When Gary told me he had found Jesus, I thought, Ya-hoo! We're rich! But it turned out to be something different.
Byron White
The following is an imagined interview with the Massachusetts Supreme Court justices who ruled that Massachusetts must redefine marriage to include persons of the same sex.
The difference being, and an acute mind would see this, is that the "phony" answers actually reflect the viewpoint of the the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The answers you supplied to your questions have no resemblance to my point of view.
If you had an acute mind then you would understand that the answers in the article do in fact reflect the viewpoint of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Yes, it is true that the four members that approved gay marriage wouldn't express it that way, but the answers do reflect their viewpoint.
And you miss the point. The answers you expressed on my behalf do not reflect my viewpoint at all. That is the difference. I guess my next question is: how can society continue with so many dumb people bringing it down? Inertia?
A: Frankly, we couldn't care less how so-called "higher civilizations" have defined marriage. They were all wrong.
This doesn't reflect gays attitude?
Q: But no one has challenged anyone's right to love anyone. You didn't rule on love, you ruled on the definition of marriage.
A: Marriage is an expression of love.
This doesn't reflect gays attitude?
Q: If love is the issue, will you also rule in favor of people marrying more than one person they love? That will surely increase love in the world.
A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.
This doesn't accuratly reflect what the court did?
Q: What about an adult brother and sister who love each other and want to get married?
A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.
This doesn't accuratly reflect what the court did?
Q: But if love is the criterion, where is your logical or moral consistency in denying marriage to a person who loves two people or to two people who love each other but just happen to be in the same family?
A: As we noted earlier, we operated on feelings, and our primary feeling is compassion for gays. Feelings and compassion, not logic and reason or concern for preserving higher civilization, are what make us liberals.
Again, not accurate?
A: We do not believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. All a child is needs love.
Again, not acurate?
Q: Why not leave such a civilization-changing decision to the American people or at least to their elected representatives?
A: We don't trust the American people. Half of them vote Republican, vast numbers believe in the Bible, even many Democrats are not as enlightened as we are, and most Americans do not have our compassion for gays.
Not accurate?
Q: Doesn't it smack of hubris for four people to coerce millions of people into redefining the single most important human institution?
A: When you are more enlightened and more compassionate than others, you recognize the limitations of democracy, and you make the world better in any way you can.
Not accurate?
Q: You consider yourselves more enlightened and more compassionate than all the wise men and women in history, than all the religions of the world, than the Bible?
A: No question about it. We went to law school, and we have compassion for gays.
It is the only way they can get to the conclusion that they did.
Q: So, because of compassion for gays, you are prepared to subvert democracy, destroy the family unit as civilization has always defined it, cause children to begin to imagine marrying a person of their own sex, and declare that mothers have nothing distinctive to give to a child that two men cannot give and vice versa?
A: Now you know how important compassion is to us liberals.
They wouldn't say this, of course, but that is the course they have taken.
So says the American public. A majority are against gay "marriage".
if the majority can enforce their religion on the minority, then this isn't America.
This doesn't reflect gays attitude?
no.
This doesn't reflect gays attitude?
that marriage is an expression of love? no. marriage is a recognition of it. This is not a "gay" attitude, it's a human attitude, and a hetrosexual attitude.
This doesn't accuratly reflect what the court did?
that they didn't address polygamy? No, they didn't address polygamy. Why? Were they supposed to?
This doesn't accuratly reflect what the court did?
that they didn't address incest? No, they didn't address incest. Why? Were they supposed to?
Am I too believe that every time a law is considered, the issues of incest and polygamy should be addressed?
Again, not accurate?
absolutely not accurate. They were dealing with feelings, they were dealing with fairness in the was the goverment should treat everyone equally. it's not a question of compassion, it's a question of fairness.
Again, not acurate?
again, not accurate. A child need supportive parents. Besides, since when are gays going to produce children? If they adopt, it's only because the "hetrosexual" model that produced the child has failed.
