JG-TC.com > News > Gay couples rush to get married in California

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:51 PM CDT
Gay couples rush to get married in California

By the Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — County clerk offices opened their doors Tuesday to hundreds of gay and lesbian couples with appointments to secure marriage licenses and exchange vows on the first full day same-sex nuptials were legal throughout California.

From San Diego to San Francisco, couples readied their formal wear, local licensing clerks expanded their staffs and conservative groups warned of a backlash as the nation's most populous state prepared to join Massachusetts in sanctioning gay unions.

Unlike Massachusetts, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, California has no residency requirement for marriage licenses. Many couples are expected to head west to wed.

``We might wait a long time in Tennessee, so this is our chance,'' said Robert Blaudow, of Memphis. He and his partner, Derek Norman, 23, decided to get married at the Alameda County clerk's office late Monday while they were in the San Francisco Bay Area for a conference.

The May 15 California Supreme Court ruling that overturned the state's bans on same-sex marriage became final at 5:01 p.m. Monday, and clerks in at least five counties extended their hours to mark the occasion.

Already, dozens of same-sex couples have seized the opportunity to make their relationships official in the eyes of the law.

``We're glad that we're living in this time when history is being made,'' said Sandy Mills, an Oakland physician who was getting married to her partner of nine years, Mar Stevens, an employee of the county district attorney's office.

``I'm tired of checking the single box,'' said Danielle Lemay, 34, who picked up a marriage license in Woodland with her partner, Angie Hinrichs. ``I feared I'd be checking that my whole life.''

Every county was required to start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses Tuesday with spaces for ``Party A'' and ``Party B'' where ``bride'' and ``groom'' used to be.

As couples prepared to marry at the Contra Costa County clerk's office Tuesday morning, three opponents of gay marriage from the Westboro Baptist Church picketed outside, carrying signs with sayings such as ``God is your enemy.''

Members of the sect are most often seen at military funerals in demonstrations claiming U.S. combat deaths are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

The protesters were easily outnumbered by about three dozen supporters of gay marriage, who held signs that read ``Hate is not a family value'' and ``My marriage is not threatened by theirs, why is yours?'' Police vehicles lined up near the demonstrators.

On Monday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who helped start the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83.

Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony Monday in City Hall to recognize their 55-year relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement. More than 650 same-sex couples have made appointments to get marriage licenses in San Francisco before the end of the month.

Newsom called officiating the wedding ``this extraordinary and humbling gift.'' After the mayor pronounced Martin and Lyon ``spouses for life,'' the couple kissed, then emerged to a crowd of well-wishers who showered them with rose petals.

The celebrations are tempered by the reality that in a few months, Californians will go to the ballot box to vote on an initiative that would overturn the high court ruling and again ban gay marriage.

On Monday, three lawmakers and a small group of other same-sex opponents gathered outside the Capitol to criticize the Supreme Court decision. They urged voters to approve the ballot measure.

``This is an opportunity to take back a little bit of dignity ... for kids, for all of us in California,'' Republican Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa said. ``It really disturbs me that the will of the people was overridden by four members of the Supreme Court.''

In both San Francisco and Beverly Hills, where two women became the first same-sex couple in Los Angeles County to marry legally, small groups of protesters waved signs with sayings like ``Repent or Perish,'' but they were outnumbered by supporters waving rainbow-striped flags.

Groups that oppose same-sex marriage have pursued several legal avenues to stop the weddings. On Monday, just hours before the ruling went into effect, a conservative legal group asked a Sacramento court to order the California agency that oversees marriages to stop issuing gender-neutral marriage licenses.

A hearing was set for Tuesday.

A UCLA study issued last week estimated that half of California's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married over the next three years, and 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel here to exchange vows.

———

Associated Press writers Laura E. Davis in Los Angeles, Michelle Locke in Oakland, Evelyn Nieves in Santa Rosa, Steve Lawrence in Sacramento and Samantha J. Young in Woodland contributed to this report.

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

The Shadow wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:29 PM:

" LeT tHeM aLl RuSh RiGhT oVeR tO cAlIfOrNiA tO gEt MaRrIeD aNd ThEn MaY tHe WhOlE sTaTe SiNk To ThE bOtToM oF tHe OcEaN "

amomoftwo wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:26 PM:

" It's like we are living in Sodom and Gomorrah. God is watching and will take action soon against all those who are homos, or all those who think it is okay. He did it once; he will do it again. If you are a Christian and think this type of behavior is acceptable, better reread your bible and really find out what God accepts. This disgusting perverted behavior will be done away with. Good riddance. "

das wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:06 AM:

" Thank you California and upholding the Constitution in which this country is supposed to be built on. "All men are equal," and in America all people are to deserve the same rights. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:51 AM:

" "It's like we are living in Sodom and Gomorrah. God is watching and will take action soon against all those who are homos, or all those who think it is okay. He did it once; he will do it again."
----
Yes, you Christians are certainly moral beacons the TV hucksters snatching up the frightened old women's Social Security checks by the truckload as they brag about changing the course of mighty hurricanes, the priests who seduce children and the other priests who protect and promote them, still other ministers who say the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church or Judaism or Islam is the work of the devil, the snake handlers, the babblers in tongues, the faith healers, the abortion clinic bombers, the ones who blubber for forgiveness after they're caught with a call girl, then blubber for forgiveness again after they're caught with another call girl, the politically connected preachers who rant on and on about how evil homosexuals are before they go off on a nice, secret little sex-and-drugs binge with a young male prostitute.
They all appeal to many people who've probably never read the Bible, but are absolutely, positively convinced that they are "Christians," and enjoy thinking that anyone who disagrees with their dim, stupid little notions of cosmic truth is going to burn in a lake of fire forever. What ignorant, arrogant claptrap you people wallow in. "

amomoftwo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:42 AM:

" The truly ignorant are those who are unbelievers and think that God is not watching. These will be destroyed, leaving a peaceful,happy people to live forever, free of disgusting, perverted behavior, free of wars, free of the garbage that people like "Question" dole out on a regular basis because they are either too lazy, too selfish or too "ignorant" to bother to look past their own nose. We live in "critical times hard to deal" with, according to Bible prophecy. Those who say this is a "myth" and a "story" are the ones who are ignorant. Homos and all their supporters will perish. Good riddance. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers. "

ferret lover wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:15 AM:

" the question, well said "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:45 AM:

" The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:51 AM: "Yes, you Christians are certainly moral beacons..." and "...enjoy thinking that anyone who disagrees with their dim, stupid little notions of cosmic truth is going to burn in a lake of fire forever. What ignorant, arrogant claptrap you people wallow in."

Now Q, I hope you're not putting every single Christian in that category. You know there is at least one Christian who loves God and tries to live by His two commandments and DOESN'T do all that disrespectful stuff, don't you? And if you know one, isn't it likely that there are two? Three? Eight?

My point is that I think it's philosophically unwise to lump everyone who claims to be "Christian" into one behavior set just like it would be wrong for me to lump all people who support John Doe for president into one big pile, isn't it?

You and I have gone back and forth over this many times and I've respected your opinion and beliefs. I'm just asking you not lump all those who follow Christ into the same mold.

Thanks.
Respectfully
M@H "

father bob wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:26 AM:

" amomoftwo wrote on Jun 17, 2008 10:26 PM:God is watching and will take action soon against all those who are homos, or all those who think it is okay.

i hope neither of your children come out of the closet....you may have a stoke! "

father bob wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:34 AM:

" anyone else locked out of the Obama talking to fathers thread? i must have opened a can-o-worms over there talking about the virtues of planned parenthood. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:07 AM:

" Isn't it strange, the Internet and Television was full of pictures of Gays and Lesbians getting married and kissing. I don't recall any recent pictures of men and women getting married and kissing. Why is that? The answer! Because no one is interested in NORMAL things, which, says a lot about Homosexual Marriage, what it says is, (even leaving religion out) It's not Normal, no matter how you spin it. "

father bob wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:21 PM:

" amomoftwo wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:42 AM:
" The truly ignorant are those who are unbelievers and think that God is not watching.

AND YOU.....better be good, Santa's watching. "

ferret lover wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:39 PM:

" for the ones who say they are christians, doesnt it say "judge not lest they be judged"? better look at what you have posted,its certainly called judging.God is the only one who is the judge. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:42 PM:

" You know, amomoftwo, one or both of those children you cling to in your pathetic attempt to define an identity for yourself may well BE gay. But whether they are or not, I sincerely pity them. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Well, I don't see you standing up to vile, ignorant, hate-peddling Christians like Mommy Dearest here, Tooner. Silence implies endorsement. These are the people who create the public identity for your religion. "

Becky wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Boy, I know this would get some of the real zeolots out but some of these take even me by surprise. Wow. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:13 PM:

" George Takei of "Star Trek" will be getting married to his male partner in California. Noting protesters while lined up to get his marriage license, Takei said they had a right to be there but "need to equally respect the diversity in California."
"They cannot put their personal religious beliefs on us and write it into law."
"There is nothing extraordinary," Takei said. "We are just like John and Mary. We are just part of the diversity of America."
His partner said their marriage would "live long and prosper." "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:43 PM:

" The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:45 PM:" Well, I don't see you standing up to vile, ignorant, hate-peddling Christians like Mommy Dearest here, Tooner. Silence implies endorsement. These are the people who create the public identity for your religion. "

Don't you remember a couple of months ago that I jumped on quite a number of Christians on this forum for being judgemental and telling people they were going to hell? That's when Susan and I started this back-and-forth thing?

I think if you strain a little, you'll remember I've been pretty straight about how Christians come across.

Oh, and silence doesn't mean endorsement, silence means silence. I won't read anything into what you DON'T say, only what you DO say if you'll do the same.

We both know what "assume" means. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:46 PM:

" Q: If I'm not mistaken, I even took on a momoftwo a couple of times. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:08 PM:

" I don't see many Christians posting on here to talk about Jesus' views on tolerance or the Beatitudes, Tooner, other than you. Mostly, I see Christians spewing their ignorance, railing against science and education, snarling their hatred for people who haven't done them any harm, and damning them to eternal suffering.
Maybe you're the one who's out of step, Tooner, These other Christians seem to have you outnumbered, don't they? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:29 PM:

" To amomoftwo:

So far in two posts - youve included words and phrases such as homos, This disgusting perverted behavior, Good riddance, truly ignorant, disgusting, perverted behavior, the garbage that people like "Question" dole out on a regular basis because they are either too lazy, too selfish or too "ignorant" to bother to look past their own nose., Those who say this is a "myth" and a "story" are the ones who are ignorant., and finally, Homos and all their supporters will perish.

In the same posts, youve stated God is watching, according to Bible prophecy and If you are a Christian. Which means I believe that you are identifying with Christianity which would mean using the term Christian to describe your beliefs would be accurate. If Im wrong, stop reading and forget it. If Im right, please continue.

I am not going to say you are or you are not a Christian since the term Christian means follower of Christ and the only qualification for that is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, Ill go so far as to say you probably *are* a Christian or you wouldnt be thinking the kind of things youve put into words regarding this topic.

But theres more to being a Christian than just claiming to believe in Jesus. Thatll get one started along the road but there are a few additional expectations of ones behavior. Im not going to claim that I know everything there is to know about the mind of God but I am pretty sure he wouldnt have used the word homo, call people ignorant nor their behavior disgusting or perverted. I believe that is called judging, something were not supposed to do. Now before you go off throwing the judgment thing back at me, kindly look again. We are NOT to judge the non-believer. We are SUPPOSED to judge those who claim to be Christians. I believe your words were directed to non-believers.

There are many reasons this is true and I dont need to go into them. All I can say is please dont use those terms to describe a non-believer or his/her behavior. That sets back the cause of Christ and makes all Christians look bad and not all Christians believe the way you do. It only gives rise to the comment See? I told you they were bitter name-calling hypocrites! Believe me, I know its not easy but its something we Christians are supposed to stay away from.

Our primary job as a Christian is to win others to Christ. Ive never seen anyone won to Christ by being beaten over the head with a bible and criticized into the kingdom.

I hope I dont have to go through this again but to those reading this, please dont judge Christ and Christianity by the thoughts, behavior and words of Christians. I think it was Winston Churchill that said, The only thing wrong with Christianity is Christians.

By the way M@H is the worst of all. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:09 PM:

" Well put, Mr. Tooner. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:33 PM:

" The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 3:08 PM: "Maybe you're the one who's out of step, Tooner, These other Christians seem to have you outnumbered, don't they?"

Yeah they seem to have me outnumbered but the Phillistines had Samson outnumbered too. The difference is that on this thread, these "Phillistines" are using the same weapon Samson did to kill them thousands of years ago. And if you'll remember your Bible stories - Samson used the jawbone of an A5S. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:38 PM:

" To M@H I just finished reading an interesting book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory Boyd. He puts forth the argument, quite well I think, why people like "A Mom of Two" are the worst things that have happened to Christianity and Christ, they cause great harm to the religion with their hate. "A Mom of Two" has missed the boat, her concept of christianity would horrify Jesus. If the rapture happens she will be the one left behind, you and I, Question and father Bob will probably find ourselves sharing the same row of seats as we are whisked away to safety. In the book Boyd gives a lot of space to the homosexuality issue and he is by the way an evangelical preacher. His reasons for why this nation is not and should not be a Christian nation are different from mine, but at least we agree on the end point. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 4:52 PM:

" LOL. I do remember that, Tooner. "

ed miller wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:29 PM:

" The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:51 AM:
" ...enjoy thinking that anyone who disagrees with their dim, stupid little notions of cosmic truth is going to burn in a lake of fire forever. "

Wow, sounds more like a description of some of the liberals here, minus the the lake of fire thing.

