obviously it’s not a choice.
Who here said being gay is a choice? Glenn didn’t. He said sexual behavior is always a choice>
Of course, my point still stands if those claiming the behavior is a choice cannot act fully upon it even if they themselves choose it.
Besides, what loving god makes a person gay if it’s immoral to act upon it?
Why does the headline say Target was “forced” to change its policy? I do not believe that word means what you think it means.
There are two questions related to this.
One question asks, “Is this behavior a good role model for others so that can it be honored publically in our laws? ”
The other question asks, “If someone has same sex attractions they did not choose, is it immoral for them to act on those attractions?”
To answer the first question, we only need to know if the specific behavior [men having sex with men] would be a good role model for children to imitate. If its not, then soceity should not give the behavior an honored place in its laws.
With regard to the second question, if we can answer the first question without answering the second question, we can avoid a lot of fighting.
If a behavior is unfit for practical reasons we need not dispute further about its morality.
But, if a behavior was found to be immoral, we need not dispute further about its practical benefits.
The book of James seems to answer your objection where it says:
In other words, if someone acts upon a lust, we should not say God made the person do it, nor should we say the lust must be moral simply because its physically experienced.
The true “choice issue” seems to be whether people will follow those physical desires which their conscience says is wrong. The mere fact a physical desire exists, then, does not mean its moral to follow it.
Its quite possible, also, God allows this conflict to exist in people so we may can choose the good and reject the evil, or choose the evil and reject the good, that we ourselves decide who we are to be.
Here is another verse on that same idea from the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 7.
This passage is about the plight of a religious man who believes its wrong to covet who agrees with the law of God in his mind, yet he finds another law in his being that causes him to covet, which he did not choose.
This “other” law is described as:
“…in my flesh dwells no good thing…”
“…sin that dwells in me…”
“…[a] law in my members, warring against the law of my mind…”
“…the law of sin which is in my members.”
Especially notice these words from 7:20, “Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”
This seems to say the person is morally cleared if their mind agrees with the law of God and also genuinely disagrees with the law of sin within.
If we apply your perspective to this plight it seems you would say this to the person, “If God made you to covet then its morally OK to covet.”
David MacDonald is a gay man living an abstinent life as a committed Catholic. Here is what he says on about the conflict in his article: What’s wrong with gay sex?
Your point is worthless. Sexual behavior is always a choice (unless you are raped) – no one has to have sex. And your statement is convoluted and senseless.
As for God “making” people gay, he doesn’t. God only made two people, the rest of humanity came about by procreation. IF there is a genetic defect of the brain that makes someone prefer a member of the same sex, he still doesn’t have to have sexual relations with that person. God said same-sex relations are wrong, and that’s what makes it immoral.
“There is no such thing as “straight supremacy.” Sexual behavior is always a choice; no one has to have sex.”
Sexual behavior is always a choice; sexual orientation, however, is never a choice. No sane person expects someone to abstain from normal adult sexual behavior. Ergo, there’s no reason to insist that gays and lesbians do so, or that the romantic relationships they form are somehow less than those formed by straight people.
Well, you reap what you sow. Target made the contributions it made, and members of the public, who happen to be an important part of the company’s target market (no pun intended here) made a decision to stop shopping there. Target tries to market to a better educated and more urban population than Walmart, but people in that population were disappointed with the company’s decision and started shopping elsewhere. At least they let Target know why they changed their buying habits. I had found out that, a BMW dealership in this area donated money to California’s Proposition 8 campaign. I decided to get my car from another dealership, and I am very happy with my decision. I called that company’s sales manager to tell him why I took my business elsewhere. Some business decisions are not very smart. Target’s donation was a classic business mistake that will probably be the subject of business school lessons for several years. If you’re going to anger a group of people, make sure that group is not part of your company’s market base. Bear in mind that boycotting a business is not an infringement on free speech or voting rights, in fact, its the embodiment of it.
Gee Glenn. God also gave directions and rules to follow for slavery. Does God allow Slavery? Do you only wear clothing made from one type of fiber? Can you point out the actual text that specifically says marriage is between one man and one woman, cause there plenty of good, just men from the OT that had multiple wives and concubines.
Also, I see your choosing to use the crankiness you were born with.
B-man. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=372436
I’m one of those people that believes that humans err. Even when they translate the bible. Thus, I believe the whole homosexuality is sin thing is a mistranslation. While the majority of the posters disagree that it’s mistranslated, (or that other verses condemn it anyway) It brings up some interesting points. Some claim Leviticus is the original claim, yet Leviticus also gives us gems like the whole one-fiber clothing rule, and no crop rotation, items that seem to not matter to the christianity today.
@bman
Bman, let me help you with your quandry presented here: “To answer the first question, we only need to know if the specific behavior [men having sex with men] would be a good role model for children to imitate. If its not, then soceity should not give the behavior an honored place in its laws.”
The answer is simple that there is nothing wrong with people who are naturally attracted to members of the same sex finding the companionship and love that they seek. Can a gay couple be a good role model for children? Sure. Only those children who are also naturally attracted to members of the same sex would, once they become adults, seek companionship and love from a member of the same sex. Those who are naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex would seek love and companionship from members of the opposite sex. Problem solved.
Since it is morally good for people to find companionship and love from those with whom they are attracted, society should honor in its laws those relationships. Since gay relationships are just as moral as straight relationships, naturally gay people should seek love and companionship the same way straight people do, which is with the person to whom each one is attracted.
People, straight or gay, who oppose corporate sponsorship of homophobic political candidates, events or public policy positions are free to make their feelings known by engaging in boycotts, blogging, discussions with friends, etc.
Homophobic people seem to be becoming uncomfortable that more and more people no longer remain silent or indifferent at their unsavory viewpoints. I recommend keeping your viewpoints to yourselves or confined to your churches, or get used to feeling uncomfortable. As more sane people abandon homophobia for lack of a payoff, you will feel even more isolated.
nerdygirl,
During Judge Walker’s show trial against the CA marriage amendment, the anti-8 side’s own expert witness said that his research revealed that a significant portion of self-identified homosexual persons had chosen their sexual orientation. I wrote a bogpost on this testimony in “Extrapolating Choice”. [Footnote 1]
It appears that about 20% of the adult homosexual population are choosers, women more than men. Olson also said that “gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual.”
Assuming that he is using gay identity as the socio-political proxy for same-sex sexual attraction, as is strongly implied in SSM argumentation and by commenters earlier in this discussion, Olson has proposed that “the rest of us” — i.e. the nongay population — choose at the same rate — 20%. Also, that the rate differs between men and women.
That there is any rate above 0% disproves the claim of immutability. That there are different rates based on sex also challenges Olson’s assumptions and adds to the undeniablity of the significance of sex difference evne within the pro-SSM viewpoint. At the very least this casts scientific doubt on the socio-political claim that “gay” means “homosexual”. That his own expert witness (with an anti-8 bias) told of a significantly higher rate, in which 1 in 5 choose, serves to contradict Olson’s assertion that science has taught that this trait is unchangeable. [See Footnote 2]
Indeed, the extrapolation would mean that about 50 million adults in the country are choosers of something that Olson says is “to a large extent” unchosen.