Not accurate?
again, not accurate. one of the government's functions is to protect the minority's rights from the religious beliefs of the majority. It's called freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that if enough believe in one, they can force it on the minorty.
Not accurate?
not at all. it smacks of hubris that you think the majority can impose their religious beliefs on the minority.
It is the only way they can get to the conclusion that they did.
there is another way...that is a desire to protect freedom of religion.
They wouldn't say this, of course, but that is the course they have taken.
if compassion is simple fairness and protection from the majority forcing their religion on someone, then yes.
personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, but if they are gonna do it, they need to let everyone be eligible.
if the majority can enforce their religion on the minority, then this isn't America.
Being against homosexuality doesn't have to be related to any religion.
that marriage is an expression of love? no. marriage is a recognition of it. This is not a "gay" attitude, it's a human attitude, and a hetrosexual attitude. So its's everyone's attitude but not the gay attitude?
that they didn't address polygamy? No, they didn't address polygamy. Why? Were they supposed to? The reasoning that they applied to gay marriage also would apply to polygamy. I mean if you are rational and honest about what that court did. I know that is too much to expect from you.
that they didn't address incest? No, they didn't address incest. Why? Were they supposed to? The reasoning that they applied to gay marriage also would apply to polygamy. I mean if you are rational and honest about what that court did. I know that is too much to expect from you.
Am I too believe that every time a law is considered, the issues of incest and polygamy should be addressed? God surely made a moron when he made you. Either that or you are showing your dishonesty.
absolutely not accurate. They were dealing with feelings, they were dealing with fairness in the was the goverment should treat everyone equally. it's not a question of compassion, it's a question of fairness.
Fairness? Because they felt gays weren't being treated fairly? Gays are treated equally they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.
again, not accurate. one of the government's functions is to protect the minority's rights from the religious beliefs of the majority. No. the Courts are to follow the law and the Constitution not to make laws or write constitutional provision that aren't there and that have never been addressed by the people.
not at all. it smacks of hubris that you think the majority can impose their religious beliefs on the minority. It isn't about religion. It is about behavior.
if compassion is simple fairness and protection from the majority forcing their religion on someone, then yes. Again it has nothing to do with religion or freedom of religion. If it were about freedom of religion the Court would have done away with marriage altogether.
personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, but if they are gonna do it, they need to let everyone be eligible.
As I told you last summer, this gay marriage thing is tearing my wife and me apart. And in the intervening months it's only gotten worse. Now, because of activist judges in Massachusetts, our union is hanging on by the thinnest of threads.
Back in the simpler days of 2002, when we were planning our wedding, we used to coo fondly at each other about the joys that lay ahead. It wasn't that we were unsupportive of our gay friends, no. We were just looking forward to the government's validation of our relationship's specialness - a license that affirmed that the two of us had made a unique and personal eternal vow to each other. Something uniquer and specialer than any of our homosexual acquaintances could ever even hope for. They have so much, we thought - keen style sense, the freedom to listen to soundtracks from old Broadway musicals without shame, the ability to share clothes (except in the case of Michael and little, tiny Matt) - at least we would have this.
And now that license is beginning to fade in our eyes. We're all for the separation of church and state, naturally, but if the government doesn't define marriage as the sacred union between a man and a woman, who will? Are Jeanne and I expected to treasure our union solely on the basis of our deep love, personal beliefs, public vows, and the government's blessing? Sorry, Judge Pinkypants, but that's just not good enough. Not for us. We need to know that we've got something that's only available to 90% of the population, the select and upstanding few.