I think the Bible is correct that choosing to engage in homosexual behavior is a sin. If you read about some of the illicit behavior in the O.T., it sounds like those people were basically gettin' it on with both sexes in big orgies. That type of behavior is definately wrong. I also think it's possible that some people are born attracted to the same physical sex. I certainly can't see how a man can look at another man's hairy behind and find that attractive, but maybe some can't help it. I watched a show once that showed just how similar males and females were brain wise. It seems possible to me that a person could be born one sex in the body of another. The program showed two identical twin boys. One was typical, but the other had Hello Kitty decor and like to play with Barbies. I can't see how this 9yr old kid consciously made those choices. To lead someone to Christ, it is not necessary to give them a check list of sins in their lives. I think most Christians mean well, some just come off the wrong way. Just welcome non-believers and any sins will be between them and God. That is why Jesus did not allow the men to stone the prostitute. He knew that no one was perfect enough to punish others for their sins. "

Rotty wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:57 PM:

" father bob, all I'm getting, when I try to go to that page, is: DB Error: unknown error - whatever the heck that means.
All of the comments seem to have disappeared - guess that's the local rag for ya.
LOL! "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:44 PM:

" Mr. Miller wrote that he thinks that "some Christians mean well.." I suspect that the Christians that supported slavery, the extermination of American Indians, the forcible removal of American Indian children from their homes to church run boarding schools.... meant well. A great deal of harm has been done over the centuries by those who "meant well" "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:00 PM:

" You can hate the sin- but Christ demands that you love the sinner.

So who among you is greater than Christ........? "

TrueBeliever wrote on Jun 18, 2008 9:11 PM:

" Jesus never taught that the job of his followers was to force their beliefs on others. He never taught that we were to take over and rule the world, the nation, or the state so we could make them do what we want them to do and keep them from doing what we do not want them to do. It's time Christians went back to being Christians instead of judges and punishers of those who disagree with them. We are not Islamist Taliban, so let us not take our examples from them. "

ed miller wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:04 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2008 8:44 PM:

" Mr. Miller wrote that he thinks that "some Christians mean well.." I suspect that the Christians that supported slavery, the extermination of American Indians, the forcible removal of American Indian children from their homes to church run boarding schools.... meant well. A great deal of harm has been done over the centuries by those who "meant well"

Nice try, but those were the policies of the government and society, not just Christians. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:31 PM:

" I don't see many Christians posting on here to talk about Jesus' views on tolerance

He also told Mary Magdeline, go your way and sin no more. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:35 PM:

" Take Mentally Handicapped people, how many of them do you know that are Homosexual> They all just think that it's wrong. Strange, isn't it, the people that we don't think that they know how to control their own feelings are the ones who most think it is wrong. "

The Question wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:38 PM:

" "Take Mentally Handicapped people, how many of them do you know that are Homosexual? They all just think that it's wrong. "
------
I see your point, Meds. You're saying that people who think homosexuality is wrong are mentally handicapped. Well, of course you're right. "

Mama says wrote on Jun 18, 2008 11:51 PM:

" I don't see what all fuss was about anyway. Whether man/woman, woman/woman, or man/man, I always think at my age WHAT A FOOL. hehe. I can say that as took the dive three times and stopped diving. At my age, contented having a dog, cat, and bird for full time company and they are always home, never complain about the cooking, never out of clothes, and always affectionate when I am ready. Hmmmm. Can't get any better than that. "

Mama says wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:01 AM:

" I am neither for or against same couple and treat all people as my preacher papa taught me years ago. I was not for treating people of different races nor religions differently. My papa did a fine job. I saw him visiting with the catholic priest back in 1950s and other religious leaders. I have held this same view for many years and showed my children by actions how they should treat others. We don't have always agree on everything, but great kindnesses reap kindness back. "

eiualum97 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:06 AM:

" Medic57 your comments are truly offensive. Also, every day on TV we see hetero couples kissing. Your ignorance is astounding. Bet you are still a die hard Bush backer too ! "

pj1983 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:18 AM:

" you're absolutely right, medic. you never see hetero couples in tv and movies anymore. it's all gay, gay, gay. except of course for 99% of movies and tv shows out there.and god forbid a show have a storyline about a gay person. if there is a "token gay person" it's always the best friend and not the main character. do you think gay people feel threatened when they see a hetero couple kissing onscreen? then why do the narrow minded freak when they see a gay couple up there? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:51 AM:

" Yes Mr. Miller, the government and non-Christians also participated. The point is that many have made the statements that "they know what is best for others", that "they have your best interests at heart" and far to many have foolishly/naively said "they meant well". People need to be held accountable for their words and their actions. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:21 AM:

" To shumphreys and other interested parties . . .

First, welcome back! I havent seen your screen name on here for a while. I know you said you were taking a sabbatical and I did too...for awhile. Glad youre back.

As coincidence would have it, I actually know Greg Boyd. He is the pastor of a church in northern St. Paul and I believe you are aware that I live in the Twin Cities. I have attended his church on occasion and he has quite a congregation. My wife reads a number of his books as well. I have not read the book you cite here but I guarantee it will go on my reading list.

I cannot go so far as to say who will or who will not go where in the rapture but if I were to share a row with you, fb, Q, etal, well, I've been in *worse* company. While I cannot come close to condoning the kind of behavior and post that prompted this discussion, in all fairness and trying to see the good...I will say that while amomoftwo is on the right track, I think she missed the right train. (How appropriate for Mattoona railroad analogy!) I think she is guilty of poor delivery due to being overzealous. That makes us come across as judgmental, pious, and you name the adjective. Even though I understand being overzealous, we Christians have to sometimes put the clutch in and coast for awhile. "

sapient wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:27 AM:

" To Medic 57: Jesus was tolerant to repentent people. And where does the Bible say that it was Mary Magdalene that Jesus told to "go and sin no more"? "

sapient wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:30 AM:

" If you want to see how nice and upstanding many of the gay community are watch one of their parades sometime and observe the obscene behavior that goes on. Please don't take your children however. "

The Question wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:39 PM:

" If you want to see how nice and upstanding many of the straight community are, watch one of their Homecoming parades sometime and observe the obscene behavior that goes on. Please don't take your children, however. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:56 PM:

" Hmmmm I don't think it was the gay community that was harassing the high school bands a few years ago at the EIU parades. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:12 PM:

" The Question - "....watch one of their Homecoming parades sometime and observe the obscene behavior that goes on..."

---------

Two things-

-What Homecoming parades have been attending?

-When is the next one? "

even steven wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:48 PM:

" I'm out of salt. Maybe I'll be able to scrape some off the pillars left around the nation. Well... probably not.

As this has absolutely no effect on my life, I don't care. I'll reserve my opinions for stuff that affects my life... like gas prices and theiving politicians that want me to pay more taxes. "

father bob wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:07 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 3:12 PM:
" The Question - "....watch one of their Homecoming parades sometime and observe the obscene behavior that goes on..."

---------

Two things-

-What Homecoming parades have been attending?

-When is the next one? "

we'll be watching for you and Tom Andres to swap some slobber. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:20 PM:

" fat-headbob - "we'll be watching for you and Tom Andres to swap some slobber."

----------

Now speedbumpBob- I've got nothing against you watching fella's swapping slobber (whatever turns your crank)- but you can count me out- BigGuy! "

father bob wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:34 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:20 PM:
" fat-headbob - "we'll be watching for you and Tom Andres to swap some slobber."

----------

Now speedbumpBob- I've got nothing against you watching fella's swapping slobber"""

i knew i had you two pegged right. thanks for the confirmation. "

father bob wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:36 PM:

" it's okay bryant, we won't look down on you announcing your coming out. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:07 PM:

" I had my suspicions about about Tom and Doh, and it was good to see Doh confirm them. Oh no, here goes a call to the monitor. (cool it, Tommy, it was a joke) LOL! "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:38 PM:

" fat-headBob- "it's okay bryant, we won't look down on you announcing your coming out."

------------

Sorry speedbump-Bob - I'm afraid you'll have to fly out of your closet solo-

And I'm not worried about you looking -down on me-

I'm worried about you looking - through my windows at me. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:42 PM:

" Harry Pooper- "I had my suspicions about about Tom and Doh, and it was good to see Doh confirm them."

------

uhm....Harry.....I think you're projecting your own little desires on to my words.............but that's cool..........you just swing whatever way the wind blows ya! "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:03 PM:

" Good to see that Bryant has finally acknowledged that he is really Doh. Feel better about coming out of the closet so to speak, Doh? It's OK, Doh, you can drop the Bryant name now. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 19, 2008 8:16 PM:

" Harry Pooper- " Good to see that Bryant has finally acknowledged that he is really Doh. Feel better about coming out of the closet so to speak, Doh? It's OK, Doh, you can drop the Bryant name now."

------

Not at all Mr. Pooper- you've refered to me as Doh so often- that it's a given who you mean.

By the way- what happened to your Dohbaugh tag........? "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:51 PM:

" Just asking...

I hear the argument in support of homosexual marriage is that "it's not about the children produced", "the freedom to love who ever" and "legal recognition".

So why isn't polygamy legal? Fair is fair then, isn't it?

Why not allow man/woman/man or man/woman/woman or man/woman/woman/woman/woman or whatever? In other words, what's the difference between a pair, two of a kind, three of a kind or a full house? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:08 AM:

" To M@H I just finished reading an interesting book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory Boyd

Who, by the way, is an Athiest. There's a shock. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:31 AM:

" Bet you are still a die hard Bush backer too ! "

Registered Democrtat.

Question -- How many Mentally Handicapped people do you know that lie, cheat opf steal?

They simply speak the truth and their minds. If you are fat, one will like to tell you that you are fat. Nop qualms about it. Same with homosexuality. They simply speak what they perceive to be true. They don't percieve Homosexuality to be true or right. They haven't been taught that, they just believe it. "

Just a Soldier wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:32 AM:

" I've said it once, and I'll say it again: We are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If gay people think being married will make them happy, they have equal right to make that mistake as the rest of us. Good luck to them! "

medic57 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:07 AM:

" Can a man and a man, or a woman and a woman have a biologial child together? If not, then the relationship is not natural. It's that simple "

really wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:13 AM:

" God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve...enuf said!!! "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:52 AM:

" " God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve...enuf said!!!
-----
Wow. Did you just make that up? Gosh, with a Noel Coward wit like that, you must be gay. "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:55 AM:

" (The mentally handicapped) simply speak what they perceive to be true.
-------
And what they perceive to be true ISN'T true, because they are mentally handicapped. "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:57 AM:

" Tell you what, Meds, from now on I'll cite scientists and psychologists on this topic, and you refute them with the views of the mentally handicapped, okay? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:05 AM:

" To Medic57 perhaps you should try reading books about opinions that are different from your own, it would help your credibility and broaden that narrow mind of yours. NeoCon Academician makes a good point about polygamy. It certainly isn't outlawed by the Bible, it was accepted as the reality. It was actually a humane way to insure that widows and orphans were cared for and not abandoned. It can be abused just as easily as anything else, the recent Mormon mess in Texas proves that. BUT people should recognize pedofiles for what they are and not assume all polygamysts are pedofiles anymore than they assume all homosexuals are pedofiles. Interesting question. I suspect they don't have a good lobby to support their cause. "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:20 AM:

" Ronnie Paris Jr., 21, of Tampa, Florida slapped his 3-year-old son in an effort to "prevent him from being gay" until the toddler fell into a coma and died.
Ronnie Paris would shake, wet himself and vomit as his father forced him into a box and repeatedly slapped him on the head in an effort to prevent him from being gay, the child's mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified. The boy was 3 years old when he died from swelling on both sides of the brain.
"He was trying to teach him how to fight," the boy's
aunt, Shanita Powell, told the court. "He was
concerned that the child might be gay." "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:14 AM:

" medic57 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:08 AM:

" To M@H I just finished reading an interesting book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory Boyd

Who, by the way, is an Athiest. There's a shock. "

We must be talking about two different Greg Boyds. The one to whom I refer is a very Christian pastor of a church in north St. Paul, MN - one where I have visited. I currently live in the Twin Cities - Minneapolis/St. Paul and I have MET this particular Greg Boyd. I have had conversations with him.

He is NOT an athiest. Not by anyone's stretch of the most decadent imagination. And if we're referring to the same Greg Boyd, your statement is unfounded and inexcusable.

If you're talking about a different Greg Boyd than the one I know, please let me know. Otherwise, that's a very strong accusation you've made about someone that could suffer great harm if that lie were perpetuated. I hope you have the facts to support your claim. To call a man like this particular Greg Boyd an athiest is libel of the worst kind.

Either we have two different Greg Boyds here or you have been seriously misinformed. "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:41 AM:

" I believe only in the traditional, biblical definition of marriage: one man and 700 wives, like Solomon. "

father bob wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:39 AM:

" NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:51 PM:
" Just asking...

I hear the argument in support of homosexual marriage is that "it's not about the children produced", "the freedom to love who ever" and "legal recognition".

So why isn't polygamy legal? Fair is fair then, isn't it?

no....and i have a daughter i really would like to sell into slavery. and i do love eating those sausage-egg-cheese biscuits. "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:22 PM:

" At the University of Georgia, researchers conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men. All of the men participating in the experiment considered themselves exclusively heterosexual. This study, published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Volume 105, No. 3, August 1996, described how each of the participants was shown sexually explicit heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes.
Sexual arousal for the homophobic and non-homophobic men was found to be similar when they viewed both the heterosexual and the lesbian sexual activity. However, when the two groups viewed the video of two men engaging in sexual behavior, a significant statistical difference arose. In this instance, the group of homophobic men showed a considerable increase in sexual arousal while the group of non-homophobic men did not. The implication of this study is that homophobia in men is a reaction to their own repressed homosexual urges.
So you men who rail on and on against gays should be aware that you're announcing to the world what your real feelings are. "

sapient wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:05 PM:

" TQ, that is the most ridiculous jibberish I've heard on this blog. It just shows that you can make things up to serve your purpose and we are all supposed to accept it as fact. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:42 PM:

" Q: I don't think an n of 64 makes the study significant. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:57 PM:

" sapient- "TQ, that is the most ridiculous jibberish I've heard on this blog. It just shows that you can make things up to serve your purpose and we are all supposed to accept it as fact."