Can you imagine that? Or do you disregard the evidence and argumentation that the SSM campaign has declared to be so decisive in making their case against the CA marriage amendment? By the way, it is this same evidence and argumentation that fuels the political calls for boycotting businesses that support marriage and oppose SSM — or even boycotting employers of individuals who contributed small financial gifts to the pro-marriage side in the campaign over Proposition 8.
* * *
Footnote 1:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/extrapolating-choice.html
Footnote 2:
Whether or not same-sex sexual attraction is inborn, chosen, or varies with the circumstances from person to person, the scientific evidence is inconclusive. Olson’s rhetoric fudges things when he says this trait is “to a large extent immutable” because something is either mutable or not. It is like saying something is very unique; no, it is either unique or not. There are no degrees of uniqueness and no degrees of mutability. Olson hopes to pin homosexuality with the badge of immutability — which is a term of art in constitutional jurisprudence. That is to say, he seeks to make sexual orientation a classification that comes under the highest scrutiny before the US Supreme Court.
Myself, I don’t think this is relevant to marriage since the law does not inquire about sexual orientation, does not bar people based on sexual orientation, and does not treat people unequally based on sexual orientation. It is, however, of the utmost importance to the SSM arguments that Olson makes and that SSMers have presented in courtrooms, legislatures, and during referendum campaigns. If their own argumentation includes evidence that choice is significant, then, they are at war with their own terms for their making demands on society.
nerdygirl said: “… everyone here saying being gay is a choice; masturbate and orgasm about having sex with someone of your same gender …”
Gay is a socio-political construct and no such construct is inborn nor unchangeable.
Your proposed ‘exercise’ depends less on behavior and more on fantasy. Why do you thint that is relevant? Be specific.
I think you are trying to impose a gaycentric view of things — with your open emphasis on masturbation — since same-sex sexual behavior is essentially masturbatory in behavior and in fantasy.
@Sean People abstain from sex all the time. There is nothing NOT sane about expecting a person to refrain from sexual immorality. Using your poor logic, should we denial the zoophile his sex with sheep? Should we deny the pedophile his sex with the underage? What other sexual aberrations should we allow just because “no sane person” should be expected to abstain. Necrophiliacs? Incest? By the way, you noted “normal adult sexual behavior,” but since you have determined that homosexual behavior is normal, who are you to say the other sexual behaviors I listed aren’t also “normal.” By what standard of measure you determine whether or not something is “normal.”
@Alex I like shopping Target because the do seem to have few Chinese-made products there. But now I have another reason to shop there, just like I have another reason to eat at Chik-fil-a
“God only made two people, the rest of humanity came about by procreation.”
Really? So was incest sanctioned by God then? That makes no sense I’m afraid, regardless of your misunderstanding of the Bible.
“The true ‘choice issue’ seems to be whether people will follow those physical desires which their conscience says is wrong.”
But my conscience doesn’t say it is wrong. My conscience tells me that God includes LGBT people in His plan for humanity, that He made us this way, and that the moral behavior for us as well as for heterosexuals is that which does not cause harm to others and that which lifts us to our highest good as individuals in our communities (e.g., monogamous, life-long relationships also known as “marriage”). My conscience tells me it is IMMORAL to withhold civil rights from any group of people for arbitrary reasons, including someone else’s religious beliefs.
As for Target, well, that’s good old-fashioned American market-based free speech in action right there. And I will continue to refrain from spending any of my hard-earned money with any organization that backs candidates who are opposed to my interests or directly donates to any anti-equality organization. I’m waiting to find out who all of the NOM donors to the Maine campaign were now that a federal judge has ruled they must be disclosed so I can make sure I’m not missing anybody so far. If we can’t do it through the legislatures, we will do it through the pocketbook.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Maybe those genetic defects to which you refer come from the fact that, if what you say is true, mankind comes from generations of incest and inbreeding, given that there were originally only two of us.
“I think you are trying to impose a gaycentric view of things — with your open emphasis on masturbation — since same-sex sexual behavior is essentially masturbatory in behavior and in fantasy.”
Honestly Charim, I think the only thing thats actually masturbatory in here is your posts.
@Heidi and @ Emma. God created two perfect people with no genetic defects. Their children intermarried with no genetic defects. Because sin entered the world, defects entered the world as the whole world became corrupt. That’s why eventually, during the time of Moses, God then outlawed what we call incest.
If your conscience tells you same-sex behavior is okay, then your conscience has been seared to turn out God. He plainly tells us that it is wrong. And if you deny God, then what is your standard of measurement for what is moral or immoral?
No one has “civil rights” based on behavior.
@Emma
Where’s the “like” button on this page?
@Glenn E. Chatfield
Not only does the medical and psychological community (the AMA, and APA) view homosexual intercourse as natural and normal, but many respected Christian religions do as well. The majority of the American population (in nearly all scientific polls) also considers it to be normal and moral.
@Alex You’ve got to be kidding me. NO, the Medical field does NOT see it as natural and normal – they see it as medically hazardous. You have been brainwashed to think otherwise. As for the psychobabble community, they were taken over by the gay agenda in 1973 and they really see everything as okay, including pedophilia. The psych industry is anti-Christian, anti-bible anyway so they are nor worthy of listening to. If a “Christian” religion considers homosexuality okay, then they are not respected among true Christians: ELCA, Episcopal, UCC, PCUSA are all considered apostate because they have disregarded what God says. AND, NO, the majority of the population DOES NOT consider it moral or normal – that is another bogus statistic to promote deviance. And even if the majority did think that, truth is not determined by the majority, and the truth is that homosexual behavior is not what the body was designed for, and God calls it an abomination and sin.
Glenn,
“God created two perfect people with no genetic defects. Their children intermarried with no genetic defects. Because sin entered the world, defects entered the world as the whole world became corrupt.”
Except Cain and Able came AFTER the fall of man. Doesn’t quite line up with your theory.
Glenn, just for the record, God, my conscience and me are all doing just fine. I’m afraid you don’t understand your own Bible. Not to mention that you’re missing the forest of the message for the trees. We’ll all hear it from God in the end. I wish people would live their own lives until then and stop trying to impose their own view of morality through the law on the rest of us. Live and let live already.
And I’m sorry. I don’t buy your incest, sin and defects argument. Frankly, it’s just weird.
nerdygirl, you tried to be oh-so-cute when you brought up masturbation and fantasy as if that proved something about your gaycentric view of the world. It was duly noted. As is your nasty reaction.
Meanwhile, do you disagree with the expert testimony of the anti-8 side regarding choice that was duly noted in response to your earlier attempt at a more substantive comment? Nothing to say on that even though it is direclty on point with your assertion? Okay.
Alex, define normal and natural, as per your understanding of medicine and psychology. Your own words, please, because I’d rather deal with your understanding than your rhetorical appeal to supposed authority on this matter.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“Because sin entered the world, defects entered the world as the whole world became corrupt. ”
LOL, oh, are you serious? You MUST be making a joke!!!
But, to use your own analogy, sin allegedly entered the world with the eating of the apple. Adam and Eve didn’t have kids until AFTER they ate the apple so how is it that their children (who married women from someone else as I recall – no REAL idea where they came from) were still perfect?