Sure, some of us are criminals. Murderers, even. Some of us have committed rape, beaten children, tattooed swastikas on our bodies, abused animals, broken into houses, bilked the government out of millions of tax dollars, lied under oath, cheated on previous spouses, dishonored our fathers and mothers, failed to keep the Sabbath holy, mowed down children in our SUV's while intoxicated, coveted our neighbors' stuff, gotten ourselves put on death row for serial killings, sold military secrets to the Chinese, urinated in public places, traded stocks based on insider information, beaten up people who looked or sounded different than us, beheaded runaway teens and consumed their flesh, failed to return library books, and sold drugs in schoolyards.
But we're straight, and that means we can get married. And that's special. Or, at least, it was.
Are some gay people serious about their commitment to each other? Sure, of course, that's not the point. Let me give you an example. Jeanne and I know this couple, these two men. They've been together for years and years, longer than we have. They live on a farm in Pennsylvania, treasure their time together, are loved by their community, have saved lives as members of the local fire department, have opened their home to youth groups from the city, and have built a life together based on love and trust. BUT - and here's my point - they're gay. They're both men. And if they're allowed to marry at some point, where does that leave us, my wife and me? See what I'm saying? It'd cheapen everything we have.
It may be too late for Jeanne and me. As soon as the first gay couple in the U.S. gets legally hitched we might just decide to pack it in. What's the point? But there's hope for the future if you DO SOMETHING. Write your congressman. Tell him or her that you want a Constitutional amendment that will protect marriage for straight people. That unless you have the right to enter that sacred union, violate it, exit it, and enter it again with somebody else, again and again, regardless of what crimes you commit, until you're too old and feeble to mouth the words, "I do," - unless you have that right and gay people don't, then there is truly nothing sacred in the United States of America.
And maybe, as you prepare to make that call, spare a thought to my wife and me - two starry-eyed youngsters whose sacred union was destroyed by the prospect of certain other people having something similar. And then for your children's' sake (if they're not gay), make the call, raise your voice, and stand up for what's right.
The difference is, historically we haven't condoned or celebrated immoral behavior.
Come now, THX, 20th and 21st century American culture vigorously condones and celebrates mammon-worship. A Christian cannot be unaware that Jesus repeatedly condemned all aspects of mammon worship. He also condemed casting moral judgment on others. He himself broke the Hebrew laws against fraternizing with "unclean" people and sinners. He did not exclude others.
So to the extent that we approve of excluding people for strictly "moral" reasons, to that extent, we go against Christ.
Also, it is incorrect to call homosexuality a "behavior;" it is a complete psycho-sexual state of being. Some studies even indicate that it has a physical basis; i.e., God made them this way. For those of us who are Christian, it's our task as Christians to love them. I know quite a few homosexual people, and most of them are among the most moral people I've encountered. Their behavior is a perfect foil for the hypocrites, the modern-day scribes and Pharisees, the whited sepulchres who would judge them.
so, you don't think gays can be allowed to have the same attitudes as everyone else?
Sure why not? But that didn't appear to be what YOU were saying.
the reasoning applied to hetrosexual marriage would apply to it just as much or little.
No not all. The common idea of marriage is being between one man and one woman. The Massachussetts Supreme Court took the position that” "Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Now this can apply to polygamy and incest.
[me] He (Jesus) also condemned casting moral judgment on others.
[Jethro] No he didn't.
To refresh your memory, Jethro --
Mt 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Lu 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Mt 7:3 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mt 18:10-14 - Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
In fact he did pass judgment on the money changers.
First, let's get our categories straight here. He told us mortals not to judge others. However, even he did not take it onto himself to act as judge over others:
Lu 12:14 - And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?
Moreover, he didn't "judge" the money changers; he physically evicted them and their businesses from the temple for violating it by trying to make a profit off it.
among others
Who are these "others?"
Again you are wrong. Condemn the sin but love the sinner, okay.
Where does Jesus say to condemn the sin but love the sinner?
But there is judgment before there can be forgiveness.
Judgment by God, forgiveness from God. That's God,Jethro, not you. Are you God? If not, then you'd best leave off the pretensions to be judge and dispenser of forgiveness. Jesus doesn't say that you can judge others who haven't harmed you personally. Even when someone has harmed you personally, he says to forgive and forgive and forgive.