-------

That's all that Herr Goebbels has ever done on this site.

well...that and give FatHead-Bob a much-needed moral boost whenever his special-ed comments get his butt in a sling.........it's what Libtards do... "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:10 PM:

" Q: Here's another scientific study I came across:

Recently, the University of Canberra conducted a study regarding the effects of mothers milk on lab rats. They took 1,000 newborn lab rats and force-fed them each one gallon of rats milk in one sitting. Of the 1,000 rats in the experiment, 996 exploded, three died before they had consumed the entire gallon and one rat leaked so badly it had to be destroyed.

This proves statistically, scientifically and conclusively that ingesting mothers milk causes immediate death 100% of the time. Conclusion: Mothers milk causes death. Breast feeding must be halted immediately! "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:22 PM:

" " TQ, that is the most ridiculous jibberish I've heard on this blog. It just shows that you can make things up to serve your purpose and we are all supposed to accept it as fact. "
-------
Well, it's published scientific data. You can look it up. And your discomfort underlines my point, sweetie. "

ed miller wrote on Jun 20, 2008 6:36 PM:

" Homophobic.

That's a funny word. If you do not like a certain race of people, then your are labled a racist or a bigot. If you do not agree with homosexuality, then you are "homophobic" or basically "afraid" of homosexuals or the behavior. By that logic, if I don't like cigarettes am I "Smokeaphobic"? Oh, and since I don't want to sign my whole paycheck over to the government and receive crappy healthcare, I must be "Obamaphobic". "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 7:34 PM:

" "Homophobic. That's a funny word. If you do not like a certain race of people, then your are labled a racist or a bigot."
-------
Well, duh. Yes, not liking people because of their race is pretty much the definition of racism, Ed. And "homophobic' describes a pathological hatred and fear of gay people, often harbored by men who themselves have strong, secret homosexual desires. That would include people like Sen. Larry Craig, the fascist J. Edgar Hoover, the vicious Roy Cohn and the Rev. Ted Haggerty, to name a few from an endless list.
Perhaps I should take Haggerty off the list, though. After being caught in his sex-and-drug scandal with a male prostitute, he instantly "cured his homosexuality" with the magic of Jay-EEE-suss-suss!
I must say, Republican bigots really crack me up at times. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:41 PM:

" Hey, Herr Question- would that be the same Jay-EEE-suss-suss! - that Barry Hussein Obama worships? "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:49 PM:

" shumphreys wrote:

It's obvious to me now that you MUST BE Christian and/or an Evangelical Christian. Why else would you hold these views concerning the Polygamist Mormon Sect in Texas? (Just getting you going).

I bet you are outraged too, and understandably so, when you watch the DATELINE NBC show "To Catch a Predator" and all these pedophiles are trying to make it with 12 and 13 yo girls?

But consider this. In many countries the age of consent (sexual consent for hetero sexual or homosexual and marriage) is far lower than Americas.

Just look at Europe. 13 is the age of consent in Spain. Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, Lithuania, Portugal, and Serbia have 14 at an age of consent. France along with a few others has the age of consent at 15.

It is as low as 12 in some African countries. I have heard of lower, but well just stop at 12 with Angola and Zimbabwe.

So if homosexual marriage is okay, why isnt polygamy okay? And why not pedophilia?

My point is this.

Where do we stop re-defining marriage? At homosexual marriage? At polygamy? At consent at 11 or 12? Where does it stop?

It has worked well until things like the pill and easy divorce was introduced in the 60s and 70s. So why mess with marriage now, because 5% feel left out? It's not a race, color, or creed thing.

I could cite Scandinavian stats that when CLOSELY looked at show that marriage rates there have gone up with the inclusion of domestic partnerships (de facto gay marriage), but first time hetero-marriage has declined significantly while family dissolution and out-of-wedlock birth rates have sky-rocketed, but I wont go there.

Marriage should be between a man and a woman and that's it, period. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:52 PM:

" father bob wrote:

no....and i have a daughter i really would like to sell into slavery. and i do love eating those sausage-egg-cheese biscuits. "

As always you provide high level incite. Thank you for your thoughts. "

The Question wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:58 PM:

" "As always you provide high level incite. Thank you for your thoughts. "
-----
I'm afraid you do the inciting, Neocon. Bob provides insight. "

2sense wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:59 PM:

" To Medic, I worked in the mentally handicapped community for sometime and I can't count the number of individuals I worked with that were gay or at least bisexual and had no qualms stating so on a fairly regualar basis, and these were high functioning, teenagers as well as adults. I think that your statement saying that mentally handicapped people all feel the same way on one subject is a wrong as lumping all christians into the same category. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even those with diminished capacity, and for you to say they all feel that way is just not right. Now I am not going to say that homosexuals should burn in hell for their sins, nor will I say that I agree with their behavior, but that's just it, it's their behavavior, their life and their eternity. I believe that's God's job to worry about where they will spend eternity. I am just glad it's not my job. Maybe if we all showed a little compassion toward one another instead of always putting someone on the chopping block people would look to christians as good people and not the Joke most take us for. We do it to ourselves and then can't understand why people think we believe in a false God. I am sometimes ashamed at what we've accomplished (read..not accomplished) for Christ. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:01 AM:

" The Question wrote:

I'm afraid you do the inciting, Neocon. Bob provides insight. "

Good, I hope that I do stir thought. Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Ah...yeah... fb's comment, no....and i have a daughter i really would like to sell into slavery. and i do love eating those sausage-egg-cheese biscuits does show his firm grasp of the argument. I expect no less from him.

I noticed your earlier post concerning parades; I wonder if you have ever attended a Gay Pride Parade, in perhaps say Chicago, or another metropolitan city that hosts such parades?

I TRULY SAW THE VALUE in these parades having been in the big city when such events were going on. There were floats explicitly depicting certain parts of the human body, parade revelers depicting nuns and priests in certain carnal acts, revelers in S and M bondage attire, and so on, I recall from memory. I found the parade shed such a favorable light on the community presenting the parade that I wish everyone that lives in this area could attend such an event. Don't forget to bring the kiddies, there's so much more wholesome-valued stuff with these parades its hard to put it all into words.

If you have, please, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the truly wholesome-valued, family-centered displays that go on with these parades. "

The Question wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:47 AM:

" You know, it's a funny thing. I would have thought a self-described "Academician" would have known the difference between the words "incite" and "insight." "

The Question wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:50 AM:

" Oh, and as for the gay pride parades, Academician, I'll just have to take your word for what they're like. You have apparently made an extensive study of them. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:26 PM:

" It sounds like Neo has more than just a passing interest in the whole gay issue. Hmmmm... "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 21, 2008 2:54 PM:

" To the Question,

Oh, I know the difference between insights and incite. In retrospect, I should have typed slower and thought faster with my post. My fault as haste makes waste.

I just thought I'd deny you the satisfaction of your flippant remark, I'm afraid you do the inciting, Neocon. Bob provides insight.

Thanks for responding again though. It helps establish my next point.

I find it all too often, with these blog posts, that when the issue at hand, especially as presented from folks on the right, can't be debated on the merits of the argument by those on the left, superficial "gotchas" like pointing out the mistake using incite instead of insight, is all too typical.

Oh, it happens on both sides, but as soon as righties quote facts or stats, as it has been my experience they are more likely to do, the superficial attacks begin and the issue at hand is never fully addressed.

As those on the right are often labeled judgmental by liberal standards, even though being a liberal from my observation means to have no standards applied to oneself, and since you noted issue with community parades, I felt it necessary to point out the fine display that occurs with Gay Pride Parades, a staple occurrence in large cities, the established havens for liberals, AND you obviously being judgmental concerning community parades.

Yes, I am well versed of these GP parades having HAD TO experience a few of their occurrences.

So, let me provide you a BENIGN enlighten of what goes on with these Parades.

Go to Google, click images, and then type in Chicago gay Pride Parade or Gay Pride Parade or Gay Day Parade.

Since Google censors the truly delightful images, you won't get the full flavor of these parades.

And with you, apparently a liberal type, I encourage you to attend on of these parades. I think Chicago's parade is coming up next week.

Darn, I'm going to have to miss that one.

You know, I always wondered why TV news stations never fully covered these parades.

After you attend, maybe you can enlighten as to why there is a lack of TV news coverage.

AND REMEMBER, be sure to bring the kiddies! "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 21, 2008 6:57 PM:

" To 2Sense, good comments it is too bad the "children" on this sight seem to end up calling each other names (oops I did it too!) and fretting about parades. What does a parade have to do with the basic human right to marry whomever you wish? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Gee, neo, so now your encouraging others to check out your hobby? Again, you seem to have more than a passing fancy regarding this subject. "

The Question wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:06 PM:

" Boy, the game Larry Craig played.
Toe taps made headlines in PARADE.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days.
Though we denied who we were then - guys loathed gals and men liked men.
Mister, we could use a man like Ronnie R.eagan again.
Happy with the corporate welfare state.
Everybody shared the weight.
Gee, that old propaganda was great.
Those were the days. "

The Question wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:15 PM:

" Parades? You're worried about parades, Neo?
Maybe, if vicious religious fanatics and Nazis had spent the last thousand years or so trying to imprison and murder people like you, you might go a little wild, too, if you ever got the chance to have a parade. Did that ever occur to you? "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 22, 2008 1:47 AM:

" Harry Potter wrote:
It sounds like Neo has more than just a passing interest in the whole gay issue. Hmmmm... "

On dearest Harry. Thank you for exposing my deepest secret. Now you and I can publicly announce our affection for one another. Shall we post it on all the blogs here? Please let's do.

As I know you are attending the parade next weekend in Chicago, where should we elope to, California or to Massachusetts, to legalize our relationship?

As I know you've always wanted to wear a white dress, I'll wear the tux with matching tie and cumberbun to your dress.

My heart's all awaiting your reply! "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 22, 2008 11:38 AM:

" Sorry Neo, I go for the opposite gender, but I heard the guy who posts as Bryant L might be interested. You two might have more than just right wing politics in common. Besides that, he thinks he's an intellectual too.

I'm glad you took my advice and finally came out of the closet. I'm sure you'll feel better about yourself.

If you don't want to contact him thru this site, you can hang around WalMart. I heard he works the third shift there. Just watch for the gasbag carrying on about the Iraq war.

Good luck! "

Neocon Academician wrote on Jun 22, 2008 11:47 AM:

" The Question wrote:
Maybe, if vicious religious fanatics and Nazis had spent the last thousand years or so trying to imprison and murder people like you, you might go a little wild, too, if you ever got the chance to have a parade. Did that ever occur to you? "

Oh I see! So 1 wrong + 1 wrong = 1 right? Now I understand "liberal morality". Got it!

As for the relgious fanaticism alluded to with all these posts concerning Christians, churches are FULL OF SINNERS. That's why they go, to look for some kind of absolution and recompense. I realize that's deplorable to you all, but who are you to judge since Christians aren't to judge? There are SELF-Righteous in Christianity. Just like their are SELF-Righteous in certain communities that put on the GP parades where absolutely all decorum goes out the window, well, solely because they are "liberal".

Living in the "big city" we would literally try to leave town so as not to have to experience the debauchery. I've yet to see anything since that excedes such displays with these parades.

So, yes shumpherys, debating the parade issue is relevant to the issue. As for your statement "with the basic human right to marry whomever you wish?", since 2 states and a couple of countries in Europe are allowing the gender line to be crossed, in all seriousness, why not polygamy, or even inter-species?

NOBODY here on the liberal side has addressed it.

I love my dog. Why can't I be married to it? There's already much legality set-up for people's pets because they love them so much. A case in point, the late Leona Helmsly left millions of $$$ for the caring of her pet. If it's a disease issue concerning the pet, we have drugs to take care of the those diseases, don't we?

Oh, I know, that's all non-sense. But why is it nonsense?

Harry Potter, please report back your experiences with the GPP in Chicago next weekend since you are already going to be there investigating my "hobby". Let us all know about the wholesomeness of the event, would you please? Take plenty of pictures!

Sorry I just don't see it. There's no logic to you alls arguments concerning the blog topic at hand, gay marriage.

Your arguments are completely emotionally based, not logically based. It appears your effort is to build more complexity in to our society, leading to more decisions being made based upon nothing but emotion, not less complexity. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 22, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Harry Potter wrote, "Sorry Neo, I go for the opposite gender, but I heard the guy who posts as Bryant L might be interested. You two might have more than just right wing politics in common. Besides that, he thinks he's an intellectual too. I'm glad you took my advice and finally came out of the closet. I'm sure you'll feel better about yourself." If you don't want to contact him thru this site, you can hang around WalMart. I heard he works the third shift there. Just watch for the gasbag carrying on about the Iraq war.

Harry have I misconstrued the way you so cutely and incessantly retort to my posts as affection?

But the way you say the phrase "came out of the closet" implies there's something wrong that needed to be hidden.

The phrase "hang around WalMart" implies gay relationship can't be established through conventional practices.

And saying something like "I'm sure you'll feel better about yourself" connotes some psychological/mental/biological abnormality.

Well, there you have it. It's obvious.

HARRY POTTER IS HOMOPHOBIC!

By the way, thanks once again for proving my point.