Mark resorts to his typical “horse laugh” tactic, well known in text books as an attempt to persaude without using a valid argument.
Mark: But, to use your own analogy, sin allegedly entered the world with the eating of the apple. Adam and Eve didn’t have kids until AFTER they ate the apple so how is it that their children (who married women from someone else as I recall – no REAL idea where they came from) were still perfect?
The Bible never calls it an apple.
That aside, your reply fails to properly distinguish between the intitial state of “non perfection” and the advance of “non perfection” over time.
What Adam passed on would be a potential for genetic defects, whereas the actual defects took time to develop.
Mark, if you want to comment on this subject without sounding silly then you really need to familiarize yourself the Christian view of how sin entered the world, the effects it had on humanity’s physical (and spiritual) condition, how and with whom the first humans born into the world procreated, etc.
Hint: The “fruit of the tree of knowledge (from the same root word used in the Old Testament to refer to sexual intercourse, e.i. an experiential familiarity) of good and evil” is metaphorical language, and Adam and Eve’s progeny never “…married women from someone else…”
@Heidi
“I wish people would live their own lives until then and stop trying to impose their own view of morality through the law on the rest of us. Live and let live already.”
Be careful what you wish for.
If you think it through, you may not actually want a lawless society.
It is worth considering what the signers of the Declaration of Independence meant by “the pursuit of happiness”.
It obviously cannot mean that people should be able to do anything which we “believe” might make us “happy”.
Charim, first off, I AM oh-so-cute. Given that I’m straight, I doubt my worldview is “gaycentric”, a term you seem to be obsessed with. An odd fixation.
Thirdly, I didn’t answer you because it made no sense. Honestly, you have the most convoluted, dare I say pretentious writing style. I mean, your posts are grating to read. I usually try to ignore you for this reason. At least when if I’m misunderstanding something say, Ari’s written, I can acknowledge thats probably because he’s smarter and writing above my level. You on the other hand, the best I can gather is you really, really like typing.
The best I can gather is do some people who are not actually gay choose to be gay. And yes, some do. Just like some gay people choose to be straight. Usually, these people are some from of Bi. The average person cannot do this, and frequently it when it comes up it is assumed that it “choosing” is as simple as flipping a light switch. It’s not.
Yes they came after the fall, but genetic defects did not immediately take effect in that manner, which is why people lived to be 900 years old!
@Heidi It is you who want the state to force your immorality on the rest of us. And I know my Bible very well. God condemns homosexual behavior in no uncertain terms.
@bman
“What Adam passed on would be a potential for genetic defects, whereas the actual defects took time to develop.”
In other words, evolution.
@Leland
“you really need to familiarize yourself the Christian view of how sin entered the world”
So, God created sin, put it in a place where it could be found easily, and when humans acted as humans (which He also made), He got mad at them.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
But, as far as people go, from the Bible:
Genesis 4: 1-2, Eve has two sons. (no mention of daughters)
Genesis 4:16-17 Cain leaves for Nod and makes love to his wife (and where did she come from?)
Genesis 4: 25-26 Adam makes love to his wife to conceive a son to replace Abel (the verse makes it sound like it’s their first child since Cain and Abel).
And, let’s not forget Genesis 4: 19 where God had no trouble with a man marrying 2 wives (but I thought marriage was ONE man and ONE woman).
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“God condemns homosexual behavior in no uncertain terms.”
No, He doesn’t. If you wish to believe He does, then, by all means, continue to cherry pick out the verses of the Bible you wish to follow and ignore the ones that deal with you. Continue to condemn your fellow man, judge him, and tell him he is evil, all the while believing that you are somehow better and above him. I somehow doubt that Jesus would approve.
@Chairm
mor·al /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/
[mawr-uhl, mor-]
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
nor·mal /ˈnɔrməl/
[nawr-muhl]
–adjective
1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2. serving to establish a standard.
Source:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“@Alex You’ve got to be kidding me. NO, the Medical field does NOT see it as natural and normal – they see it as medically hazardous.”
Sorry Glen, you’re wrong about the medical community, as per its umbrella organzation, the AMA. The following is from its position statement on homosexuality:
“H-270.997 Legal Restrictions on Sexual Behavior Between Consenting Adults. Our AMA supports in principle repeal of laws which classify as criminal any form of noncommercial sexual conduct between consenting adults in private, saving only those portions of the law which protect minors, public decorum, or the mentally incompetent. (BOT Rep. I, A-75; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. C, A-89; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, A-00)”
Actually, the AMA also strongly opposes gay conversion therapy and strongly supports the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the right to gay marriage.
As for your arguement (a very tired arguement that has been made regularly by the anti-gay lobby) that the APA’s position that homosexuality is not a disorder was made in 1973 based on some lobbying by gay groups. If psychologists really did not agree with what the was done in 1973, they have had 38 years to change the policy. They haven’t, and instead, the medical and psychological communities have enhanced their support the the notion that gay relationships are perfectly moral and normal even to the point of endorsing gay marriage. Basically, Glenn, there is no intellectual support for your position. You are relying on one interpretation of the Bible, which is not a legal document, to lobby for a discriminatory, and thus, immoral public policy.
Finally, your attack on many Christian religions is also immoral. Frankly, it does not matter whom you consider to be Christian. It only matters whom God considers to be Christian. Since the Bible is written in the form of parables and letters not directly written to us, we are left with the job of interpreting their true meaning. Many who are smarter than you have found that these parables and letters do not support the contention that being gay (and acting on that natural orientation) is not wrong in the eyes of God. You have your interpretation, which may be flawed, but you have the right to it. It is immoral, however, for you to use your interpretation to lobby for laws that restrict the rights of others.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“You’ve got to be kidding me. NO, the Medical field does NOT see it as natural and normal – they see it as medically hazardous. ”
Can you name EVEN ONE professional medical organization that considers is medically hazardous??? Other than the ones set up by religious zealots to condemn gays, there aren’t any. Why? Because it is NOT medically hazardous. Do you do ANY research or reading at all?
Alex, you copy-pasted an entry from a dictionary.
I had asked the following:
“Alex, define normal and natural, as per your understanding of medicine and psychology. Your own words, please, because I’d rather deal with your understanding than your rhetorical appeal to supposed authority on this matter.”
nerdygirl said:
“Given that I’m straight, I doubt my worldview is “gaycentric”, a term you seem to be obsessed with. An odd fixation. ”
Your misuse of psychological terms is noted, nerdygirl; your attempted smear is also noted.
The gay centered view of the marriage issue and related issues is not exclusive to those who are same-sex attracted, nerdygirl, and your comments have illustrated that very well. The world is not defined by the gay-straight dichotomy of your politics but this is the lens through which the issues are viewed by yourself.
nerdygirl, the expert witness testimony was given by someone put on the stand by the anti-8 litigants.
You said: “[S]ome people who are not actually gay choose to be gay. And yes, some do. Just like some gay people choose to be straight.”
The testimony was about sexual orientation, not identity politics. Your previous remarks were about sexual orientation — same-sex sexual attraction — right?
You said: “Usually, these people are some from of Bi.”