Mt 18:21-22 - Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
It is simply behavior no matter how much psychobabble you attach to it.
I imagine scientific studies, reflection and thought would sound like "psychobabble" to those who aren't comfortable with thought. If you can permit your brain to function for a moment, consider this: does a celibate homosexual engage in "behavior?" Is a homosexual a "sinner" by definition or only when he/she is engaged in sex?
God finds it immoral.
Are you sure about that? The only place he supposedly said so is in the hundreds of "laws" set forth for the Hebrew people as they traveled from Egypt to the promised land, laws that included not eating shellfish, not touching menstruating women, and not wearing clothes of mixed fibers. If you are going to live by the hundreds of laws accorded by tradition to Moses, then you'd best cling to all the other laws as strongly as you do that one. However, if you're a Christian, you know that God finds your judgmentalism immoral. Do you ever covet? God finds that immoral, too. Do you lust in your heart and have uncharitable thoughts? God finds that immoral, too. But God loves us in our imperfection anyway, and he gives his grace out rather indiscriminately (at least by our standards). Would God deny you the right to a full life because you routinely engage in immoral behavior? Where did he give you the right to deny homosexuals a normal life? We're all sinners. We're all immoral. Homosexuals are no more immoral than anyone else. Jesus did not select them out for special exclusion and punishment. He never even mentioned them. If you want to stay close to Jesus, it might a good idea to work on humbling yourself.
But not to accept the sin.
How is accepting them accepting their sin? If we all rejected everyone who routinely sins, we'd all of us, everyone of us, be alone and rejected. You know, Jethro, Jesus made a big, big deal of not judging others and he didn't have much at all to say about sex. Think about it.
The following is an imagined interview with the Massachusetts Supreme Court justices who ruled that Massachusetts must redefine marriage to include persons of the same sex.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040210.shtml
what a load of crap
yes, you are a load of crap, crabs. I would say an overload. Oh by the way, what were you referring to as a load of crap?
the phony interview
it's bullshit...want to see how much?
Q: why are you so against the idea of gays getting married, bodine?
Bodine: Because I hate queers, even though I am one myself.
Q: you are a homosexual?
Bodine: of course, why else would I be so fixated on homos?
etc...
see, it's bullshit.
LOL!
The difference being, and an acute mind would see this, is that the "phony" answers actually reflect the viewpoint of the the Massachusetts Supreme Court. The answers you supplied to your questions have no resemblance to my point of view.
I guess post #155 answers the question "does JT have an acute mind?"
no more than your "phony" answers reflects your views of homosexuality.
If you had an acute mind then you would understand that the answers in the article do in fact reflect the viewpoint of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Yes, it is true that the four members that approved gay marriage wouldn't express it that way, but the answers do reflect their viewpoint.
I can say exactly the same thing about your "phony" answers.
Q: why are you so against the idea of gays getting married, bodine?
Bodine: Because homosexuality is immoral and should not receive a societal stamp of approval.
Q: you are a homosexual?
Bodine: No. Are you? I mean you seem to support gay marriage. Do you want to marry someone of your own sex?
so says the church.
the church shouldn't be deciding what the government stamps or does not stamp people with.
And you miss the point. The answers you expressed on my behalf do not reflect my viewpoint at all. That is the difference. I guess my next question is: how can society continue with so many dumb people bringing it down? Inertia?
yes they do.
do you hate immorality?
I guess post #155 answers the question "does JT have an acute mind?"
Come on Jethro, you gotta admit Crabby's post was funny.
so says the church.
So says the American public. A majority are against gay "marriage".
A: Frankly, we couldn't care less how so-called "higher civilizations" have defined marriage. They were all wrong.
This doesn't reflect gays attitude?
Q: But no one has challenged anyone's right to love anyone. You didn't rule on love, you ruled on the definition of marriage.