As for "thinks he's an intellectual too." I am QUITE SURE of the rigor that was involved with my credentials. Nevertheless, thanks for the compliment. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 22, 2008 3:25 PM:

" The one legality for marriage is consent, animals can't consent. As to polygamy I already addressed that issue earlier when people were talking a bit more seriously. The parade issue has nothing to do with legal rights to marriage. Gay parades may offend you, just as unruly homecoming parades offend others, but again that isn't about legal marriage rights. The problem with these online "chats" is that they so quickly degenerate to name calling and silly foolishness. What a waste. I think some of you need to get a more productive hobby, something that might actually be constructive and instructive. "

The Truth wrote on Jun 22, 2008 3:52 PM:

" The Truth is, if you believe what the Bible says, God hates gays. Jesus hates gays. If you believe what the bible teaches, if God and Jesus hate gays, you will hate them too. They are disgusting, and deserve to die, and that's what is going to happen to them when God bring his judgment to this wicked earth. Those who support them will perish along with them. What a great day that will be! Those peverted individuals will get exactly what they deserve - divine judgement and death. They are sickening and deserve it. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 22, 2008 6:59 PM:

" To The Truth . . . please state chapter and verse where the Bible states God or Jesus hates gays. I'll be waiting to see that . . . . . "

Rotty wrote on Jun 22, 2008 9:09 PM:

" I'll throw in a kicker here, that nobody has brought up.
LOL!
How about a mnage trois relationship?
It's generally defined as a married couple and another lover.
Now, what if each partner wanted a piece of the action, so to speak?
Where does it go from there?
LOL! "

The Question wrote on Jun 22, 2008 9:23 PM:

" The ugly Momoftwo. The ugly Truth. Yes, Christianity is just a real hotbed of enlightenment, isn't it? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 22, 2008 10:42 PM:

" Harry Potter- "Sorry Neo, I go for the opposite gender, but I heard the guy who posts as Bryant L might be interested."
-------
The gay accusation seems to be your standard retreat when you've ran out of any ideas for an intellectual retort- doesn't it Harry P.

I think The Questions Univ of Georgia experiment is right- it looks like you're really a repressed homosexual- now we know why you're sooooo obsessed with Rush Limbaugh...it all fits together rather nicely....huh...... "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:57 AM:

" Boy, talk about ungrateful. I was just trying to help you and Neo out. Was that anyway to show your gratitude?

And good idea, Rotty. Perhaps ed miller or gringa is available to join those two. LOL!

And it was good to see you give TQ credit. Most of the stuff he posts you either ignore or try to spin it away, but never disprove.

And speaking of that particular experiment, it seems like you're the one who usually brings up the gay issue. hmmmm...Your accusations, and Neo's obsessions speak volumes about the both of you and your true feelings. Funny, I would think you guys would see that, especially Neo, who seems to think he's some sort of an intellectual. "

The Question wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:59 AM:

" The brilliant George Carlin has died. Here are some of his thoughts on religion.
"Religion has convinced people that theres an invisible man living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesnt want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:25 AM:

" Harry Pooper- "And it was good to see you give TQ credit."

-Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-----
Harry Pooper- "Most of the stuff he posts you either ignore or try to spin it away, but never disprove."

-You mean like his CIA source who said that Saddam actually did have 500 tons of CW?

-Or his use of the phony DownSyndrome Memo as "credible" evidence of "manipulated Intel"?

-Or his inability to prove that Bush lied about Saddams attept to aquire uranium- when the original Intel source (Britian) still stand by their claim?

-Or his inability to explain why Saddam was using the Oil For Food scam to ramp up his Dual-Use WMD programs?

-Or his inability to explain why the U.N. had to create 16 different Resolutions for Saddams disarmament- Or why Saddam refused to corroperate?

-Or his inability to discredit Saddams own documents that verify his camouflaged connections to Al Qaeda?

-Or his refusal to acknowledge The CIA's Reports To Congress that clearly stated that Saddam was a potential and serious threat?

-Or maybe his inability to explain how Jay Rockefeller's latest Senate Intel Report actually verifies that the threat that Saddam posed was valid- and how the report is lacking any new, much less, real evidence to the contrary?

Is that whtt you're talking about Dohbaugh?

hmmmmmm.......? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:28 AM:

" Question- " The brilliant George Carlin has died. Here are some of his thoughts on religion."
--------
Welcome George, to the next world of.........nothingness.

You are officially- Dust In The Wind

All you are is dust in the wind........ "

father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:53 AM:

" The Truth wrote on Jun 22, 2008 3:52 PM:
" The Truth is, if you believe what the Bible says, God hates gays. Jesus hates gays. If you believe what the bible teaches, if God and Jesus hate gays, you will hate them too. They are disgusting, and deserve to die, and that's what is going to happen to them when God bring his judgment to this wicked earth. Those who support them will perish along with them. What a great day that will be! Those peverted individuals will get exactly what they deserve - divine judgement and death. They are sickening and deserve it. "

spoken like a real J. Edgar Hoover. "

father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:59 AM:

" SIMPLY BRILLIANT!.....i knew there was an answer! god moved the WMD's and is going to use them on all the muslims!!

how perfect is that??? "

father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:01 AM:

" oh, and i forgot...all the GAY muslins get killed twice.

pass the popcorn guys! "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:05 AM:

" George Carlin was indeed brilliant. I enjoyed his routines and his books immensely. I was fortunate to have been in the fourth row of one of his concerts years ago. I share his love of the English language as something that can be cause for humor a lot of times.

But George Carlin a theologian? George Carlin a viable source on heaven and hell? But George Carlin, who (if the quotes on this thread are accurate) had a misconception of God, I have trouble seeing as one I would cite regarding religion.

But that's just me. "

father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:06 AM:

" hey BL...maybe god will use his WMDs of some of the mexicans too while he's at it. especially the gay mexicans. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:46 AM:

" fatherbob- "hey BL...maybe god will use his WMDs of some of the mexicans too while he's at it. especially the gay mexicans."
-----------
God willing, there will be no WMD's ever used. And certainly not on Mexicans or "gay" Mexicans..... "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:05 AM:

" The Truth- "The Truth is, if you believe what the Bible says, God hates gays. Jesus hates gays. If you believe what the bible teaches, if God and Jesus hate gays, you will hate them too."
---------
Uhm....Truth.....what Bible are you reading...?

This is how Jesus taught us to pray:

"...forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one. If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.
But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions........" - Matthew 6:12-15 "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 23, 2008 11:59 AM:

" BL - I appreciate that you have jumped in here with your take on The Truth's erroneous statements however forgiveness is not the answer to defending his position that God hates homosexuals.

I'm still waiting for The Truth to cite the actual scriptures from where he gets this idea where God and Jesus hate homosexuals.

We probably won't see The Truth on this thread again. Most of those who quote the Bible don't come back when they're challenged to cite specific scripture. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Mattooner at Heart- "forgiveness is not the answer to defending his position that God hates homosexuals"
--------
My point was this MaH: It's irrelevant who Truth, you, or I, believe God does or doesn't hate. We all are commanded to forgive one another of any perceived wrong. God takes care of the judgement of souls- we are simply not qualified. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:16 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier It's irrelevant who Truth, you, or I, believe God does or doesn't hate.

In principle, you and I are in agreement on this. I understand what you are saying here and that is that God doesnt really need our input to help Him make up his mind about anything - and I completely agree.

However, I would submit to you that God doesnt actually hate anyone. I would, instead, submit that God is strongly against certain behavior, choices, attitudes and thoughts that we do, select, adopt and think, but he is able to separate the difference between the person and the act or thought.

God takes care of the judgement of souls- we are simply not qualified. Although sometimes I think that I am Gods chosen representative sent to pass judgment on everyone except myself, I have to realize that Im not. Like you said I dont have the qualifications. But boy, if I did . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:33 PM:

" (CNN) -- School administrators in Ohio voted Friday to begin the process of firing a middle school teacher accused of burning a cross into a student's arm and refusing to keep his religious beliefs out of the classroom.

The Mount Vernon School Board passed a resolution to terminate the employment of John Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher for the past 21 years.

Freshwater, according to an independent report, used an electrostatic device to mark a cross on the arm of one of his students, causing pain to the student the night of the incident and leaving a mark that lasted for approximately 3 weeks.

According to the Ohio Department of Education, the student's family has filed a lawsuit.

Freshwater was also reprimanded several times for refusing to move his Bible from his classroom desk and teaching creationism alongside evolution, according to the 15-page independent report. The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."

The Board of Education of the Mount Vernon City School District met in special session Friday to address the case.

Freshwater has the option to contest the process by requesting a formal hearing before the Board of Education. Neither Freshwater nor his attorney could be reached by CNN for comment. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 3:12 PM:

" Mattooner at Heart- "However, I would submit to you that God doesnt actually hate anyone. I would, instead, submit that God is strongly against certain behavior, choices, attitudes and thoughts that we do, select, adopt and think, but he is able to separate the difference between the person and the act or thought."
----------
I couldn't agree more MaH.
In fact it has been said that God is madly in love with us. So much so, in fact, that he sent his only Son to deliver his invitation to Life-together while we were still broken, hateful, and oblivious to our need. Christ draws us to Him with mercy, forgiveness, and love. Not fear, hate, and anger. We need no further evidence of this, then when he said in his final agonizing hours on the cross: "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do." "

The Truth wrote on Jun 23, 2008 5:30 PM:

" I think it is more fun to have self-righteous ones find the scriptures for themselves. I am very confident in my beliefs. God hates homosexuals. Jesus hates homosexuals. They will not get everlasting life. Show me a scripture that says homosexuality IS okay. You won't find it. You guys are so easy, so fun to spin up! How many more days will you comment on something that you know nothing about? My guess is, many. I'll just keep throwing things your way, you will get mad, and respond. I am proud of my stand. And for it I will live. You all will suffer God's wrath. Thanks for the memories! "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 5:41 PM:

" The Truth- "You all will suffer God's wrath. Thanks for the memories!'

------
Father, forgive him; he knows not what he does. "

Rotty wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:32 PM:

" I wish we could have seen George Carlin in concert.
He was a great performer.
I've seen most of his shows, & read his books as well.
One may not have agreed with his beliefs & positions, but he did make one think about things a bit more.
He would never be status quo.
I'd vote for him, in a heartbeat.

Truely a sad day indeed, learning of his passing. We will miss him deeply.

RIP George Carlin "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:28 PM:

" Well Mr. (or Ms.) Truth, I have to hand it to you in one regard you certainly made judicious use of your time by not wasting it looking for scripture to back your claim of God hating homosexuals. I dont know what you did instead, but whatever it was, it had to be more fruitful that looking for stuff in the Bible that doesnt exist. Just for the record, I didnt spend any time trying to Show me (you) a scripture that says homosexuality IS okay. as you suggested. That was for the same reason it doesn't exist.

But Im not going to worry about my failure to find scripture stating homosexuality is okay. I didnt make that claim so theres nothing for me to back up or to prove. You, on the other hand DID make the claim that God hates homosexuals yet conveniently chose NOT to back it up which I must say was a good move on your part.

But just for the sake of sport and because Ive got a few minutes lets just say that what you claim is true that God DOES hate homosexuals. That presents quite a dilemma. It produces a dilemma because of where it naturally leads. Im sure you would agree that a homosexual is one who engages in homosexuality and Im sure you would agree that homosexuality is a sin hence your claim that God hates homosexuals. Stop me any time if I draw a conclusion that is not correct.

#####IMPORTANT#####
SIDE NOTE: Please folks, lets not get into a debate over whether or not homosexuality is or isnt a sin right now its not germane to this discussion here. If you want to debate homosexuality as a sin, lets wait until later. Just sit back and enjoy this one on me.
####################

Given that homosexuality is a sin and God makes no distinction among sins, I must assume youd also agree that God hates murderers, rapists, armed robbers, child abusers, those who commit domestic assault, etc. since all of those acts are sins in Gods eyes. Let me stop here and make sure of something you DO agree that all these acts are sin and sin is sin in the eyes of God, dont you? If not, explain Romans 6:23 NOT singling out which sins lead to eternal condemnation but simply stating sin.

And since ALL sin leads to eternal condemnation, then I guess Im doomed, too. Im not perfect. I sin. My understanding is that everyone does. And since everyone sins (I dont know about YOU) and all sin is sin to God, homosexuality is a sin and God hates homosexuals, I guess God hates us all, huh? That kills the whole God is Love thing, doesnt it?

But lets say that my logic is flawed and God hates homosexuals and doesnt hate any other kind of sinner. (Yeah, try explaining THAT one.) If this is true, then we have a completely different problem. You see, for God to hate homosexuals would mean that God has gone against his own teaching and against his own character and you and I know that is impossible. (Or at least I know that.)
If God hated homosexuals, then He would be a respecter of persons, preferring one person or type of person over or above another. But he doesnt at least He doesnt according to Acts 10:34. You have some other kind of Bible that says differently?

So you must be kidding someone. I know youre not kidding me so it must be that youre kidding yourself. If youre right and God hates homosexuals, either He hates all sinners (you and me included) or he has singled out homosexuality as the one sin he cannot and will not tolerate. Oops! That cant be the case either since the Bible lists SIX things that God hates. Thats in Proverbs 6:16-19 and I dont see any reference to God hating homosexuality more than any other sin or homosexuals any more than any other sinner you and me included. But you read into it what you will and Im sure youll read SOMETHING into it.

Oh . . . I guess weve kinda worked our way into a corner here. In order for the claim that God hates homosexuals to be valid, either a) God lied (all sin is NOT all sin), b) God lied (He IS a respecter of persons), or c) God lied. (He actually hates MORE than what He says He hates.) Ill let YOU decide which it is because just like Gods view of sin I cant tell the difference between the choices.

God hates homosexuality but he doesnt hate the homosexual. Theres a difference. Embrace it.

However Proverbs 6:16-19 DOES say that God hates a man who stirs up dissension among brothers. Know anybody like that?

Let me finish responding to your post . . . .

You guys are so easy - I dont know how easy you think I (we) am (are) but evidently were not that easy. At least one of us is able to see the difference between homosexuality and a homosexual. God is able to see the difference, too. Believing God hates homosexuals is equating the person with the behavior. Even non-Christian counselors tell us not to do THAT!