In the context of the testimony offered, the expert explained that the respondents self-identified as homosexually orientated. You may be guessing (with convenient predrawn conclusions). He did research. Olsen made the argument about the supposed fact of immutability in terms of homosexual and heterosexual orientations.
If you disagree with the expert testimony and with Olsen on that point, okay, sayso, please.
You said: “The average person cannot do this, and frequently it when it comes up it is assumed that it “choosing” is as simple as flipping a light switch. It’s not.”
You are conflating the choice of behavior with the chose of orientation, anyway, so it is not clear what you are really trying to say there.
@Mark Evolution is a religious belief with no scientific basis.
@Mark It ain’t cherry-picking, it is what the Bible says.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/09/bible-and-homosexual-behavior.html You may not agree with the Bible, but it says that nevertheless.
@Mark God did not create sin. Sin is defined as rebellion against God. He gave man the rules and gave him free will, as he still does. I suppose when you have a child disobey you just laugh and let him do it?
Try reading more of the Scripture and you will see Adam and Eve had “many sons and daughters.” Jewish tradition gives numbers from about 125 to over 200. Brothers married sisters, and then nephews and nieces, etc. They lived a few hundred years to be able to populate the planet.
We are only told the names of three sons because they are important in history. As for Gen. 4:19, it just records what happened – it never says God approved. There are many things recorded in this history book which are not approved by God.
@Chairm
“choice of behavior with the chose (sic) of orientation,”
LOL, I love how as more and more information comes out that begin gay is and in born trait (as Chairm claims), the topic changes to behavior.
Course, then we get the whole “identity politics” thrown in. What garbage.
@Alex The AMA does not by a long shot represent the opinion of the majority of the medical profession. They are a fairly liberal organization. However, supporting the repeal of laws which classify sodomy as criminal is not an issue. I don’t know anyone who wants sodomy criminalized. We just don’t want it forced on us so that we have to sanction it or be punished.
The whole psych industry has no science behind it and is fraudulent, as well as still heavily controlled by the gay agenda.
Whether the Bible is a legal document isn’t the issue. It is God who said homosexuality is wrong. But even at this point that isn’t an issue. The issue is state sanctioning and the forcing of it on the rest of society as something that must be accepted or punishment will follow.
Your allowing the liberal “christians” to re-interpret something from the Bible that has not been seen for over 2000 years demonstrates your bias – just accept an interpretation that fits your belief system rather than actually reading from the context.
What is immoral is your lobbying for laws that will punish those who disagree with SSM
@Mark Mark, since you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend there is nothing medically wrong with deviant sex, I’m not going to bother any more. If you really, really cared there are tons of sites on the net demonstrating the extreme harm caused by gay sex, especially anal sex. I have done loads of study and research but you apparently haven’t.
But the point is, don’t make laws that punish me for not sanctioning SSM!
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“Evolution is a religious belief with no scientific basis.”
Well, no basis if you disregard over 100 years of research, millions of fossils, chemical dating, physics, biology, chemistry and most sciences. Please, you must truly be ignorant to say there is no scientific basis.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“Mark, since you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend there is nothing medically wrong with deviant sex, I’m not going to bother any more. ”
And, pray tell, how do you define deviant sex?
“If you really, really cared there are tons of sites on the net demonstrating the extreme harm caused by gay sex, especially anal sex. I have done loads of study and research but you apparently haven’t.”
Wow, “loads of research” and yet you seem to AVOID the more scientific sites. I guess my being in the medical field for over 20 years is trumped by your “load”.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“The whole psych industry has no science behind it and is fraudulent, as well as still heavily controlled by the gay agenda. ”
Wow, you really need to see someone regarding these paranoid delusions.
Can you send me a copy of the “gay agenda”. I seem to be unable to find it on the net.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“It is God who said homosexuality is wrong.”
Uh, not exactly. The word “homosexuality” didn’t exist at the time the Bible was being written nor even printed the first few hundred years. It was first seen in print around 1869.
Now, if you want to tell me you are interpreting the Bible to say homosexuality is wrong, then I say you are misinterpreting the word of God.
………Smear? Dude. I’m not the one who thinks being gay means your hellbound.
I don’t think your gay. I think you spend too much time thinking about the world and everything thats not you being “gaycentric”
Also. Seriously. I don’t what your even asking anymore. Write coherently.
Mark said, “begin (sic) gay is and (sic) in born (sic) trait”.
nerdygirl said: “I don’t what your even asking anymore. Write coherently.”
Did you mean to write that you don’t know what I asked you?
Look, your pro-SSM view is loosey-goosey. A more rigorous assessment of your viewpoint is now on the table here.
Expert testimony: 1 in 5 self-identified homosexually orientated people chose that orientation.
Olsen’s assertion (key to his argument and to yours, it appears): “gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual.”
Put these together and it would appear that 50 million people have chosen their sexual orientation. But maybe the (pro-SSM) researcher and the (pro-SSM) lawyer both got it wrong.
Do you reject the anti-8 side’s expert witness?
Do you agree with Olsen’s assertion?
Please explain.
Also, note that the largest surveys strongly suggest that most young people who experiment with same-sex sexual attraction leave it behind. Whether that is a choice or not, it is evidence of something other than the conflation you have proposed in your use of the term, gay, and with your fantasy ‘exercise’.
nerdygirl said: “I’m not the one who thinks being gay means your hellbound.”
That was not the smear of which I commented.
No matter, you have shown yourself at the ready to attack the person rather than attend to the content of comments you find difficult to fit into your view of the world. You would leave it to me, and to those with whom you disagree, to first understand your view even as you elide the actual disagreement.
Your view is accurately represented in comments by defenders of marriage. But you have much to do to accurately represent that against which you stand.
nerdygirl said: I think you spend too much time thinking about the world and everything thats not you being ‘gaycentric'”.
Did you mean to write that you think that I spend too much time thinking about the word and everything; and that this does not mean that I am being gaycentric? Please restate more clearly, thanks.
@Mark Evolution has no science behind it, only assumptions and speculations based on assumptions and speculations. Fossils have never been evidence of evolution, they are only evidence that creatures lived and died. Dating methods are all based of assumptions which are false. Neither physics nor any other science has proven evolution, nor do real sciences base anything on evolution.
nerdygirl said: “I’m not the one who thinks being gay means your hellbound.”
To be clear: I did not say that I thought that. But given your comment it appears you might have accused me of doing so.
Gay is a socio-political construct; it is not inborn. Same-sex sexual attraction might be, or might not be, inborn. The latter does not amount to the former. Same-sex sexual behavior is always a choice, right or wrong. Some say the behavior is right but at the same time deny it is a choice; that is absurdly contradictory. If following a sexual prediliction is what makes it right, then, there are plenty of other sexual predilictions that meet that standard. Hence the construct of gay is promoted as a conflation that covers the contradictions and the loosey-goosey thinking behind the “gay is inborn” mantra.
@Mark
I’m sure your medical field employment, whatever part of it you are in, trumps positive facts and research. Here’s an easy one for you since you are afraid of the facts about the health hazards http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
@Mark God does say homosexuality is wrong. That word not being in the Bible does not mean I can’t use it now. Dinosaur isn’t in the Bible either, but other words describing the creatures are. God says a man having sex with a man or a woman having sex with a woman is wrong. Let’s call it what it is – sodomy.