A: Marriage is an expression of love.
This doesn't reflect gays attitude?
Q: If love is the issue, will you also rule in favor of people marrying more than one person they love? That will surely increase love in the world.
A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.
This doesn't accuratly reflect what the court did?
Q: What about an adult brother and sister who love each other and want to get married?
A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.
This doesn't accuratly reflect what the court did?
Q: But if love is the criterion, where is your logical or moral consistency in denying marriage to a person who loves two people or to two people who love each other but just happen to be in the same family?
A: As we noted earlier, we operated on feelings, and our primary feeling is compassion for gays. Feelings and compassion, not logic and reason or concern for preserving higher civilization, are what make us liberals.
Again, not accurate?
A: We do not believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. All a child is needs love.
Again, not acurate?
Q: Why not leave such a civilization-changing decision to the American people or at least to their elected representatives?
A: We don't trust the American people. Half of them vote Republican, vast numbers believe in the Bible, even many Democrats are not as enlightened as we are, and most Americans do not have our compassion for gays.
Not accurate?
Q: Doesn't it smack of hubris for four people to coerce millions of people into redefining the single most important human institution?
A: When you are more enlightened and more compassionate than others, you recognize the limitations of democracy, and you make the world better in any way you can.
Not accurate?
Q: You consider yourselves more enlightened and more compassionate than all the wise men and women in history, than all the religions of the world, than the Bible?
A: No question about it. We went to law school, and we have compassion for gays.
It is the only way they can get to the conclusion that they did.
Q: So, because of compassion for gays, you are prepared to subvert democracy, destroy the family unit as civilization has always defined it, cause children to begin to imagine marrying a person of their own sex, and declare that mothers have nothing distinctive to give to a child that two men cannot give and vice versa?
A: Now you know how important compassion is to us liberals.
They wouldn't say this, of course, but that is the course they have taken.
The answers you expressed on my behalf do not reflect my viewpoint at all.
yes they do.
How so?
do you hate immorality?
Hate? Do you have a point. Probably not
Come on Jethro, you gotta admit Crabby's post was funny.
Funny? Maybe. But it wasn't what crabs intended.
if the majority can enforce their religion on the minority, then this isn't America.
no.
that marriage is an expression of love? no. marriage is a recognition of it. This is not a "gay" attitude, it's a human attitude, and a hetrosexual attitude.
that they didn't address polygamy? No, they didn't address polygamy. Why? Were they supposed to?
that they didn't address incest? No, they didn't address incest. Why? Were they supposed to?
Am I too believe that every time a law is considered, the issues of incest and polygamy should be addressed?
absolutely not accurate. They were dealing with feelings, they were dealing with fairness in the was the goverment should treat everyone equally. it's not a question of compassion, it's a question of fairness.
again, not accurate. A child need supportive parents. Besides, since when are gays going to produce children? If they adopt, it's only because the "hetrosexual" model that produced the child has failed.
again, not accurate. one of the government's functions is to protect the minority's rights from the religious beliefs of the majority. It's called freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that if enough believe in one, they can force it on the minorty.
not at all. it smacks of hubris that you think the majority can impose their religious beliefs on the minority.
there is another way...that is a desire to protect freedom of religion.
if compassion is simple fairness and protection from the majority forcing their religion on someone, then yes.
if the majority can enforce their religion on the minority, then this isn't America.
It isn't about religion, it's about morals.
Remember, you said it yourself. "You don't need religion to have morals"...
personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, but if they are gonna do it, they need to let everyone be eligible.
so, you have consigned 10% of the entire population to "immoral" status?
sorry, but the only reason you do this is because Religion tells you to
Religion says a lot of sexuality is "immoral"
and if homosexuality is "immoral" to you, do you advocate making laws against it?
Why do they have to let everyone?
You're just all over the place, Crabby.
You want special treatment for hate crimes, you want affirmative actions... but you want equal treatment for marriage?