How many more days will you comment on something that you know nothing about? My guess is, many. How many more days will I comment on something I know nothing about? None. I try to stay away from commenting on something I know nothing about. This is not one of those topics, however.

I'll just keep throwing things your way Keep throwing stuff like this my way I enjoy debunking it. Its like fishing or hunting it's a sport. But it doesnt make me mad. Actually after I got over the initial disbelief at what you wrote, I kinda chuckled.

I wonder if Apostasy Debunking can become an Olympic Sport?????? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 23, 2008 7:52 PM:

" father bob wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:33 PM: "School administrators in Ohio voted Friday to begin the process of firing a middle school teacher accused of burning a cross into a student's arm and refusing to keep his religious beliefs out of the classroom."

To fb, Q, shumphries, HP, B etal:

I can't keep it up! I'm exhausted! I can't go on trying to defend the indefensible. I can't go on trying to exonerate Christians and separate them from the stupid things we do!

If I'm not rebutting an angry hate-filled Bible quoter claiming God hates homosexuals, I'm trying to tell people not to judge Christianity by idiots who burn crosses in kids' arms!

If I'm not chastising a Christian for applying Christian judgement to a non-Christian, I'm begging them not to keep telling everyone they're going to he11.

By no means do I think I'm the chosen one to set the world straight - I'm not and I can't - I'm not smart enough - but I DO know there's a difference in what Jesus preached and what I keep reading on here. And I just can't let God and Jesus look like the idiots they're portrayed to be by some people claiming the faith.

No offense meant but if fb, Q, sh, HP, etc. posts something that portrays God or Jesus as less than what they really are, I can tolerate that. You guys are people who don't believe in Christianity. I can't expect you to do anything else. -Again, no offense meant.

But friends - and I'm beginning to think fb, Q, sh HP, etc. are my ONLY friends out here - as Madeline Kahn said in her role in Blazing Saddles . . . . "Let's face it boys . . . I'm p00ped!

DISCLAIMER: The opinions of the bible-thumping, venom spewing, hate-filled hypocrites claiming Christianity while belittling those who are admittedly non-Christian are not necessarily those of God, Jesus Christ or Christianity in general.

M@H "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:24 PM:

" M@H- Chill. You're taking this whole blog entirely too seriously.

The greater lesson here is that human compassion towards individuals in a minority group- such as homosexuals- transcends religious barriers- whether Atheist, Christian, or other. And ironically- that in itself is very Christ-like, as the Lord so vividly demonstrated to us in the parable of the Good Samaritan. And for that we should all be thankful. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:51 AM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:24 PM: "M@H- Chill. You're taking this whole blog entirely too seriously."

I appreciate your concern and 99 out of 100 times I do respond to these posts in a rather calm (for me) manner. This particular one got me going because not only did The Truth state something that is blatantly incorrect, he did so under the guise of Christianity then judged non-Christians under false doctrine.

If that wasn't enough, he reiterated his flawed position, refused to back it up by citing his sources, reiterated his point was valid and then judged you and me for what WE were doing and saying.

Now I don't really LIKE being judged by another Christian regarding my Christianity - not that I'm perfect but that we all have room to grow - but I can handle it and sometimes it is deserved. However, I DO mind when the judgement comes from flawed doctrine that is simply and blatantly false and that misrepresents God and His Word.

There are people on this thread - by the way, whom I do like and respect - who are not Christian who will jump all over this kind of false teaching - and well they should. They see things like this as a mark of Christianity and it's NOT. It's a mark of CHRISTIANS but not of Christianity. But when this kind of stuff happens, their points are generally well taken.

I'm trying to at least set the record straight that God is not a hater of anyone and for someone to make the claim that He hates homosexuals and then claim we're all going to burn like bacon on an ignored skillet is reprehensible and just gives my friends more ammunition. I'm trying to show that God is a pretty decent guy (being) but some of my fellow Christians keep setting me back with their judgement of non-Christians and complete misrepresentation of the Bible.

I will now chill. M@H "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:30 PM:

" To M@H when the going gets tough I remind myself of what Tolkien wrote, (I paraphrase) "it isn't ours to master all the tides of this world but to do what is in use, in the times that we are set, to uproot evil in the field so that we can leave clean earth to till for those that come after." People like "Truth", "A Mom of Two", and many others will concinue to use religion as a tool to promote fear and hate and we can't stop them. BUT by speaking out when ever they spout off we can show that there are a few (and unfortunately far too few) out there that believe differently. There will also always be some that condemn all Christians, all Muslims, for the sin of a few but again every time they spout off we also need to speak up and show that there are a few (all though far too few) that think differently. "

Myopinion wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:51 PM:

" After doing some research in the Scriptures, this is my opinion, and the opinion of our Creator, if you believe in the bible. If you do not believe in the bible, then this information does not apply to you, since your job as atheiests is to bury your head in the sand. If after reading my research you still believe that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible, then it is to your detriment. The scriptures are clear.

While many people have changed their view and others are undecided, the Bibles viewpoint is crystal clear: You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing, states the Bible. (Leviticus 18:22, The New Jerusalem Bible) No apologies, no concessions, no ambiguityhomosexuality is detestable in Gods sight. For ancient Israelites living under the Mosaic Law, the penalty was death. (Leviticus 20:13) And with the advent of Christianity, Gods condemnation of homosexuality continued.1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.

But why is God so adamantly opposed to it? One reason is stated at Isaiah 48:17: I am God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. Those words come from the Author of the universal laws of nature. He knows our physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual makeup. He opposes homosexuality because, among other things, it does not benefit the individual. A review of the apostle Pauls letter to Christians living in Rome confirms this. He wrote:
That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error. And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.Romans 1:26-28.

Note, homosexuality is called not only disgraceful, obscene, and not fitting but also contrary to nature. Regarding these verses, a report from the Church of England says: What Paul means by unnatural is unnatural to mankind in Gods creation pattern. All homosexual behaviour is a divergence from Gods creation scheme. Anthropologist Weston LaBarre called it a frustration of ones own and others essential biological nature. This concurs with the meaning of the Greek word used in the Bible and translated natural or, according to nature.

It is no surprise that any divergence from Gods creation scheme reaps bad results (as mans miserable record with the environment has shown). Homosexuals receive in themselves the full recompense, which is due for their error. In other words, their life becomes a life of unnatural sexual aberration; hence, a life devoid of Gods approval. In addition, they may suffer physical harm because of their perversions.

Paul also says that homosexuals would be violently inflamed [literally, burned out] in their lust toward one another. While wrong thinking can fan wrong desires even in heterosexual relations, it seems that with the anticipation of depraved sexual relations, the wanton lust burns even stronger. A Perilous Double Love Life, an article published in Newsweek magazine, said: Men and women bisexuals alike often talk of the intense arousal, the different energy they experience with their own sex. James remembers it as being like sky diving. It was intoxicating, a high. Being thus inflamed, many homosexuals have multiple partners (some have hundreds), and for some their compulsion drives them to have sex many times a day, even with complete strangers. This promiscuity not only leads to communicable diseases, such as hepatitis, but fosters jealousy, insecurity, and unhappiness, even as it does in promiscuous heterosexual relationships.

Once a person submits to covetous sexual appetite, he can become enslaved. (1 Thessalonians 4:5) To what extent? Referring to AIDS, one homosexual admitted: Even faced with a miserable, awful death, the sex drive is a strong drive. This calls to mind the Bibles warning: Do not let sin continue to rule as king in your mortal bodies that you should obey their desires.Romans 6:12.
Since sexual immorality is based largely on self-gratification, it often leads to more debased acts. And fallen human nature being what it is, once an act becomes commonplace, its excitement tends to wane. Thus, some homosexuals have gone on to sadomasochism and other vile practices. One Bible commentary says that the effect of such base and unnatural passions . . . tended to debase the mind; to sink man below the level of the brute; to destroy the sensibility. A Bible scholar grouped homosexuality with crimes, which were utterly inconsistent with reason, nature, and their own and each others welfare.

We can be grateful that God does not change his standards just to satisfy the passing fancies or perverted desires of men. Even as he does not approve of polluting the earth or of lying simply because more people want to do it, so he does not condone homosexuality though many espouse it with zeal. No matter what course men promote, God wants us to honor him and benefit ourselves.

Either you believe what the scriptures say or you don't. God hates the homosexual act (not the person). Anyone who thinks contrary might want to review his Bible thoroughly. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 24, 2008 3:58 PM:

" Myopinion- "If after reading my research you still believe that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible, then it is to your detriment."
-------

Well, I was never saying that homosexuality and Christianity were "compatible".

I was simply stating that Christ tells us to hate the sin- but to love the sinner.

After all, lying, cheating, stealing, drunkenness, arrogance, hatred, racism, adultery, greed, gossip, selfishness, cursing, and a whole array of human characteristics are "incompatible" with Christianity.

If we were to hate everyone who is guilty of these sins - we would never stop hating ourselves.

But then- maybe that's the problem with some of you. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:02 PM:

" WHEW! Myopinion had me on the edge of my seat there for awhile. I was afraid he was going to side with The Truth and amomoftwo, etc. by saying God hates homosexuals - but he didn't, thank God.

Myopinion - you have obviously studied the scripture diligently, showing thyself approved and rightfully dividing as we're supposed to do. That was some very good and interesting insight.

I don't recall seeing your handle on here before - but I miss a lot - but all I can tell you is get ready . . . I predict you are in for some real interesting responses. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:07 PM:

" To shumphreys: Thanks for the encouragement (I think - at least I'm taking it in the spirit of encouragement).

I realize "by speaking out when ever they spout off we can show that there are a few (and unfortunately far too few) out there that believe differently" but it's exhausting speaking out over and over and over again for the same cr4p that gets slung around in the name of God.

I don't get it - I mean I really don't get it - how in the world can you win someone to your side - regardless of what side that is - by beating them down telling them they're going to he11?

I'll never understand. If I didn't know better, I wouldn't be too excited about giving myself over to a god that was reflected in THEIR attitudes and statements.

Oh well . . . . . . . . .
Thanks. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:26 PM:

" M@H- "..how in the world can you win someone to your side - regardless of what side that is - by beating them down telling them they're going to he11?"
-------

That's what happens, M@H- when "Christians" try to "win" someone to their side; as opposed to living a life that draws someone to Christ's side. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:44 PM:

" To My Opinion as Mr. Lamphier stated, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, divorce, drunkenness, arrogance, hatred, racism, greed, gossip, selfishness, cursing, etc. are all abominations, in "Gods" eyes. Homosexuality by the way is not contrary to nature, for some, and even for some animals. AND that is a fact. Even the writers of the Bible show their fear and prejudice and homophobia in their statements. I think it would be better to try to separate out what was really "God's word" and what was inserted or proclaimed by men to be "Gods word". Since it is obvious that not everything written in the Bible is absolute TRUTH. How do you know what is true and what isn't? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:58 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 4:44 PM: "...the writers of the Bible show their fear and prejudice and homophobia in their statements."

Where are the statements about prejudice and homophobia?

If it's prejudice against homosexuality you're talking about - yes they are, but no more or no less than lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, divorce, drunkenness, arrogance, hatred, racism, greed, gossip, selfishness, cursing, etc.

I'm curious about the prejudice against homosexuals or the homophobia part. Where is this fear again? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:06 PM:

" To M@H they aren't interested, "in winning anyone to their side". In my book I mentioned in some chapter that people are driven by fear and self-interest. When you understand that you can begin to understand "Truth" and others. I also think that those with the greatest doubts about their beliefs feel the most threatened by those who don't have doubts about their beliefs, especially when those beliefs are so very different from their own. How do people handle their fears, some seek solace in a higher authority, some seek vengence, the self righteous seek proof of their superiority--raptures, hope that the other will end up you know where! "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:32 PM:

" To M@H I don't know why the writers of the Bible were homophobic/fearful. But they really weren't any different than folks to day--driven by the same needs, desires, fears, dreams and hopes. A phobia is an irrational fear, not based on fact, good sense or common sense. Calling something an abomination that is purely natural, the way "God made them", seems to me to be irrational fear, not based on fact, good sense or common sense. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:10 PM:

" shumphreys- "How do you know what is true and what isn't?"
--------
For me- it's the traditional teachings of my Church.

How do you know what is true and what isn't in your own beliefs? "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 24, 2008 6:32 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:32 PM: "To M@H I don't know why the writers of the Bible were homophobic/fearful."

I'm sorry - I wasn't very clear on my question to you . . . the question wasn't WHY the authors of the Bible were homophobic, the question was supposed to be "where do you find in the scripture the evidence that they were homophobic?"

What did they write and where did they write it that would lead one to believe they were homophobic.

My fault on the ambiguity of the question. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:42 PM:

" Mr. Lamphier I searched for the commonalities.I was interested in finding out what similarities we had not what differences we had. By we, I mean humans with different religious beliefs. I found that common thread and I figured if it appeared in the teachings of all the great religions, in the writings of some of the worlds greatest thinkers, that it must be true. Then, through my experiences, I have found that it is true. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:59 PM:

" To M@H that is what I answered. By declaring something that is natural, unnatural and an abomination, is the sign of irrational fear/phobia. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 25, 2008 1:22 AM:

" To shumphreys,

Sorry I could not reply sooner.

Life got in the way of writing on this blog the past couple of days. Its probably why I cant sleep now.

I agree with your argument though from Jun 22, 2008 3:25 PM concerning "the legality for marriage is consent".

I see two sides to consent. One being private consent and the other being public consent.

As for what people do in private, thats their business. If they consent to an arrangement, they consent to the arrangement. That is why I argue that two people's private legal arrangements are their business as long as their private legal arrangements do not have public consequences.

There is, however, that issue of public consent. I was hoping the dialog, at the time, would get to public consent. As always the dialog goes off on a tangent though.