The behavior of men having sex with men was identified in the Bible as immoral.
Your point is moot that the spceific word “homosexuality” was not used for the behavior at that time.
The behavior was identified as immoral, regardless of how its named today.
The link you supplied is to a forum discussion about the meaning of the Greek word arsenokoitai, which is translated as “homosexual” in some English versions.
On that topic, I think the explanation given by the forum leader quite persuasive, “Paul used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Greek translation of the Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno). Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word, and thus he condemns in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.”
But that is a side issue.
Your reply does not seem to address any of the points from my post.
You had previously said, “what loving god makes a person gay if it’s immoral to act upon it?”
I replied we all have physical desires we are supposed to resist and not indulge.
The quotation form Davin MacDonald, for example, gave an example of this, “….there are studies that say all men are hard wired to have multiple partners. But most of us would agree that it is not appropriate for men to live that out.”
If we apply your perspective to that, it seems you must say “what loving god makes a man desire sex with multiple women if it’s immoral to act upon?”
Of course, that throws monogamy out the window entirely.
Does your view require the idea that monogomy is against the will of God?
@Chairm
Thank you for the corrections. I will be more careful next time. Nice that you pay such close attention to every word I write.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“Evolution has no science behind it, only assumptions and speculations based on assumptions and speculations. ”
Keep that head buried in the sand. Ignorance of reality is easier than thinking.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“God does say homosexuality is wrong. ”
Nope. He doesn’t say that at all. No where in the Bible is a condemnation of a loving same sex couple. There is praise for some same sex couples: Ruth and Naomi, David and Saul, the Centurion and his slave.
And the story of Sodom was about in hospitality and rape, NOT same sex relationships.
@bman
“The behavior of men having sex with men was identified in the Bible as immoral. ”
Actually, it wasn’t. The verses people refer to were actually discussing religious rites and prostitution, not what we today recognize as a loving same sex couple.
The point about the word “homosexual” is not a moot point as people throw it around as if it is in the Bible, when it isn’t. There isn’t anything even close.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible
@Mark If you believe the lie of evolution it is you who are ignorant.
@Mark You read what you want into the Bible so as to justify perversion. If all it takes is a loving couple, then tell me what’s wrong with a man and his daughter or a mother and her son, or brothers and sisters all marrying?
Your so-called couples were nothing at all as you claim. Ruth and Naomi were in-laws, David and Saul had no relationship even as friends, and the centurion’s slave was that and no more. Sodomites and lesbians just love to try to force their beliefs where they don’t exist. The story of Sodom was about lots of things, but especially same-sex unions. N.T. passages demonstrate that in Jude and 2 Peter.
@Mark would you care to demonstrate from Scripture and from the Hebrew that it was about religious rites and prostitution? You can’t because it wasn’t. That is called eisegesis. There are indeed words in the Bible which mean homosexual, which is why we use that word. But you wouldn’t know that because you accept the tripe liberals feed you.
@Heidi If you want to believe tripe that had to be discovered 2000 years later, that no one ever saw before, you do so at your own eternal peril. There are real scholars out there who are not homosexualists re-interpreting things to fit their perversions. Just read what the Bible says and any 6th grader can understand the context.
Why would it refer only to religious rites?
The verse against homosex at Leviticu 18:22 reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Just two verses prior, in Leviticus 18:20, it says, ” Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her.”
Are we to suppose this means adultery is only wrong in “religious rites?”
And if verse 20 is not limited to religious rites why would verse 22 be?
Charim, you’re not one to talk about attacks.
Technically. BI IS an orientation. So….,no. I’m not at odds. Few people are born completely hereto or homo, they have some characteristics of both. One could argue that all those people who “choose” gay (or at least most) are bi.
There are current studies which suggest that sexuality, esp. female sexuality, is considerably more fluid then most people assume. Young people in general tend to experiment, so young people trying out same sex sex (tongue twister) and then deciding it’s not for them is kinda, moot in this discussion.
Bman. No, I find monogamy to be required of a christian marriage. But yeah. Kinda a [mean] move on God’s part. (of course, women are “hardwired” to find the best possible sperm, monogamy is hard for both genders)
“would be a good role model for children to imitate. If its not, then soceity should not give the behavior an honored place in its laws.”
You wrote this, suggesting that if homosexuality were not bad, we’d be okay with kids imitating it. Dude. I don’t want kids having any kind of sex. Neither should you. I will however, give you the benefit of the doubt that you completely overlooked the lapse of logic.
Sounds more like entropy (the random loss of information with time) than it does evolution.
In any event, it misses (or ignores) the point I intended, namely, that the alleged contradiction you “saw” in Glenn’s comment did not exist.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“If you believe the lie of evolution it is you who are ignorant.”
No, just someone who is well read and educated. Someone who doesn’t believe in a myth created by an ancient people.
But, let me ask you this, Glenn. WHICH version of creation in the Bible is the correct one? There are two different versions, you know.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“If all it takes is a loving couple, then tell me what’s wrong with a man and his daughter or a mother and her son, or brothers and sisters all marrying?”
There can be recessive genetic traits which could be more expressed with this kind of gene mixing (I mean, I assume you are referring to consenting adults).
So, are you saying its immoral to practice promiscuity even if a person is hard wired for it?
My intent was that formal recognition of same sex marriage in society would imply formal approval of men having sex with men, which is a behavior society would not want children to adopt.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“Your so-called couples were nothing at all as you claim. Ruth and Naomi were in-laws, David and Saul had no relationship even as friends, and the centurion’s slave was that and no more.”
Well, of COURSE you wouldn’t see it that way. Sad that you are oblivious to the obvious. But, tell me, why are the words that Ruth says to Naomi (“Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God”) they speak of a love, a true love, for one person to another. Very sorry you cannot see or appreciate it. Perhaps one day, God will open your heart.
OOPS, should say “why are the words that Ruth says to Naomi used so often in weddings? It’s because they speak of love, ….”
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“There are indeed words in the Bible which mean homosexual, which is why we use that word.”
Show me proof of just ONE.
@bman
“Sounds more like entropy (the random loss of information with time) than it does evolution. ”
Uh, which is a form of evolution (“change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. “).
nerdygril, I’ve made no ad hom attacks on you; you made a few against me. But, if it would help you to see your error, you can pretend that my comments here have attacked you as a person; that does not excuse your attacking me as a person — not if you object to it when you perceived yourself as the unjust target of such an attack. But the fact is your did not retaliate to an ad hom by me; you initiated this on your own volition. And now seek to excuse yourself.
nerdygirl,
If sexuality is as fluid as you say, then, you would concede that sexual orientation is not immutable. Yes?
Fluidity is another way of saying, changeable. As is the term, bisexuality.
You said:
“Few people are born completely hereto or homo, they have some characteristics of both. One could argue that all those people who ‘choose’ gay (or at least most) are bi.”
The expert witness said that these people self-identified as homosexual. Would you argue that you know better than they? That by choosing, they categorize themselves as not homosexual even if they openly identified as homosexual.