I just don't get the inconsistency.
Basically you just want what you want.
if the majority can enforce their religion on the minority, then this isn't America.
Being against homosexuality doesn't have to be related to any religion.
that marriage is an expression of love? no. marriage is a recognition of it. This is not a "gay" attitude, it's a human attitude, and a hetrosexual attitude. So its's everyone's attitude but not the gay attitude?
that they didn't address polygamy? No, they didn't address polygamy. Why? Were they supposed to? The reasoning that they applied to gay marriage also would apply to polygamy. I mean if you are rational and honest about what that court did. I know that is too much to expect from you.
that they didn't address incest? No, they didn't address incest. Why? Were they supposed to? The reasoning that they applied to gay marriage also would apply to polygamy. I mean if you are rational and honest about what that court did. I know that is too much to expect from you.
Am I too believe that every time a law is considered, the issues of incest and polygamy should be addressed? God surely made a moron when he made you. Either that or you are showing your dishonesty.
absolutely not accurate. They were dealing with feelings, they were dealing with fairness in the was the goverment should treat everyone equally. it's not a question of compassion, it's a question of fairness.
Fairness? Because they felt gays weren't being treated fairly? Gays are treated equally they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.
again, not accurate. one of the government's functions is to protect the minority's rights from the religious beliefs of the majority. No. the Courts are to follow the law and the Constitution not to make laws or write constitutional provision that aren't there and that have never been addressed by the people.
not at all. it smacks of hubris that you think the majority can impose their religious beliefs on the minority. It isn't about religion. It is about behavior.
if compassion is simple fairness and protection from the majority forcing their religion on someone, then yes. Again it has nothing to do with religion or freedom of religion. If it were about freedom of religion the Court would have done away with marriage altogether.
because they tax everybody.
personally, I think that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, but if they are gonna do it, they need to let everyone be eligible.
Everyone IS eligible. Damn you are thick headed.
Adam Felber explains why gay people should not be allowed to get married.
As I told you last summer, this gay marriage thing is tearing my wife and me apart. And in the intervening months it's only gotten worse. Now, because of activist judges in Massachusetts, our union is hanging on by the thinnest of threads.
Back in the simpler days of 2002, when we were planning our wedding, we used to coo fondly at each other about the joys that lay ahead. It wasn't that we were unsupportive of our gay friends, no. We were just looking forward to the government's validation of our relationship's specialness - a license that affirmed that the two of us had made a unique and personal eternal vow to each other. Something uniquer and specialer than any of our homosexual acquaintances could ever even hope for. They have so much, we thought - keen style sense, the freedom to listen to soundtracks from old Broadway musicals without shame, the ability to share clothes (except in the case of Michael and little, tiny Matt) - at least we would have this.
And now that license is beginning to fade in our eyes. We're all for the separation of church and state, naturally, but if the government doesn't define marriage as the sacred union between a man and a woman, who will? Are Jeanne and I expected to treasure our union solely on the basis of our deep love, personal beliefs, public vows, and the government's blessing? Sorry, Judge Pinkypants, but that's just not good enough. Not for us. We need to know that we've got something that's only available to 90% of the population, the select and upstanding few.
Sure, some of us are criminals. Murderers, even. Some of us have committed rape, beaten children, tattooed swastikas on our bodies, abused animals, broken into houses, bilked the government out of millions of tax dollars, lied under oath, cheated on previous spouses, dishonored our fathers and mothers, failed to keep the Sabbath holy, mowed down children in our SUV's while intoxicated, coveted our neighbors' stuff, gotten ourselves put on death row for serial killings, sold military secrets to the Chinese, urinated in public places, traded stocks based on insider information, beaten up people who looked or sounded different than us, beheaded runaway teens and consumed their flesh, failed to return library books, and sold drugs in schoolyards.
But we're straight, and that means we can get married. And that's special. Or, at least, it was.