People in public should not have to witness, nor partake of poor actions at either a homecoming parade or gay pride parade. These actions had public consequences. Thats why I bit at The Questions post concerning the parades.

Gay marriage has public consequences relative to child bearing, public health, and obviously societal and religious implications, etc. As for societal, as I believe I mentioned before, in Scandinavia, gay marriage actually increased the overall rate of marriage, but first time hetero-marriage declined while family dissolution, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, increased significantly. Thats just one instance.

So there you have it private and public consent.

As for the religious aspect, considering Myopinions nicely done post, from what I have read concerning the early church during the time of the Christ, the disciples, and the writers of the Bible, homosexuality was fairly commonplace, and pederasty, or what we might consider pedophilia today, was apparently pretty commonplace too. Thats why I brought that up in an earlier post.

Its true the word homosexual is not used in the Bible even as both the Romans and Greeks had several words like Eros and Agape for love. There was plenty of same-sex stuff going on though and not only Christians living under Mosaic Law were offended by then Roman societys penchant for same-sex relationships.

Mostly Roman citizens of lower or middle classes, as the practice grew partial out of influence by the Greeks they wanted to emulate, thought same-sex relationships contributed to effeminacy which weakened manhood. In other words they thought they wouldnt fight well or function well as a state if they were engrossed in same-sex relationships. Ever hear of

And since the Jews reference on how to live was the Old Testament, the book Leviticus, chapter 18, defines what it meant to have an unlawful marriages or unlawful lusts. Leviticus 18 is where the word abomination comes up concerning same-sex relationships. Its true also that God never says that he hates any of his children. It does say, however, that there are some things that he absolutely cannot abide by. Im sure you can figure which one we are talking about here.

Dont forget the 10 Commandments from Exodus 20 too. And Ill remind Christians here that when they are pointing their fingers at homosexuals, they just may want to point the old finger at themselves since the 6th commandment says, thou shalt not commit adultery. As Lev. 18 says the only acceptable sex is copulation during marriage that means NO SEX OUTSIDE OF or UNTIL MARRIAGE. Its my view this is where Christians have lost the moral ground against the gay marriage argument. As I mentioned before I think the pill and easy divorce in the '60's and '70's helped out this moral decline by Christians.

As for the new books of the Bible, the New Testament or the Gospel, for non-Jew Christians, Romans 1, first Corinthians 6, first Timothy 1, and Jude all address effeminacy, adultery or sins of the flesh in some way, shape, or form. Finally, early Christian theologians like St. Augustine and others Ive read about ranted about how rampant and detrimental effeminacy was in the Roman Empire let alone how Christians should be strive against it.

So there's the argument from the religious aspect against gay marriage. "

Mama says wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:55 AM:

" What the straight people aren't aware is adam n steve ask lesbians edie and stephanie have them love children. It is happening in coles and the women get state aid, food stamps, all the bills paid and employed persons paying for it. I know of several CHILDREN born into this. They all drive new cars too and dress in namebrands,,,,,money for booze and cigarettes and pedicure/manicures and other things.
They feed their dogs hamburger and good meats since can't buy dogfood,,,,,and they have like $387 or more monthly in food stamps. I guess I didn't know how to work the system. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:33 AM:

" I agree 100% that this is about the issue of public consent. However! Your statement, "Gay marriage has public consequences relative to child bearing, public health, and obviously societal and religious implications, etc....." Substitue Heterosexual marriage and the sentence is even more true. More pedophiles are straight men not gay men. The problem with public consent is that it discriminates against one group for "sins" that are also committed by the group doing the discriminating. Sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted to men by men to men by women to women by women. Kids raised in a loving two mother or two father home are better off (better adjusted, happier, healthier, less prone to violence) than kids raised in a hateful/abusive one father one mother home. The religious arguments are invalid when applied to areas of public policy and laws since they only apply to those that follow that particular religion (even then many followers of Christianity seem to apply rules rather arbitrarily) and there are no reasons to support them in the "real" world and plenty of proof that they are illconceived and harmful to society.There is one standard for setting public policy and laws and that is what respects and supports the rights of individuals. When the rights of one individual conflict with the rights of another decisions have to made. BUT the rights of homosexuals to marry do not conflict with the rights of heterosexuals in anyway shape or form. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:17 AM:

" "Beware the man of one book." - Saint Thomas Aquinas "

VTucker wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:37 AM:

" From a Christian blog:

If you're really that worried about marriage, why aren't you launching anti-adultery campaigns too? How much more prevalent is that?

How about some "continuity of marriage" campaigns to drop the divorce rate, if marriage is your big issue?

If the thought of what two men might be doing creeps you out, could you kindly just count to ten before you say something? "Eeeww" isn't the most persuasive argument in the world.

Come on now, all the anti-homosexual rhetoric: aren't you just glad you've finally found a sexual sin that you *aren't* tempted to? Do you pick on that one because it's the only one you feel you can speak against without being a hypocrite? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:04 AM:

" To NeoCon you are correct the word "homosexual" is never used in the Bible if that is what M@H was trying to point out then I must admit that I can also be quite dense, sometimes. BUT there are many words not found in the bible, abortion, birthcontrol pills, assisted suicide, as well as many concepts beyond the writers of the bible capacities to imagine, cars and drunk driving, life support machines that keep people alive forever, cryogenics, genetic engineering, embryonic research...... If we make all of our judgments on what is right/wrong, moral/immoral, good/bad but what is specifically stated in the bible we'd still have slavery and polygamy, women would be kept at home tied to the stove pregnant and docile, and a whole host of other ills. We have a brain and whether you believe that was a gift from God or came through the process of evolution, we should use it to the best of our ability to make this world a better place for ALL people, and animals, and plants. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:40 AM:

" "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."
-- Lynn Lavner "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:20 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:04 AM: "...you are correct the word "homosexual" is never used in the Bible if that is what M@H was trying to point out."

What I was trying to ask is regardless of whether the word homosexual or homosexuality is in the Bible, what word or words ARE in the Bible that would lead you to believe the writers were homophobic.

You wrote on Jun 24, 2008 5:32 PM: "To M@H I don't know why the writers of the Bible were homophobic/fearful."

My question is how did you arrive at the conclusion that the writers of the Bible were homophobic/fearful. What did you read that led you to this conclusion? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Vicky I was wondering where you were. Thanks for chiming in. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 3:49 PM:

" To M@H they (the writers of the Bible) called sex between men unnatural. We know that it is as natural for some as heterosexual sex is for others and abstinance is for others. Calling something unnatural that is natural is a sign, a clue that the writer isn't thinking clearly, that the writer is responding to something, and that something, when it comes to humans, is quite often fear. Fear of what they don't understand and are too frightened to learn about so that they might understand. A phobia is an irrational fear. We know that there is nothing to fear from homosexuals any more than there is to fear from heterosexuals. Sexual orientation isn't to be feared, doesn't cause societal problems, and in actuality homosexuality is natures form of birth control and in this overpopulated world a very good thing in deed. There are other things in the bible the writers feared. A good example shows up in the dietary restrictions found in Leviticus. In that day there was good reason for people NOT to eat pork, shell fish, etc. The people didn't know about trichinosis but they knew that people got sick and died sometimes when they ate pork. Better to ban pork. The same with shell fish. It happens today when a society bans all beef imports out of fear of Mad Cow disease or bans all fowl. Is it still rational today to ban pork and shell fish, all beef, or all fowl. In the US we say no and try to put in place regulations to insure the safety of those items. All though our food safety regulations aren't perfect and there are too few inspectors and instances of bribery and deception. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 25, 2008 4:45 PM:

" shumphreys - You're welcome for the plug. I think Bryant should read your book. I did exactly as you requested . . . I read the book and I passed it on to someone else to read. I didn't agree with everything but you didn't expect me to. I DID learn something from your book. Thanks again for sending it to me.
=========================
Now, back to the battle . . . .

"Calling something unnatural that is natural is a sign, a clue that the writer isn't thinking clearly, that the writer is responding to something, and that something, when it comes to humans, is quite often fear."

Often? Quite possibly. Always? We both know that's not the case. In THIS case? Absolutely not.
==================
"There are other things in the bible the writers feared. A good example shows up in the dietary restrictions found in Leviticus."

Leviticus is history. It's an account of what happened with and to the Jewish people prior to the birth of Christ. So right or wrong, still in effect or repealed, the history books (e.g. Leviticus) still tell about it.

The reason God put those laws in place was because the Jewish people ASKED Him to so He obliged them. There was no fear involved . . . they followed the Levitical Laws out of obedience in order to make themselves right with God.

The whole thing about the dietary restrictions no longer apply. Acts 10:15 basically tells us we can eat anything we want as long as we are thankful to God for it.

I'm not going to debate the "natural" vs "unnatural" thing because we'll never get past defining it. But God called the act of homosexuality an "abomination" and I guarantee you God's not living in fear of ANYTHING.
=========================
"If we make all of our judgments on ... what is specifically stated in the bible we'd still have slavery and polygamy, women would be kept at home tied to the stove pregnant and docile..."

That is absolutely incorrect. That is SO far from the teaching of the Bible that I'm dizzy just trying to imagine how far away it really is.
=========================
"...and in actuality homosexuality is natures form of birth control..."

I'm just going to have to leave that dangling here for someone else. I can't even think of the words to START a reply to that. Mr. Lamphier . . . NeoCon Academician . . . ed miller . . . anyone? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:14 PM:

" shumphreys- ""...and in actuality homosexuality is natures form of birth control..."
-----
So is testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, congenital disorders as well a a whole array of deformities and diseases- no shumphreys? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 5:45 PM:

" M@H why do you declare "absolutely not"? Where is your evidence that what I sited is absolutely not the case? In Leviticus the laws were put into place by the priests whether or not they were "divinely inspired" is questionable. I offered an explanation of why the laws made sense at the time they were written and why later groups chose not to follow them. There are of course other explanations. You claim that God called homosexuality unnatural and I state that it was the writers that called it unnatural. You can no more prove that what was written came directly from God and wasn't inserted by a human claiming to act on Gods behalf, or claiming that God told him to do it. We are both familiar with examples today of people claiming that God told them to do something and use that as their justification for committing horrendous acts. People back then were no different. Where is your proof? And don't site the Bible as your proof of its authenticity, that doesn't work. There are plenty of examples that prove that parts of the Bible are absolutely NOT TRUE. There is every reason to assume that the injunctions against homosexuality are nothing more than the product of fearful men claiming that God told them to write it.After all Popes have made many claims about Gods pronouncements in the past that have since been proven to be totally false. (like the earth being the center of the universe) So again where is the proof? There isn't any. BUT you are entitled to believe what you want to believe. But you are not entitled to use those beliefs to base or justify laws that affect all people. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 6:49 PM:

" NO Mr. Lamphier homosexuality,unlike cancers and birth defects, causes no harm. There is a HUGE difference. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 25, 2008 7:42 PM:

" shumphreys- "NO Mr. Lamphier homosexuality,unlike cancers and birth defects, causes no harm. There is a HUGE difference."
-----

I was simply pointing out that just because homosexuality is naturally occurring- that in no way is indicative that it is necessarily good. You would agree that by its very nature it is an evolutionary- dead end- no shumphreys? "

Myopinion wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:21 PM:

" Either you believe the ENTIRE word of God is actually truth - or you do not believe any of it. There is no inbetween.

Everyone is welcome to believe what they want - it is called free will, which was given to us by our heavenly Father.

When we start to mix Bible truth with the philosophies of men, that's when we get into trouble. If you fully believe what the Bible states, homosexuality is not natural, not approved of in the eyes of God. If you, however, pick and choose what parts of the Bible are real and what are "fake" or untrue, then human nature will allow you to believe whatever you want, and you will poison the truth of the Bible with man's teachings. How anybody could actually think that having sex with someone of the same sex is "natural" is too far gone to even reason with.

So, M@H, just leave it be. It isn't up to us to change anyone's mind. If YOU believe the entire Word of God as Truth, that's what really matters. Even Jesus knew when to walk away from a situation, or not reply when he knew it was pointless!

I believe the entire Word of God as Truth. It doesn't matter to me what others think - I am only accountable for myself. Keeping my faith strong includes not reading false words and reasonings from those who do not really know God, since they pick and choose what to believe or not to believe.

Let those who choose a faceless forum to push their beliefs on others go right on ahead and do so. It must be a lonely, sad, bitter life. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:41 PM:

" Yes Mr. Lamphier, there are many evolutionary deadends. Sterility is not uncommon among heterosexual couples. BUT it is not a deadend for an individuals personal growth and development.AND as I said homosexuality causes no harm.Denying ones nature on the other hand, causes a great deal of harm. Not being allowed by a society to fulfill ones nature causes a great deal of harm.To make myself clear we are talking solely about homosexuality here, not about murders or pedofiles or abusers being denied the right to fulfill their natures. They cause harm to others, homosexuality causes no harm. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:49 PM:

" Honestly Mr My Opinion, why would you think that people that don't believe what you believe would have a "lonely and sad life". Or is that just wishful thinking? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:05 PM:

" To M@H, My Opinion, and Mr. Lamphier, MyOpinion, is right about one thing, either you close your mind to reality and believe that the Bible is 100% truth or you face reality and accept the challenge that the Bible is a great book, filled with great truths, and that you have to use your head and your heart to sort the roses from the thorns, pick the pearls of great wisdom out of the dross. I hope M@H you have gotten Gregory Boyds book, The Myth of a Christian Nation. As I said I don't agree with his reasoning but the end result I fully agree with a world where people truly and honestly try to live a goodly, Christ-like life.Goodnight for now, it's my bedtime. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:56 PM:

" Myopinion- Either you believe the ENTIRE word of God is actually truth - or you do not believe any of it. There is no inbetween."
-------
I'm afraid there is a LOT of in-between in the interpretation of that truth.