Or are you just saying that about 1 in 5 adults are bisexual? About 20% of the adult population — 50 million people in the USA. If so, then, your fantasy exercise crashes on the rocks.
Acting on sexual attraction is a choice regardless of claimed sexual orientation. That much we’d agree on, surely. Perhaps you are proposing that orientation and action ought to match and so orientation limits the choice regarding action. Not the other way around.
But that would make experimentation rather relevant.
You said: “There are current studies which suggest that sexuality, esp. female sexuality, is considerably more fluid than most people assume. Young people in general tend to experiment, so young people trying out same sex sex (tongue twister) and then deciding it’s not for them is kinda, moot in this discussion.”
Not moot, but I see what you mean: you think that most people who experiment with same-sex sexual attraction/behavior grow out of it and that is a normal feature of the fluidity of sexuality in human beings. Or something like that. Is that close to what you had intended to say?
Please note that the expert witness said that the homosexual people in his research identified as homosexual; not as bisexual as per your understanding. And one in five chose their orientation.
Please note that Olsen said that homosexual people (not bisexual people) and heterosexual people chose at about the same rate. That would mean more heterosexual people, in absolute numbers, than homosexual people, in absolute numbers. If sexuality is as fluid as you think, then, it is changeable; and Olsen’s claim that it is not changeable is contradicted not only by his own expert witness’ testimony but also by your thinking on the matter.
You are thus at odds with the expert and the lawyer to a significant degree. Not entirely, but significantly. Yes?
@bman
For a CHRISTIAN marriage, I find promiscuity immoral. If someone wanted an OPEN marriage (or relationship), I have no problem as long as both partners are honest, not lying and agreeing to the negotiated terms. If one is in a relationship of agreed or implied monogamy, cheating is wrong. If one is an agreed upon open relationship, it’s not cheating. I don’t have a problem with ethical sluts. (Thats an actual term, BTW.)
“My intent was that formal recognition of same sex marriage in society would imply formal approval of men having sex with men, which is a behavior society would not want children to adopt.”
Honestly, I don’t see many people caring outside of religious communities. In fact, a good portion of religious people don’t really care. (Honestly, as long as it’s two consenting adults in the privacy of their home, who cares?)
@Mark Mark you again show your ignorance of Scripture. There is only one version. Chapter 2, which so many of your ilk like to claim is another story, is a close-up of happenings of day six.
And I submit you aren’t as well-read as you claim when it comes to evolution – it is an impossible thing even mathematically. But we’re getting way off topic, so I’m dropping this subject.
@Mark So you deny marriage to people because of possible genetic problems? Do you know how many non-related couples marry daily who carry genetic defects which affect their children? The answer is thousands, and we know several. So are you now demanding genetic testing for marriage? Wow, making your own rules! What if these incestuous couples decide to never have children?
@Mark The words of Naomi and Ruth being used at weddings only proves they are misused and taken out of context. That doesn’t say anything about them being in a sexual relationship. THe problem with homosexualists is that they see perversion in everything mentioning love – if some mentions love, well it just has to be erotic love! To even suggest those couplets you mentioned from the Bible were homosexual relations just demonstrates your own evil heart.
@Mark “Paranoid delusions” – I’d say that’s what sodomites and lesbians have – HAH! If you want a good primer of the “gay” agenda, try reading “After the Ball”. It’s by sodomites and telling their agenda, most of which has been completed now.
@Mark malakoi – Greek for “Soft ones,” referring to the “Fem” arsenokoites – Greek for “Male bedder” – can refer to “Butch” or “Fem”. The modern English of the NT uses “homosexual” for these words. KJV used “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” because the word “homosexual” wasn’t invented by that German yet. The other passages of Scripture just describe the behavior.
What they should care about is the confusion and the slippery slope they would set before developing children.
For all you I’ve been dialoging with, I’m leaving this string. I’ve got more important things to spend time on. It’s been “fun.”
Entropy is still a more accurate term because its non-ambigious.
The term evolution is ambiguous since it can also mean, “to develop to a more highly organized condition,” and the word entropy is contrary to that idea.
You seem to prefer the more ambigous terms and definitions but that is also where much of your logic often breaks down because ambiguity is also a typical form of fallacy.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“Mark you again show your ignorance of Scripture. There is only one version. Chapter 2, which so many of your ilk like to claim is another story, is a close-up of happenings of day six.”
Actually, it was my minister in my communicants class that taught me about the differences. And, hate to say it, it really ISN’T a close-up of day 6, but thanks for trying.
“And I submit you aren’t as well-read as you claim when it comes to evolution – it is an impossible thing even mathematically.”
Uh, got any proof?
“To even suggest those couplets you mentioned from the Bible were homosexual relations just demonstrates your own evil heart.”
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Remember this little ditty? It’s also in Matthew 7:1-5
“If you want a good primer of the “gay” agenda, try reading “After the Ball”.”
More paranoia.
@Glenn E. Chatfield
“arsenokoites – Greek for “Male bedder””
“Koites” generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse. The prefix “Arsen”, simply means “male”. It could mean a male that has sex with lots of women. So, for a NT translation to use it as a term for homosexuality is, well, wrong.
@bman
“Entropy is still a more accurate term because its non-ambigious.”
It is less ambiguous, as you defined it: “entropy (the random loss of information with time) ”
However, genetic defects are not necessarily a loss of information, just incorrect information. So the term evolution is more applicable as information is not necessarily lost in a genetic defect.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “this [government]…can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. ”
How can we avoid becoming, “so corrupted as to need despotic government?”
We must promote those principles of morality to the public that are the opposite of corruption so the people will be instructed in them and follow them.
In my view, the principle of “open” marriage is one that leads to the kind of social corruption Benjamin Farnlin described. It is not the sort of thing government should promote or honor.
Its is, after all, adultery, and entails moral corruption, even if its agreed upon by the parties.
You seem to think “honesty” and “mutal agreement” makes an open relationship moral, so that adultery is somehow made “moral” if those two things exist.
As in the Star Wars series, however, some principles belong to light and others to darkness.
The use of “honesty” and “consensual agreement” to “moralize” adultery belongs to darkness, because it twists the meaning of right and wrong.
The war between darkness and light agrees with the Bible, of course. Star Wars did not make it up.
Per John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Those who promote sexual moral non-restraint and who want government to be morally neutral are actually working against the Constitution at a very deep conceptual level.
The more that darkness is approved and practiced, the closer we move to that society Benjamin Franklin described, “…when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. “
You seem to ignore my explanation for why “evolution” is ambiguous.
The term evolution is ambiguous since it can also mean, “to develop to a more highly organized condition.”
The idea of genetic defects being developed more as time progresses, however, is the decline of an organized condition with time.
I view this as an attempt to dimiss the evidence offered.
I do not have the book, but if gay leaders wrote it, and if it states an agenda, and if the gay community has organized itself around the agenda the book stated, its rational evidence of an agenda.
@Chairm
Charim. This is all written word. Tone is hard to detect, some of your comments read as aggressive. Many read as passive-aggressive. I can admit a few ad hominem attacks, you’re writing style bothers me. sorry.
