JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Denying their rights won't get rid of gays

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:49 PM CDT
LETTER: Denying their rights won't get rid of gays

COREY TAYLOR, Charleston

I’ve been reading and hearing a lot lately about gay marriage, as if that is the only right we homosexuals are denied. I keep hearing, and re-hearing, and over-hearing ridiculous and trite debates between homophobic straight people and all-too-often complicit gay people over what rights I deserve. My email inbox is overfilled with requests for donations to legal and political campaigns that are taking too long for baby-step results, if any.

Why aren’t we fighting with the spirit of the Stonewall rioters? Why aren’t we lying down in churches with our last breath, wearing blood-red hand prints like ACT-UP did? Why aren’t we in the streets en masse screaming our demands for “civil rights or civil war; GAY RIGHTS NOW?”

To every person who has cast a vote against my equality, to every person who thinks it is cute or clever to say “that’s gay,” to every homophobic person of any degree, remember this:

You can debate my rights forever and it will not matter. Your hate does not change me. Your laws do not change me. I am still gay, and I am still right in front of you. I am serving your food to you in restaurants. I am ringing up what you buy at the cash register. I am taking you where you need to go. I am entertaining you on the radio, on television, at the movies, and on the sports field. I am performing your life-saving operation. I am teaching your children. I am defending you in a lawsuit. I am transporting your goods. I am building your homes.

I have always been here, and I always will be. You can not, you will not, change or get rid of me. I am gay. And I will remind you every chance I get.

COREY TAYLOR

Charleston

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.

medic57 wrote on Jun 1, 2009 9:23 PM:

" I have always been here, and I always will be. You can not, you will not, change or get rid of me. I am gay. And I will remind you every chance I get.

So Corey

I could care less if you are gay, so why then do you need to remind me every chance you get? And what rights are yuo being denied, besides the right to marry? "

middle of road wrote on Jun 1, 2009 9:38 PM:

" Hats off to Corey for having the guts to write a letter on this topic and sign his real name, unlike the bigots you are sure to - and already have - heard from in response to your letter. medic, if you don't care who's gay, then why would you care who gets married? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 1, 2009 9:51 PM:

" middle of road

Why does Mr. Taylor need to remind me every chance he gets? Ohh, another thing, what part of my post was bigoted? And I don't care who gets married, but in Illinois, he and his FRIEND /PARTNER can't, it's against the law, and 45 states don't think it should be legal, including California. "

middle of road wrote on Jun 1, 2009 10:02 PM:

" Seriously, medic, can't you imagine that gays get tired of being put down all the time? I can. I know I'd be sick of being slammed from so many directions at once, just for how I was born. If dozens of posters decided to slam medics day after day on this site, wouldn't you get tired of it and want to speak up? Not comparing a medic (chosen professsion) to gays (unchosen orientation) directly, but you get the idea. Anyone who can't see that gays are second class citizens in most of this country IS a bigot, not to mention other posts on other letters that you make obvious your disdain for what some people do in their private lives. Yeah, states used to allow slavery too, so I guess that makes it right. It's just so tiring to listen to all the griping about such a trivial issue compared to world hunger, nuclear proliferation, etc. I don't care who gets married if they're consenting adults. I don't know why other people do. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:32 AM:

" So now I'm a bigot by association? "

Interested Observer wrote on Jun 2, 2009 5:42 AM:

" I'm tired of the division this issue creates. The state should do away with 'marriage' altogether, reserving that function for the churches and temples; in its stead, partnership licenses should be issued to all consenting couples, regardless of gender. "

Raider65 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 5:46 AM:

" Medic57, obviously you do care if Corey is gay, or you wouldn't have responded so negitively. Fourty five states don't recognize it. That's true, they don't recognize it, yet.
If you don't want to be reminded, then don't read letters from Corey. "

The Question wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:00 AM:

" If you were to retroactively withdraw the accomplishments of gay people from history, you'd find yourself somewhere back in the Dark Ages, at least.
Subtract the achievements of these: Alexander the Great, Socrates, Hadrian, Richard the Lionhearted, Edward II, Saladin, Francis Bacon, Frederick the Great, Byron, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Willa Cather, E.M. Forster, Tchaikovsky, Marcel Proust, Cole Porter, Leonard Bernstein, Julius Caesar, Pope Julius III, Pope Benedict IX, Pope John XII, James I, Lawrence of Arabia, Horatio Alger, Herman Melville, Charles Laughton, Bessie Smith, Tennessee Williams, James Baldwin, Peter the Great, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Hans Christian Andersen, Dag Hammerskjold, Andy Warhol, Noel Coward, James Dean, Montgomery Clift, Rock Hudson, Elton John, Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci.
So next time you see a gay person, be sure and thank them for your culture and the civilization you enjoy. "

The Truth wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:04 AM:

" Actually, GOD will get rid of homosexuals. Any who think otherwise are living in their gay fantasy land. "

Airy Dite wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Would some of you homophobes please enlighten me. What about homosexuality do you fear? (And I don't want to hear any Bible stuff.) How does their sexual orientation affect you personally? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:33 AM:

" Interested Observer I like your suggestion of partnership licenses, like the civil unions in other countries for ALL couples whatever their sexual orientation. Good for Mr. Taylor for speaking up. One word of caution never commit violence against other people or property, you then become one of "them." "

Becky wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:58 AM:

" Interested Observer wrote on Jun 2, 2009 5:42 AM:

" I'm tired of the division this issue creates. The state should do away with 'marriage' altogether, reserving that function for the churches and temples; in its stead, partnership licenses should be issued to all consenting couples, regardless of gender. "

Good answer!!! I like it. Law should never be established from the pulpit. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:12 AM:

" This incessant harping for "rights" by our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is a most curious thing indeed.
In a society that has over a 50% failure rate when "marriage" is only between a man and a woman, what they are really asking for is the "right" to line the pockets of even more divorce attorneys.
Be careful what you demand, you may not be able to afford it. "

just wondering wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Being gay is a choice. You are not born gay. People use that arguement to not accept responsibility for their actions. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:24 AM:

" The most negative aspect of Corey's statement "I am gay. And I will remind you every chance I get.", is not that he is gay, it's that he is overtly obnoxious and obsessive about the topic. Apparently Corey wants society to view him for his sexuality first and foremost. Didn't women burn their bras against such stereotypes? "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:39 AM:

" Your wrong, medic. Due to the intolerance of so many people in our society, most gays don't go around reminding us of their every change they get. Because of this intolerance, too many gays are forced live two different lives.

I've know a lot of gays who have to do that very thing in order accomplish a rewarding career. Having worked in both industry and education, I have seen this situation occur many times in both places. I have seen excellent and qualified people overlooked for advancement and on the University level, denied tenure and advancement because of their sexual orientation. That, my friend, is just plain wrong.

When I read comments on this site like "God hates fags" from the pseudo Christians and as one poster so blatantly said on another thread, they make you want to puke your guts out, I think it's pretty obvious that there is a lot of hatred towards gays. Personally I think it's a fear issue and I don't understand it. Gays don't recruit. They're not after our children.

I think all Corey Taylor was saying is that gays are here to stay and all the bigotry and hatred is not going to change that.

I have two children that I am very proud of, but if either of them were gay it wouldn't change my feelings towards them. Should the parents of gay children be denied the same thing. Hopefully our children and grandchildren will not treat gay Americans the same way our generation has.

Maybe someday in the future people will actually do as MLK asked, and that is to judge people by the content of their character. Heterosexuals don't hold a monopoly on character, medic. "

das wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:22 AM:

" just wondering: Really? Wow. Some people are just ridiculous. Do you really think someone would CHOOSE to be hated, to be persecuted, to be seen as a second class citizen, to be something that so many people, like yourself, thinks it "disgusting," to be ostracized by their families, etc etc. The argument that being homosexual is a choice is probably the most ignorant argument your side has. Did you choose to be straight? Please, tell me about the morning you work up and said, "Hmm... I think I am going to be straight." Come on now. You're ridiculous. Corey is very right about this, the more and more your side spew their hatred towards gays, the more and more mainstream America is going to open their eyes and realize it's all a bunch of crock. Next time you need help from someone, maybe you should ask them if they're straight first, I mean, since you hate gays and think they choose to be vile and disgusting then maybe you should never receive any help from them as well. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:31 AM:

" jr where are you on this one?? Being the thumper you are I am sure I know. As for me if they are gay thats fine with me, never had a problem with it and never will. Just because they are gay does not mean some kind of germ will jump to me and make me gay.
Corey you showed guts and nerve writing a letter like this, good job. But like Medic is trying to say "I think" is why would you want to "And I will remind you every chance I get." ??
Do not try and force people to accept it, but do not hide it either. There is no reason straight and gays can not coexist "together". "

The Question wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:35 AM:

" Actually, GOD will get rid of homosexuals. Any who think otherwise are living in their gay fantasy land.
---
Gays have been around throughout human history, and homosexual behavior is widely observed in the animal kingdom. So your god is sure taking his own sweet time about it, isn't he? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:41 AM:

" The next time you gay people see a heterosexual, be sure to thank them for their natural inclination and ability to procreate, and thus for your birth. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:50 AM:

" I have seen excellent and qualified people overlooked for advancement and on the University level, denied tenure and advancement because of their sexual orientation. That, my friend, is just plain wrong.

Sorry Harry, that, my friend, is just the way that 98% of the worlds population thinks, that 98% just doesn't believe in rewarding morally bankrupt behavior.

What does Corey have to look forward to, a life that he has to hide, I'll bet, that when he turned gay, he even hid it from his parents.

As Morgan Fairchild said, "Rock Hudson's death gave AIDS a face. Nope, he wasn't the one who gave it a face, Ryan White did. There was a courageous boy who didn't deserve what he got. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:53 AM:

" Gays have always been here to stay Mr Potter. And no amount of activism will convince the majority of humanity that homosexuality is "normal".
Unfortunately, obnoxiously pushing their demands onto society will only fuel more bigotry and hatred, not less. "

father bob wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:56 AM:

" thanks corey....great letter.

you do have friends and support here as well. "

Becky wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:56 AM:

" just wondering wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:14 AM:

" Being gay is a choice. You are not born gay. People use that arguement to not accept responsibility for their actions"

Oh really? How would you know? And gays do take responsiblity for their actions. That's why they should have the right to legally bind their commitments to each other. If they didn't accept "responsibility" for their actions, we wouldn't even know they existed now would we? "

shoshanna wrote on Jun 2, 2009 10:01 AM:

" FOLKS, we can ignore the truth or compromise. this fact remains, the Bible says sodomy is an abomination to God. to thoses who have chosen to live this perverted lifestyle, you are in rebellion to God. plain and simple. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:01 AM:

" It is statements like Mr Truths that drive some men to beat the cra-- out of homosexuals by making them think that they are doing "God's" work. Those who say that I am sorry he was killed but he got what he deserved when speaking about Dr. Tiller are pure hypocrites and are just as guilty as Mr. Truth in creating a climate of hate where life is devalued and the "end" justifies the means. "

father bob wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:06 AM:

jrussell wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:14 AM:

" medic57 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:32 AM:

" So now I'm a bigot by association? "

...Darn close, corey talks about it because it means something to him and when you believe in something you fight for it, if it is "just the right to marry" then what is the big deal? i'm sick of hearing about futuregen and abortion just as well but again this is an opinions page "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:50 AM:

" ... I'll bet, that when he turned gay, he even hid it from his parents.

Without knowing it Medic, I think you hit the nail on the head with that ignorant comment. People don't turn gay. It's not a choice. That's a rationalization that the pseudo-religious zealots like Vanatta use to justify their hatred. Homosexuals are born that way medic, they don't choose to turn gay overnight. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:15 PM:

" Harry its back. "

Beaches wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:36 PM:

" Name calling and ridiculous attacks aside, I agree that marriage should be a religious "ceremony" and the legal side should be a partnership. And I also agree that partnership brings with it good and bad - good, health benefits, recognition; bad, difficulty of getting out of the situation. But, that is for an adult to decide. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:44 PM:

" Corey, I applaud you for this letter.

medic57 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:32 AM:
" So now I'm a bigot by association? "

I don't think it's association ... more from you:

"Sorry Harry, that, my friend, is just the way that 98% of the worlds population thinks, that 98% just doesn't believe in rewarding morally bankrupt behavior.

What does Corey have to look forward to, a life that he has to hide, I'll bet, that when he turned gay, he even hid it from his parents.