------
Good Night shrumphreys- God Bless* "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 25, 2008 11:39 PM:

" shumphreys wrote:

The problem with public consent is that it discriminates against one group for "sins" that are also committed by the group doing the discriminating.

How is religion doing the discriminating relative to public consent of gay marriage?

The issue of gay marriage, at least from what I have found, is a contemporary issue, coming about now due to developments within the last 10 to 20 years.

Relative to what I mentioned in my last post, the Romans had gay marriage but they killed it off as their society became overly decadent, in the middle to late 300s A.D.

And as I have argued before, easy divorce, the pill, and other new fertility technologies and practices have lead those on your side to question the definition of marriage to include gay marriage. In other words, if this where 1900 and we were still an agrarian based society, with families having 8 or 10 kids to work the farm, and because many kids died young, do you think the issue of gay marriage would ever have been entertained then? No. And now because something like 5% to 7% of the population is gay and has questioned the boundaries of marriage, you want us as a society to redefine marriage.

As for the religious arguments are invalid when applied to areas of public policy and laws since they only apply to those that follow that particular religion, you are not going to win that point. Most of the great civil and common law documents of the world inlcuding the Pax Romana, Magna Carta, Mayflower compact, English common law, Napoleonic law, US Constitution, etc. are ll based in or associated with religious tenets and laws.

As for the phobia against or the harm of homosexuality, your nature is what you are going to do regardless of what anyone is saying here. Were all just saying we wont accept gay marriage. Our view is that marriage should remain a covenant between a man and a woman (and hopefully God).

VTucker wrote why aren't you launching anti-adultery campaigns too? I am. Since the divorce rate now is at its lowest since the late 60s, lets see if we can get it lower. Make people seriously contemplate getting married. Lets get rid of easy divorce that came about with the free love, Great Society, hippy generation of the 60s and 70s, and of course perform acts of civil disobedience, like the left has done, if the gay marriage issue continues. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:18 AM:

" NeoCon- "Were all just saying we wont accept gay marriage. Our view is that marriage should remain a covenant between a man and a woman (and hopefully God)."
------
Bingo! "

VTucker wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:31 AM:

" Hi, Susan, it's been a busy Spring and Summer!

To NeoCon: The divorce rate is lower primarily because so many more people are living together rather than getting married. No record is kept of the break-up of these couples, but you can be sure children are often left behind and hurting.

Divorce/remarriage and cohabitation have resulted in abandoned and impoverished children. Our society has been greatly damaged by these behaviors, yet most Christians essentially ignore these sins while writing lengthy posts condemning homosexuality.

I suspect this is because so many Christians have gone through a divorce themselves. Some have even had an affair or two on the side, or lived with someone before marriage. People have a natural tendency to excuse their own behavior, or somehow rationalize it as not being THAT bad. Since homosexuality is so foreign to most of us, it is easy to denounce that particular sin. We end up with the irony of divorced/remarried people attacking gays and homosexuality as they fight for the sanctity of marriage. "

VTucker wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:35 AM:

" NeoCon, have you performed any acts of civil disobedience to protest our lenient divorce laws? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 26, 2008 7:50 AM:

" To Neocon Religious groups have worked to deny gay couples the right to marry and they use their Bible as proof that it is wrong.They have actively promoted mis-information about homosexuality, demonized homosexuals, stirring up hate and fear. Gay marriage is contemporary, but then legal rights granted to married couples are also contemporary and because of those rights gays have had no choice but to push for the right to marry. Society has changed for better and worse and the challenge is to continue to evolve our society as we gain more knowledge, create more inventions (life support systems, humvees, genetic engineering), so that we can create a more just society that benefits ALL people and does NO harm (if that will ever be possible). One example is the issue of slavery, accepted in the Bible and a wiser more compassionate people realized that slavery was wrong and changed their laws and their society to outlaw the practice. Many turned to their Bibles for guidance and read between the lines to determine that the practice wasn't right. Many used logic, and their intelligence, and the writings of other the great thinkers and theologians, the sacred texts of other religions, to make the same determination. There are many questions that face this nation now and even greater challenges in the years ahead that are not addressed specifically in the Bible. The decisions to be made will not be easy ones. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:21 AM:

" shumphreys-

Good morning Susan . . . . . hope the weather's better in Mattoon than it is in the Twin Cities. We're going to have some real storms moving in from the Dakotas and it's getting ugly toward the west.
===================
Where is my evidence that "Calling something unnatural that is natural is a sign, a clue that the writer isn't thinking clearly, that the writer is responding to something, and that something, when it comes to humans, is quite often fear." I have two things: 1) it was God who called homosexuality what He called it, and 2) what the heck could God possibly be afraid of?

"whether or not they were 'divinely inspired' is questionable." Okay . . . if you say so. I realize I cannot ask you to prove that they are not because that would be asking you to prove something was NOT true, something which defies logic. (For other readers, let's be clear that I said that PROVING SOMETHING IS NOT TRUE defies logic NOT that the Bible being divinely inspired defies logic. I'm not that easy.)

"We are both familiar with examples today of people claiming that God told them to do something and use that as their justification for committing horrendous acts." Yes, that's true. But its not very difficult to know whether it was God that told them to perform some horrendous act or not. Does the act the performed line up with the character of God through Christ? If not, bet on the fact that God did NOT tell someone to do some heinous thing. Example: This whole LDS thing going on in Texas . . . there is no way that God told this character to have more than one wife. How do I know? The Bible specifically states that overseers (elders) and deacons are to be the "husband of one wife". He can claim all he wants to that God told him to marry 23 or 230 or 2,300 women but I know that's not the case. If it were the case, then God contradicted Himself. He doesn't. That's just one of the EASIER ones to detect.

"And don't site the Bible as your proof of its authenticity, that doesn't work." I couldnt agree more. It would be ridiculous for me to cite a document that declares its own authenticity as my only example. And truthfully, I've always had a problem with those who would rely on the Bible to prove the Bible's authenticity. It lacks logic and forethought. Let's just say that the Bible has been studied, translated, pulled apart, examined, discussed, dissected and compared more than any other single document (group of documents) in the world for the last 500 years by minds of all faiths, backgrounds, cultures and races and one thing upon which they agree is that the Bible is authentic. Please don't ask for citations . . . I CAN come up with them, but I really don't have time to make a bibliography of all of the various documents and books and tomes etc. that people have written about the Bible . . . it's been written about more than any other book in the history of mankind. Trying to build a bibliography like that would be a full time job. And unlike The Question, I have other things to do. (Sorry, Q . . . It was a joke. I just wanted to see if you're paying attention.

"After all Popes have made many claims about Gods pronouncements in the past that have since been proven to be totally false (like the earth being the center of the universe)". Well yeah! Where in the Bible does it say anything about where the earth is in relation to the sun? Nowhere I've ever read it. Just because a Pope SAYS it doesnt mean it's TRUE. Popes (and other clergy) make all kinds of statements that aren't true about things not associated with scripture (and don't assume I'm stating they DON'T make mistakes about things scriptural, either) but we're talking about the Bible here . . . I'm claiming the Bible is infallible in teaching, not some human being is infallible in his/her thinking about the cosmos. What does the Pope have to do with the interpretation of astronomy?

"BUT you are entitled to believe what you want to believe. But you are not entitled to use those beliefs to base or justify laws that affect all people." Laws are made (I hope) for the good of the people in general. Laws (I hope) are based, justified, drafted and enacted with SOME kind of moral code in mind. People have various sources as their moral codes. You have yours and I have mine. Mine happens to be the Bible. Legislators and lawmakers and everyone else are "entitled to use their beliefs to base or justify laws that affect all people - and they do, but I'm not? Why have you singled me out? Why are my beliefs not valid? You've based YOUR beliefs on what you have read and what you have experienced. Me too. But for some reason, I can't use my beliefs to base or justify laws but everyone else can?

Have a good day.

M@H "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:19 PM:

" To M@H I think you had better go back and examine your latest post. Just one point right here. You say that all these people have declared that the Bible is "authentic". Just what are they declaring, that the Bible really exists? That the Bible was written by peopleit did not miraculously appeared out of thin air in it's full and present form? That .... well I could go on and on. There are many connotations of the term "authentic". Now if all these people are saying that they have proof that the Bible is divinely inspired,that every word is the word of God, they are lying through their teeth. There is no proof of that, no way to authenticate that. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:55 PM:

" Now M@H lets address a 2nd comment, " Just because a Pope SAYS it doesn't mean it's TRUE. Popes (and other clergy) make all kinds of statements that aren't true about things not associated with scripture (and don't assume I'm stating they DONT make mistakes about things scriptural),,,,"
Now who was Paul? He wasn't called a Pope at the time, but he was the leader of the church and filled the same role. Your argument against sex between the same genders, is based partly on what he wrote. He was the one that decided that gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to become Christians which is directly opposed to what Jesus actually taught. I can go on. BUT as you said you can't always trust what a Pope or the clergy claim is the truth. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 26, 2008 2:07 PM:

" Now for your third point, your last paragraph you have finally come around and addressed the root of the problem. It has taken quite a while for us to get there."Why are my beliefs not valid?" "I can't use my beliefs to base or justify laws but everyone else can (use there's, my addition to clarify your statement)?" Those sentences can and have been uttered by Jews, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and homosexuals, and American Indians, and Atheists and, everyone. If you don't like being told that your values should not be used to make laws that affect them what do you think they think when YOU turn the tables?
I paraphrase your words here, Laws are made for the good of the people, drafted with some kind of moral code in mind. That is precisely the issue that I have been trying to get you to address and I have suggested an answer and it is an answer found in your Bible as well as the writings of all the worlds Great Religions and the writings of many philosophers and theologians and in the books from my childhood and in the Harry Potter books. We find a standard that we can all live by and that is..............
"All men are created equal and deserve fair and equal treatment in public policy and laws, they deserve to be treated with respect, and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Once again we are back to how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them, whatever their differences. "

Mattooner at Heart wrote on Jun 26, 2008 9:18 PM:

" Good evening, Susan (and others who might be eavesdropping).

You say that all these people have declared that the Bible is "authentic". Just what are they declaring, that the Bible really exists?

They are saying that the Bible is what it says it is that the Bibles claim of its own authenticity is valid.
=======================
Now who was Paul? He wasn't called a Pope at the time and just for the record, the Catholic church has never claimed Paul to have been a Pope. Im just commenting on the at the time part.

but he was the leader of the church and filled the same role. Not exactly. Paul was first and foremost an evangelist. The role of the Pope in the Catholic church is far different from the role Paul took on after his conversion.

Your argument against sex between the same genders, is based partly on what he wrote. Partly is true but not solely and totally.

He was the one that decided that gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to become Christians No, he was the one who took the message to the people that they did not have to become Jews in order to become Christians, not the one who made the decision.

which is directly opposed to what Jesus actually taught.

I think I can see how one could come to the conclusion that Christ taught one had to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. However thats not exactly the case. Keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, the focus of His ministry was to the Jews and the purpose of His ministry was to fulfill the prophecies of, for and to the Jewish people. As you know the story, the Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah. Thus the passage in Romans 1:16 that says it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. The word it refers to the gospel and the gospel is that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Jesus didnt teach one had to become a Jew to become a Christian as a Christian is simply one who follows Christ Jew or Gentile. Salvation (right standing with God) was OFFERED to the Jews first and they had the first right of refusal. Some were converted. Some were not. After that time, the gospel was preached to the Gentiles and like with the Jews, some accepted and some did not.

Christ would not teach that a person had to become a Jew just so that person could reject Judaism to become a Christian, and that is what a requirement to be a Jew prior to becoming a Christian would entail. How do I know Jesus wouldnt teach that? The same reason I know the guy with the LDS thing going on in Texas did NOT hear God tell him to have more than one wife. It is contrary to the nature and character of God to confuse people (become a Jew first and then become a Christian) and its contrary the nature and character of God to determine a church leader should not be a polygamist (1Timothy 3:2) and then tell a church leader to BECOME a polygamist as the LDS guy claims.

I can go on. BUT as you said you can't always trust what a Pope or the clergy claim is the truth. We so agree on THAT one!
======================
If you don't like being told that your values should not be used to make laws that affect them what do you think they think when YOU turn the tables?

Methinks we have come full circle here. My purpose was to rebut your statement, But you are not entitled to use those beliefs to base or justify laws that affect all people. My point was that somebody has to use somebodys beliefs to base or justify laws that affect all people. (BTW, Im glad to see someone else appreciates the difference between effect and affect.) All Im rebutting here is that someones beliefs are going to be used, but if it cant be MY beliefs (you are not entitled to use those beliefs), then why not? Were probably arguing semantics here but I also think I have a good debating point.

To answer your question what do I think when I tell someone THEIR values cannot be used as a benchmark? First, Im not sure that I would actually tell someone that, but I can see how one would take it as implied. This is where it comes down to a battle (or debate) of value systems, which is basically the entire raison detre of forums such as this.

I think if we were to dissect the statements posted on this forum (at least the ones that dont sound like My father can whip YOUR father. And In your face, [liberal or conservative take your pick.]), wed find that at the heart of the statements, we have simply a difference of value systems. Its the eternal conflict between good and evil. (Ill leave it to you to decide which one is which Ill surrender the point since its a matter of opinion.)

I think weve hit the proverbial (no pun intended Proverbs get it?) brick wall on this. You firmly believe in your value system and I just as firmly believe in mine. I dont agree with yours and you dont agree with mine but we can debate them civilly without calling each other names (the comment about dense a few days ago notwithstanding it still stings a little bit).

BUT you and I CAN agree on some basic beliefs common to BOTH value systems. Ill not claim those values about which we agree are solely and totally Christian values to the exclusion of any other belief system if you wont claim they are NOT Christian values. Hows that for a deal?

Have a good evening.