Anyway. Honestly, my original masturbation comment was made in regards to how some commenters were treating Jaime. While her original comment was a quite angry, I felt the response was extremely dismissive and attacking. So I replied, glibly.
Fluidity might suggest change, but it doesn’t mean that change is controllable. (I do believe that most people are a little bi, but most are not to the degree that they’d consider relations thats at odds with their orientation.)
Orientation should match actions. Ideally. (No straight person should be gay cause it’s cool, no gay person should act straight to avoid being shamed).
Did the expert witness acknowledge bisexual as an orientation? As far as “chose” goes, whats the background? Were they attracted to the opposite sex? Did they then choose to go same sex? It all seems a bit vague.
@bman
How would the government enforce that though? Would spouses have to wear GPS trackers? Do you want the government in the bedroom making sure no ones got someone else on the side? I’m not talking benefits for partners on the side, or recognition, just saying that if thats how they choose to live their marriage, let em.
I think society would be a lot healthier if people in monogamous relationships that cheat would stop dating monogamous people.
@bman
Of course you know “entropy” is also defined as: ‘a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process’. Doesn’t quite fit what you are trying to say.
“The idea of genetic defects being developed more as time progresses, however, is the decline of an organized condition with time.””
Actually, no. Genetic “defects” are a change in the genetic code. They may be detrimental but they may be advantageous. The most commonly known example is of the Peppered moth in Britain. The lighter colored moths were the norm, with occasional darker ones appearing. The darker ones stood out easily on the trees and were eaten (obviously, a disadvantage). As the mills surrounding the trees grew, the pollution darkened the trees making the lighter colored moths more easily spotted. The previous defective gene (for darker color) now provided an advantage. Since the polluted air has been cleaned up, the lighter colored moths once again have an advantage.
So “defect” only contribute to the decline if they have no advantage. They can contribute to the advancement of a species if there is an advantage.
\
The idea is for government to promote public morality through education, incentives, decentives, soft penalities, ads, etc, rather than be neutral about morality.
While the etymology itself does not necessitate a reference to homosex, we still must look to history, context, and other uses of the term by the early church to find the most probable meaning.
The argument I find persuasive is that it refers to the Greek version of Leviticus 18:22 that the church of that day would have used regularly (called the Septuagint or LXX) .
That verse reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
The Greek version of that same verse uses the words arseno (male) and koitai (to lay with), which can be combined to make “arsenokoites.”
For a detailed discussion, see the article, Paul and malakos and arsenokoites
@bman
But who decides the morality of the nation? You find legalizing gay marriage to be a slippery slope, I find involving the government in moral judgement to be the same, if not worse.
nerdygirl, I do think that your problem with my “writing style” has less to do with content and more to do with your predisposition to express your self in terms that would not be perceived as anything but indiscriminate. No matter, we might take care to tolerate each other’s writing styles while paying attention to the actual substance as well.
Cheerio.
Chairm
@bman
Thanks for the link.
@Chairm
“nerdygirl, I do think that your problem with my “writing style” has less to do with content and more to do with your predisposition to express your self in terms that would not be perceived as anything but indiscriminate.”
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
I think the decision would be made by the people collectively and it would need to be based on Judeo-Christian values like we once had. It would need to be administered in such a way as to have a grassroots effect and not undermine Christianity.
Your statement, “who decides” is the path the nation is now on. Europe has been on that path for a longer period. The “long run” projections do not seem good for Europe now that it has lost its Christian compass.
The following extract comes from The Brussels Journal article, Polygamy All Over the Place
This seems to agree in principle with the view held by the Amercian forefathers:
Benjamin Franklin: [I] believe farther that this [Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
John Adams: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
The principle seems to exist, then, that if the people become unguided by religion they will become morally corrupt, and the Constitution will no longer be able to preserve their freedoms, as it would lead to despotic government.
That is where I think, “who decides” takes us. Despotic government, I believe, would result from the moral and relgious vacuum created by same sex marriage if it was codifed into law.
Most likely, a “win” for same sex marriage would not truly be a “win” in the long run, not even for homosexuals.
@bman
“While the etymology itself does not necessitate a reference to homosex, we still must look to history, context, and other uses of the term by the early church to find the most probable meaning. ”
I agree with this statement with the exception of how the early church used terms. We must also look to the culture of the day to see how the words were used. Words are not stagnant, but change over time and culture. The example I think is very interesting is the term “Samaritan”. Today, we see it as a story of someone who stopped to help someone in need. A good enough story. But when one views it from Jesus’ time, it takes on ADDITIONAL meaning. At that time, Samaritans and Jews hated each other. The idea of a Samaritan helping a Jew was unthinkable. So the true meaning of this parable has subtly changed over time.
Another is the word “gay” which has changed in meaning over the last 100 years. In the future, a person reading literature from the last century is going to be confused when reading a line such as “He was a gay man”. If it was written earlier in the century versus later, it has an entirely different meaning.
As for the definitions ““arsenokoites” , here is a good reference:
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html
I especially like the discussion that a composite word does not necessarily mean a true combination of the individual words. Another example is “horseman” – is this a thing made of part man and part horse? Or a man who is good with horses?
@bman
Most moderate muslims are either against polygamy or otherwise feel the practice should be outlawed. Of course, they’ll
I think you are extremely naive. Fairly well-read, but naive. You’ve either belonged to one of those nearly magical churches that have no inter-politics or you’ve never noticed them. Christians and Jews are no more exempt from temptation, folly and power-lust then Muslims. Look at Mormonism. Look at Jehovah’s Witness. Look at the animosity between Catholics an Protestants (modern day and historical). And some how, this time they won’t screw it up. Hon. Put faith in God. Don’t put the government in God.
nerdygirl, it means that your writing (and thinking) style hampers your reading of my comments. Your comments illustrate the thinking of someone who is fearful of discriminating — even justly — and so you err on the side of superficialities and do not dig deeper into the substance of comments.
Some of these issues are profound and do not treat well under a glib examination.
Has there been even one SSMer here who has told the pro-SSM religious organizations, such as they are, that their involvement in elections and politics ought to come at the cost of their tax exempt status? No? Okay.
@Chairm
“Has there been even one SSMer here who has told the pro-SSM religious organizations, such as they are, that their involvement in elections and politics ought to come at the cost of their tax exempt status? No? Okay.”
Yes, as a matter of fact. You will find the pro-SSM people far more understanding of the separation of church and state than the anti-SSM. It seems the anti-SSM want their cake and to eat it too. They want the tax exempt status and, at the same time, the right to deny other Americans of their rights. But, as pro-SSM people know, it’s not fair to have it both ways.
I am not sure if that is accurate or not, but I think Islam, taken collectively, views the decline of Christianity in America as a welcome mat to spread Islam here.
The point I intended was more general in nature, however. We need to protect and perserve the Christian compass that has guided America since its founding or it will result in the moral corruption of society at large, followed by some form of despotic government.
Whether the despotic government takes the form of sharia law, marxism, or something else, remains to be seen.
A same sex marriage law is effectively a legal rejection of the Christian compass that has guided America.
After society navigates awhile by the new “moral” compass that will replace it, which is one that no longer cares about monogamy in marriage or the moral restraint of sexual beahvior, it must eventually lead to a corrupted society followed by despotism.