Are some gay people serious about their commitment to each other? Sure, of course, that's not the point. Let me give you an example. Jeanne and I know this couple, these two men. They've been together for years and years, longer than we have. They live on a farm in Pennsylvania, treasure their time together, are loved by their community, have saved lives as members of the local fire department, have opened their home to youth groups from the city, and have built a life together based on love and trust. BUT - and here's my point - they're gay. They're both men. And if they're allowed to marry at some point, where does that leave us, my wife and me? See what I'm saying? It'd cheapen everything we have.
It may be too late for Jeanne and me. As soon as the first gay couple in the U.S. gets legally hitched we might just decide to pack it in. What's the point? But there's hope for the future if you DO SOMETHING. Write your congressman. Tell him or her that you want a Constitutional amendment that will protect marriage for straight people. That unless you have the right to enter that sacred union, violate it, exit it, and enter it again with somebody else, again and again, regardless of what crimes you commit, until you're too old and feeble to mouth the words, "I do," - unless you have that right and gay people don't, then there is truly nothing sacred in the United States of America.
And maybe, as you prepare to make that call, spare a thought to my wife and me - two starry-eyed youngsters whose sacred union was destroyed by the prospect of certain other people having something similar. And then for your children's' sake (if they're not gay), make the call, raise your voice, and stand up for what's right.
Posted by Adam Felber at 12:43 PM | Comments (24)
so, you have consigned 10% of the entire population to "immoral" status?
I didn't say that. Not even close. Nice try though. Are you sure you didn't write that "interview" Jethro posted today?
sorry, but the only reason you do this is because Religion tells you to
It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with societal norms, morals, structure...
Religion says a lot of sexuality is "immoral"
I agree religion says this, but it's irrelevant to this subject.
and if homosexuality is "immoral" to you, do you advocate making laws against it?
I advocate banning gay "marriage". I propose a civil union type of thing instead.
so, you have consigned 10% of the entire population to "immoral" status?
That is their choice to commit immoral acts.
so, you don't think gays can be allowed to have the same attitudes as everyone else?
the reasoning applied to hetrosexual marriage would apply to it just as much or little.
JT to crabs: Basically you just want what you want.
Yes indeed. Crabs has been pegged.
so, you believe you "have the choice" to be homosexual?
interesting.
by this rationale, hetrosexuals should be free to marry someone of the same sex as well....if you are talking about fairness.
uh...where the State is concerned, that is all a marriage is, a civil union.
THX, do you think that homosexuals are immoral?
THX, do you think that homosexuals are immoral?
Yes, I personally believe so. But no more so than any given immoral behavior.
The difference is, historically we haven't condoned or celebrated immoral behavior.
uh...where the State is concerned, that is all a marriage is, a civil union.
It's much more complicated then that.
This isn't just a legal issue, it's also a moral one.
What next, men marrying their dogs? Women marrying their sisters? Grandmothers marrying their grandsons?.....
so, you are saying that 10% ofthe population is immoral.
BTW, I didn't ask about behavior, I asked about homosexuals.
don't you believe there is such a thing as homosexuals?
again, you think that 10% of the population is "immoral"
or is it just a "behavior" thing?
if there are no such things as homosexuals, just homosexual behavior...then there is no such thing as hetrosexuals, just hetrosexual behavior, right?
Come now, THX, 20th and 21st century American culture vigorously condones and celebrates mammon-worship. A Christian cannot be unaware that Jesus repeatedly condemned all aspects of mammon worship. He also condemed casting moral judgment on others. He himself broke the Hebrew laws against fraternizing with "unclean" people and sinners. He did not exclude others.
So to the extent that we approve of excluding people for strictly "moral" reasons, to that extent, we go against Christ.