M@H "

tammer wrote on Jun 26, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Bryant Lamphier wrote: "That's what happens, M@H- when "Christians" try to "win" someone to their side; as opposed to living a life that draws someone to Christ's side." Well said. You've surprised me on this thread, Bryant -- several posts that seem tolerant, not what I expected.

For my 2 cents' worth in this discussion, I figure I have all I can handle just trying to live my own life on a straight and narrow path, so I shouldn't be worrying about and judging the actions of others -- I need to tend to the beam in my own eye before attempting to remove my brother's mote.

Glad to see you back on here, Vicky. I think you make a good point (one you've made on previous threads) when you note that it's easy to condemn homosexuality since this is a sin most of us are not tempted by. Try getting our society to focus on greed and materialism as the sins they are -- next to impossible, since our whole economic system and even the American Dream seem to be based on coveting more and better things, endlessly buying and consuming at the expense of the less fortunate and the environment that God gave us to serve as stewards over. Much easier to pick on homosexuals and condemn them to hell than it is to condemn our greedy, materialistic selves, families, friends, and neighbors to hell -- and certainly easier than repenting and changing our ways. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:47 PM:

" Since VTucker wrote: Divorce/remarriage and cohabitation have resulted in abandoned and impoverished children. Our society has been greatly damaged by these behaviors, yet most Christians essentially ignore these sins while writing lengthy posts condemning homosexuality this post is in regard to VTucker and Humphreys recent posts:

It as though now you (VTucker) are arguing the point for the sake of argument. Yeah, youre right, its bad. I've said that already and you've reiterated it. Christians sin. Its why they believe in God and go to church.

And Christians should have fought tooth and nail years ago to 1) keep government out of the marriage licensing business, 2) have no gay adoption since it takes a man and a woman to make a baby and men and women should have to take care of the kids they make, and never ceded their rights away toward gay adoption, and 3) not allowed easy divorce.

And at this point I can't help but ask the question, why is it that the homosexual agenda wants any part of marriage?

Does this agenda think it will improve upon marriage in general then if gay marriage is sanctified by the government? Or do they just want to be as broken as heterosexuals or Christians and provides legitimacy?

But let's re-cap and put this in a nice little nutshell.

Marriage, since time immemorial has been between a man and a woman, exclusively, and it seems that religion has been a major, if not the major, component of these unions.

Through mostly the constructs of English Common Law, at least as it carried over and influenced the development of American government, government got in the business of regulating marriage. Now, because of contemporary influences, homosexual men want to marry men and homosexual women want to marry women. Are we okay so far?

Here's a compromise for you. Since the word marriage is obviously the sicking point, and it is evidently as issue of faith and legality, and not an issue of public health like with HIV/AIDS (or is it?) or 1st cousins marrying since they are not making babies, or Rh factor, again, since they cant make babies, let's petition the government to get out of the marriage business altogether!

No more licensing of marriages by the government. No one with be left out then, not even the co-habitators. As a Christian, and due to my freedom of religion, it seems to me that the government should not be in the business of licensing my religious activities anyway. Im being to think Ill approach the ACLU to sponsor suing the government over the licensing of my marriage.

It will probably help with the re-vamping and simplification of our tax system too. Boy, Im killing two birds with one stone!

Heterosexuals and non-Christian heterosexuals can have their covenant and/or church ceremonies between a man and a woman. If they are a Christian man and woman, God can be at the center of this covenant. Legality establishing their contractual relationship can be filed with the government.

Homosexuals can have their ceremonies, according to whatever, and they can file their contractual relationship legality with the government so they will be able to recognize these unions.. This, in essence, is already in place anyway.

How's that sound?

BUT I WOULD BET the homosexual agenda STILL would not be satisfied with this arrangement as they cannot get over the "SIN" factor relative to the religious connotations of marriage!

Am I right? Yeah I know I am.

Hmmm, after Ive written this, Im beginning to wonder, dont we already have these legal situations in place anyway, and the problem is the word marriage. Take away the word marriage and the whole debate goes away!

I CAN"T WAIT TO HEAR THE REBUTTAL FOR THIS POST! "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:33 AM:

" Just like ed miller and Bryant L, Neo seems to be obsessed with this topic. That speaks volumes. Homophobia seems to run rampant with the right wingers on this site. But of course, Bryant always tries to turn the tables and foist his obsession onto others. In fact, even old Neo tried that ploy a few days ago. Come on now, Doh, turn it around. You know you want to. I'll be back later to call you out on it when you do. LOL! "

VTucker wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:40 AM:

" NeoCon, I am not interested in rebutting anything you or the others have posted here. I am simply pointing out the arrogance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness of your posts.

As I have stated on related threads, marriage as a social (and spiritual) institution has been wrecked by heterosexuals--often conservative evangelical Christian heterosexuals. To ignore this fact and then attack homosexuals for whatever threat they represent (minor in comparison to the ills resulting from divorce) reveals an amazing spiritual disconnect.

Worse, attacking homosexuals while ignoring divorce and its effects--seen not only in society but in evangelical churches as well--people who do this are not only hypocritical but likewise are stumbling blocks to the Gospel. Who wants to listen to a hypocrite? "

VTucker wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:57 AM:

" Try getting our society to focus on greed and materialism as the sins they are -- next to impossible, since our whole economic system and even the American Dream seem to be based on coveting more and better things, endlessly buying and consuming at the expense of the less fortunate and the environment that God gave us to serve as stewards over. Much easier to pick on homosexuals and condemn them to hell than it is to condemn our greedy, materialistic selves, families, friends, and neighbors to hell -- and certainly easier than repenting and changing our ways. "

Excellent points, Tammer! Oh, and from the other thread--you and Rotty have nearly convinced me to volunteer at the Animal Shelter. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:25 AM:

" tammer- " Bryant Lamphier wrote: "That's what happens, M@H- when "Christians" try to "win" someone to their side; as opposed to living a life that draws someone to Christ's side." Well said. You've surprised me on this thread, Bryant -- several posts that seem tolerant, not what I expected.
------
Thank you tammer;

were you viewing me from a stereo-typical perspective?

Im not being facetious just curious. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:30 AM:

" To Neocon your proposal has been put forth already and even believe it or not by a few Christians. The government shouldn 't be in the business of licensing marriage. But since they have decided to do that, it is unconstitutional, and immoral to deny the legal rights and priveleges to one group based on their sexual preference. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:37 AM:

" To M@H I am amazed that the twisted and contorted reasoning Christians will take to justify their beliefs. I won't address each of your arguments here if you want you can email me and we can pick them apart one at a time in great detail. Let me just say there are great holes in your arguments. That said, have you gotten Boyds book yet? He addresses some of your issues. I think that he would agree with me, you can ask him, "If Christ came back today I think he would tell you to throw away your Bible. Those that get hung up insisting on the ,absolute TRUTH of every word, its authenticity, completely miss the point/the message. Christianity isn't about a book, it isn't about a set of laws in a book, it is about a way of living. You have made a very wrong turn and have ended up in a dead end alley." I hope you can find your way out. Maybe Boyds book will help. By the way that message is the same as taught by Buddha and Lao Tzu and many others. "

littleguy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:55 AM:

" Well since George Carlen has died,I guess he truly knows what is on the other side.To bad he can't inform all of you.One day it will be every ones turn on this blog to find out. Just,remember,"YOU TOO SHALL PASS THIS WAY." death that is. "

father bob wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:57 AM:

" NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 26, 2008 11:47 PM:Heterosexuals and non-Christian heterosexuals can have their covenant and/or church ceremonies between a man and a woman. If they are a Christian man and woman, God can be at the center of this covenant. Legality establishing their contractual relationship can be filed with the government.""""

you seem to think there are no "christian" homosexuals. "

father bob wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:22 AM:

" NEW YORK Barack Obama will fight for equal rights for gays just as he fought to help working-class families overcome poverty, the Democratic presidential hopeful's wife told a gay Democratic group Thursday.

Recalling his past work as a community organizer to help struggling families, Michelle Obama said he would take the same approach as president.

"Barack believes that we must fight for the world as it should be, a world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws," she said at a Manhattan fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council. "

tammer65 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:57 AM:

" Bryant L. asked me "were you viewing me from a stereo-typical perspective?" when I commended some of his posts to this thread as being rather tolerant and expressed surprise at this.

Bryant, I wasn't viewing you from a stereotypical perspective, but from your own track record, what I've come to expect from you based on your posts on past thread. Many of those have been pretty contentious and ultra-conservative.

I found it refreshing to see you post statements on this thread like the one I previously praised, and others like noting that there's "a lot of in between" when it comes to interpreting Biblical truth, that the Bible offers 6 admonitions to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals, reminding us to "hate the sin but love the sinner," noting that there are a host of other sins along with homosexuality (ones very common in our society) that are incompatible with Christianity, etc., etc.

I found your rhetoric on this thread to be more balanced, less inflammatory, less biting and angry in tone, etc., than I've seen from you in the past -- I actually found myself READING your posts and thinking/listening instead of feeling compelled to tune you out or skip over your posts, as I've felt compelled to do in the past.

Didn't mean to throw you off guard by offering praise instead of disagreeing/arguing with you as I've done in the past -- LOL. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:53 PM:

" Looks like we have yet another addition to "Harry's Homophobia List":

NEW****** Harry Potter wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:33 AM:
" Just like ed miller and Bryant L, Neo seems to be obsessed with this topic. That speaks volumes. Homophobia seems to run rampant with the right wingers on this site. But of course, Bryant always tries to turn the tables and foist his obsession onto others. In fact, even old Neo tried that ploy a few days ago. Come on now, Doh, turn it around. You know you want to. I'll be back later to call you out on it when you do. LOL!" ******NEW

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 26, 2008 12:08 PM:
" Somehow I knew that old Doh would spot the post talking about homosexuals. That's right up his alley. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 21, 2008 7:04 PM:
" Why Doh, you're making me blush with all of this attention. I feel so flattered. I hope TQ an fb don't get jealous. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a married man. Perhaps ed miller might be interested. Or perhaps Tom A...."

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 22, 2008 11:38 AM:
" Sorry Neo, I go for the opposite gender, but I heard the guy who posts as Bryant L might be interested. You two might have more than just right wing politics in common. Besides that, he thinks he's an intellectual too.

I'm glad you took my advice and finally came out of the closet. I'm sure you'll feel better about yourself." "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:48 PM:

" Wow tammer65.

That was very profound and very honest; I'm humbled.

Thank you.

p.s. You did throw me off guard LOL. "

tammer65 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:07 PM:

" Just read Bryant Lamphier's latest attacks on Harry Potter and see that you're back to your old inflammatory, illogical, attack-dog ways, so I guess I need to retract my recently-offered praise that "I found your rhetoric on this thread to be more balanced, less inflammatory, less biting and angry in tone, etc., than I've seen from you in the past -- I actually found myself READING your posts and thinking/listening instead of feeling compelled to tune you out or skip over your posts, as I've felt compelled to do in the past."

Oh, well, it's for the best. Stability in the universe is a rare thing to find, and when I stumbled upon those reasoned, more tolerant statements of yours on this thread, it made me think that you'd apparently sustained some sort of blunt force trauma to the head; good to see you're back to your usual tripe. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 27, 2008 5:51 PM:

" tammer65- "Just read Bryant Lamphier's latest attacks on Harry Potter and see that you're back to your old inflammatory, illogical, attack-dog ways, so I guess I need to retract my recently-offered praise...."
--------

Well now, that's a shame, tammer65.......

that you seemed to have missed Harry's attack on me and several other posters.

Apparently, YOU DID receive some sort of blunt force trauma to the head. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:06 PM:

" He never wins any of the debates on here, tammer, so he has to resort to such tactics. I don't mind at all, because the more of that sort of thing the posts the sillier he looks. In fact most of the stuff I direct to him is just to get him going, and as you can see it works. LOL! Now come on Doh, re post everything I said. "

The Question wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:24 PM:

" And unlike The Question, I have other things to do. (Sorry, Q . . . It was a joke. I just wanted to see if you're paying attention.
--------
From the length of your posts, I would have bet you did not, Tooner. LOL. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:31 PM:

" Hey Harry Dohbaugh- speaking of not winning debates...... you never did produce any "evidence" to back up your loonytard story about Prescott Bush in a Nazi uniform....did ya.....

Yer hopin' i'd ferget that'n - twernt ya Harry hayseed........ "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:33 PM:

" Prescott Bush in a Nazi uniform? Who said that, moron. Perhaps you need to get your buddy, Tommy to check the files on that claim. Still making stuff up, huh? Denial is a funny thing, isn't it? "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Gee Harry Dohbaugh- I could have sworn that you were the crackpot loontard who was spouting off about Prescott Bush profiting off of concentration camps.....I think we can all agree that a tinfoil-hat assertion like that is just begging for some corroboration.

So here's my challenge to you , my little nimrod.....PROVE IT.

Prove your claim that Prescott Bush was profiting off of concentration camps.

I'll be waiting Mr. Screw-loose....syncronize your tinfoil hat- an git crakin! Yuk!...... "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:10 PM:

" I encourage everyone to Google: Prescott Bush's Nazi connections, and make up your own mind. "

Bryant Lamphier wrote on Jun 29, 2008 9:41 AM:

" And I encourage Harry Potter to seek professional counseling so he can heal his own mind. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:16 PM:

" Still in denial about Prescott, huh Doh? hee hee..... Your continuing to hide over this issue speaks volumes about you credibility. Perhaps you need to try Google. LOL! "

father bob wrote on Jun 30, 2008 10:34 AM:

" Harry Potter wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:16 PM:
" Still in denial about Prescott, huh Doh? hee hee..... Your continuing to hide over this issue speaks volumes about you credibility. Perhaps you need to try Google. LOL! "

harry you can't rationalize anything with the old fanny-smacker. i think i'll ignore him for a while. "

Mama says wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:30 AM:

" Pass the excedrins,,,,,all this information giving me a headache !!!! "