As Benjamin Franklin stated, “…this [government]…can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
I am not sure if you said this because you misunderstood me or not. In any event, you did not quote anything I specifically said so there is nothing to respond to here.
I think you are making a categorical mistake here. The question is not whether “Christians and Jews are more exempt from temptation.”
Its more a question of how society will avoid temptation when sin has been redefined as morally acceptable.
Putting faith in God means obeying God. That is true for an individual or for a government.
Its when God is obeyed that we can expect Him to intervene so things do not get “screwed up.”
I am not sure what, “don’t put the government in God” means but if we do not have a nation “under” God, we wil end up with a government that thinks it is god, and that is not good for anyone.
And that seems to be where we are headed now, a government that seeks to replace god.
Mark, back up your claimed fact (@ February 27th, 2011 at 13:10, you answered “yes, as a matter of fact”).
@Chairm
I, for one.
@bman
Oh come on, like christians don’t hope to spread Christianity in the middle east. I think you’re naive because you believe, given your comments, that the way to set america straight is to go back to some form of christian religious law. That’s not how the states is supposed to be. The original settlers came seeking religious freedom, because different sects and denominations of christianity were not tolerated in most parts of Europe. Which would we follow? Catholicism, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist? A neutral stance to religion keeps everything equal, and much happier then favoritism. Our country is one that tolerates ALL faiths, and you want to go back to what our founding fathers left behind?
Besides, not all of our founding fathers thought fondly of religion, or it’s effect on government.
Thomas Jefferson:
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”
-letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot … they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.”
– to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
Ben Franklin:
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
“”If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England.”
John Adams:
“Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?”
-letter to Thomas Jefferson
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?”
James Madison:
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”
– “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
.
That’s not what was said in testimony.
Examination of Gregory M. Herek by Ethan D. Dettmer, for the plaintiffs, January 22, 2010:
I was referring to the spread of sharia law being a civil rights concern.
Your “naive” charge seems based on a misinterpretation.
I agree “the original settlers came seeking religious freedom,” and I agree government should not compel a person to have a particular religion.
Short of that, however, I believe America should be a pro-Christian republic, not neutral. Nor should it be pro-Muslim, or pro-religion except for Christianity. I also believe that describes how America has been since its founding.
In March 1776, for example, the same Continental Congress that authorized the Declaration of Independence declared May 17,1776 as a day of humility, prayer, and fasting:
Notice the declaration of Congress mentions Jesus Christ.
The Declaration of Independence came a few months later from that same Congress. Would they have changed their view of religion from March to July?
Furthermore, in December 1777 they mentioned God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost when they issued a Thanksgiving proclamation:
Are we to suppose the Congress was pro-Christian in March 1776, had no specific religion by July 4th, and was pro-Christian again by December 1777?
References with photocopies linked here.
In context, I expect the founders you cited meant government must not compel religion on others, but they all believed government should favor, promote, and publically support Christianity in all ways except that.
For addtional details see the article, The Founders And Public Religious Expressions
@John
Do people who feel worthless, who have always felt worthless, have a choice about what they believe to be true of themselves?
Should we go along with what they believe about themselves, simply because they have always believed it?
That is not an apt comparison. If you want to analogize, this is much closer:
Do people who feel they are left-handed, who have always felt they are left-handed, have a choice about what they believe to be true of themselves?
Should we go along with what they believe about themselves, simply because they have always believed it?
Mark, to back up your assertion, please provide the hyperlink to the comment(s) in which you said as much on a blogsite (or blogsites) that is (are) pro-SSM. A modestly good example would be a pro-SSM blogsite that is openly religious in content and has been involved in the politics of campaigning for SSM.
If you cannot do that much, then, you have not transformed your bald assertion into a verifiable statement of your position.
Do the math, John. The expert’s testimony indicated that 1 in 5 of respondents were self-identified choosers of their sexual orientation.
Gay men: 22% choosers (1 in 5).
Lesbians: 32% choosers (more than 1 in 5).
Bisexual men: 62% choosers (3 in 5).
Bisexual women: 60% choosers (3 in 5).
And the expert witness offered a hypothesis that the rate of choice was similair for the rest of the adult population.
So, based on that, John, what are you complaining about when it comes to the 1 in 5 ratio as applied to the entire adult population of the USA? That would be 50 million choosers.
Olsen’s argument depended on this sort of ratio. As does your own remarks, surely, where you cite this anti-8 expert’s own testimony, word for word.
On what basis is left-handedness supposed to be relevant to the discussion, John. Please be explicit.
@Chairm
“Mark, to back up your assertion, please provide the hyperlink to the comment(s) in which you said as much on a blogsite (or blogsites) that is (are) pro-SSM.”
OK, you med levels must be low because your sentences are not making sense.
But, I will try to clarify. You asked:
“@Chairm
“Has there been even one SSMer here who has told the pro-SSM religious organizations, such as they are, that their involvement in elections and politics ought to come at the cost of their tax exempt status? No? Okay.””
I answered I have, to several local organizations.
If you cannot back up your assertion, that’s okay. It stands as nothing more than a bald assertion with no back up.
Note that no other SSMer here has followed through, either.
An article by Linda Nicolosi seems to address this question.
She writes:
Math doesn’t involve lying, Chairm. 87% of gay men in one study and 88% in the other reported very little to no choice in the matter. That leaves 13% in one study and 12% in the other who indicated they might have had some choice in the matter. Neither of those figures is close to 22%.
Very little choice is no choice?
And some choice is no choice?
Well, even if we take your cooked math on face value, neither 13% nor 12% is zero percent. One in five said they chose and you want to nitpick just to get the ratio down to about one in ten. Okay, have it your way. Instead of 50 million adults in the country being choosers, you’d say the math means that 25 milion adults are choosers. Most of them being heterosexual according to the expert witness’s own hypothesis.
And the point you were trying to make earlier was … ?
My cooked math? I quoted the transcript; you made up numbers.
The point is your intellectual dishonesty; even when your distortions are pointed out, you try to repeat them.
I did not make up those numbers. Indeed, the transcription you offered supports what I said. You have not shown otherwise despite your grandstanding.
Meanwhile, you would place variations of choice in the no-choice column. Why do you think that is intellectually honest? How is that not cooking the numbers?
If the rate for the homosexual respondents is similair to that of the rest of the adult population, as per the offered hypothesis, and we take the lower ratio that you insisted upon, then, the 25 million is what that expert’s testimony produces.
But there is clearly more choice than you were counting. And, given the political climate around this question, all of this is very likely an underestimation.
So, John, what is the point you were trying to make earlier?
@John
Give it up, John. Chairm has no concept of stats or data. He is constantly unable to provide any proof of his claims and meanders through straw-man argument after straw-man argument. There is just no reason there.
The statistics that John highlighted actually support what I have said.
@Chairm
“The statistics that John highlighted actually support what I have said.”
Really? How so?
Reread the exchange between John and myself. Then, Mark, go ahead and explain how the statistics that John highlighted do not support what I have said.
The statistics that John highlighted do support what I have said. And that stands against the SSM rhetoric about immutability.