Also, it is incorrect to call homosexuality a "behavior;" it is a complete psycho-sexual state of being. Some studies even indicate that it has a physical basis; i.e., God made them this way. For those of us who are Christian, it's our task as Christians to love them. I know quite a few homosexual people, and most of them are among the most moral people I've encountered. Their behavior is a perfect foil for the hypocrites, the modern-day scribes and Pharisees, the whited sepulchres who would judge them.
Some things never change.
Because they felt gays weren't being treated fairly? Gays are treated equally they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.
by this rationale, hetrosexuals should be free to marry someone of the same sex as well....if you are talking about fairness.
Everyone is treated fairly because no one can do it. At least noit until May and only in Massachusetts.
so, you don't think gays can be allowed to have the same attitudes as everyone else?
Sure why not? But that didn't appear to be what YOU were saying.
the reasoning applied to hetrosexual marriage would apply to it just as much or little.
No not all. The common idea of marriage is being between one man and one woman. The Massachussetts Supreme Court took the position that” "Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Now this can apply to polygamy and incest.
BTW, I didn't ask about behavior, I asked about homosexuals.
It is all about behavior.
Again you are wrong. Condemn the sin but love the sinner, okay. But there is judgment before there can be forgiveness.
so, then you aren't a hetrosexual, you just behave as one?
if you were to behave in a homosexual manner, it would make you a homosexual?
are you saying that you are neither a homosexual nor a hetrosexual, but mearly an androgynous being who has chosen to behave in a hetrosexual fashion?
Sometime I behave like I'm the Queen of England.
so, there is no Queen of England?
[me] He (Jesus) also condemned casting moral judgment on others.
To refresh your memory, Jethro --
Mt 7:1 - Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Lu 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Mt 7:3 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Mt 18:10-14 - Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Joh 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
First, let's get our categories straight here. He told us mortals not to judge others. However, even he did not take it onto himself to act as judge over others:
Lu 12:14 - And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?
Moreover, he didn't "judge" the money changers; he physically evicted them and their businesses from the temple for violating it by trying to make a profit off it.
Who are these "others?"
Where does Jesus say to condemn the sin but love the sinner?
Judgment by God, forgiveness from God. That's God,Jethro, not you. Are you God? If not, then you'd best leave off the pretensions to be judge and dispenser of forgiveness. Jesus doesn't say that you can judge others who haven't harmed you personally. Even when someone has harmed you personally, he says to forgive and forgive and forgive.
Mt 18:21-22 - Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
I imagine scientific studies, reflection and thought would sound like "psychobabble" to those who aren't comfortable with thought. If you can permit your brain to function for a moment, consider this: does a celibate homosexual engage in "behavior?" Is a homosexual a "sinner" by definition or only when he/she is engaged in sex?
Are you sure about that? The only place he supposedly said so is in the hundreds of "laws" set forth for the Hebrew people as they traveled from Egypt to the promised land, laws that included not eating shellfish, not touching menstruating women, and not wearing clothes of mixed fibers. If you are going to live by the hundreds of laws accorded by tradition to Moses, then you'd best cling to all the other laws as strongly as you do that one. However, if you're a Christian, you know that God finds your judgmentalism immoral. Do you ever covet? God finds that immoral, too. Do you lust in your heart and have uncharitable thoughts? God finds that immoral, too. But God loves us in our imperfection anyway, and he gives his grace out rather indiscriminately (at least by our standards). Would God deny you the right to a full life because you routinely engage in immoral behavior? Where did he give you the right to deny homosexuals a normal life? We're all sinners. We're all immoral. Homosexuals are no more immoral than anyone else. Jesus did not select them out for special exclusion and punishment. He never even mentioned them. If you want to stay close to Jesus, it might a good idea to work on humbling yourself.
How is accepting them accepting their sin? If we all rejected everyone who routinely sins, we'd all of us, everyone of us, be alone and rejected. You know, Jethro, Jesus made a big, big deal of not judging others and he didn't have much at all to say about sex. Think about it.
and besides...what does this say to bodine, someone who lives in a capitalistic society?