As Morgan Fairchild said, "Rock Hudson's death gave AIDS a face. Nope, he wasn't the one who gave it a face, Ryan White did. There was a courageous boy who didn't deserve what he got. "

So gay people deserve AIDS? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:54 PM:

" "...I'll bet, that when he turned gay, he even hid it from his parents."

You betcha, medic. I don't know about Corey Taylor, but I do know people who have hid it from their parents. Not only from parents, but from siblings, friends, co-workers--even fellow church members. Don't be shocked! Who knows, one of your best buddies at church might have a secret that is eating away at her/him inside. Hearing all the derogatory comments that are directed towards gay people in our houses of worship, who would ever admit it?

What person would ever choose to be gay? Who would choose to be the recipient of all the abuse (verbal and physical) that has been directed towards gays? Even the conservative Dobson agrees that gays aren't born that way and even allows for a "genetic predisposition" for homosexuality.

Violence will not help the cause, though. It would only provide those who harrass you with more ammunition, and allow them to justify their behavior even more.

Things will change with time. Younger people tend to be much less homophobic than their parents. Kids "come out" in high school, and their friends accept them. Even if they disagree with the lifestyle, a friend is a friend. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:03 PM:

" You had to know that Susan was going to bring Tiller The Killer into the topic. Dr. Tiller did nothing but kill babies. Is what happened to him justifiable, absolutly not. Will some people be happy, absolutely yes. What he did doesn't justify killing him in cold blood. That he was an important member of a church is incredible, I know of no church of any denomination who would welcome him. It was bound to happen to him sooner or later though. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:09 PM:

" "jg-tc"

"Just Give The Communist-line" "

medic57 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:20 PM:

" So gay people deserve AIDS?

It is an undeniable scientific fact that you have a MUCH greater chance of contracting Aids if you are Homosexual than if you are not. That being said, you play, you pay. I think that homosexuals who get aids, or for that fact, IV drug users who get aids should be put to the bottom of the line when it comes to treatment options, those options should go to people who aquired it through no fault of their own. Same goes for alcoholics with bad livers, Mickey Mantle should have never been put at the top of the list simply because he was Mickey Mantle. Walter Payton refused to be put at the top of the transplant list because of who he was. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:32 PM:

" Even though I, as a Christian, oppose active homosexual lifestyles, I would never advocate hatred towards anyone. Christ commands us to love everyone, even our enemies. I believe that an individual with an inclination towards homosexuality is carrying a spiritual wound that may never be healed. Christ calls us to pray for all such individuals, to befriend such human beings, and to ultimately love these brothers and sisters of ours that He has created.

The most regretful aspect of this entire debate is that it casts individual human beings as nothing more than the sum of all their sexuality. There is so much more to all of us than just our sexuality. In fact, as most of us age, time will diminish and even remove this activity from our lives. Just as beauty fades, so will desire. And yet what truly makes us, us- will remain. "

father bob wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:43 PM:

" AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:44 PM:
"As Morgan Fairchild said, "Rock Hudson's death gave AIDS a face. Nope, he wasn't the one who gave it a face, Ryan White did. There was a courageous boy who didn't deserve what he got. "

So gay people deserve AIDS? """"

Anna, interestingly, i have tried to make several posts all well within the JG-TC's guidelines, none of which have been posted.

it seems OK to bash our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, but far be it for anyone to have a contrary opinion concerning anything in the support of GLBT or abortion advocacy.

the rightwing has free rein here to post as loose cannons, and the left has to tiptoe around trying to be politically correct. "

devilishangel61401 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:45 PM:

" Corey I appauld your courage for your letter, God bless you for your courage. I feel that marriage should be about love not gender. For those who say people "choose" to be gay, I have freinds who are gay and everytime anyone has said that to them their repsponses have always been the same: "why would I choose this, why would anyone choose to be harrased, treated badly, not have their relationships acknowelged, and to even be at risk for becoming the target of a hate crime." When I was 22 I watched one of my best freinds loose her partner of 10 years to a car accident, "Valerie" was never allowed into "Leslie's" room even though Leslie's family lived 3 hours away. The hospital said "family only" and since Valerie and Leslie could never marry, Leslie's mom and dad were on their way to the hosptial which was 3 hours away and sadly Leslie died alone. Their parents accepted their relationship and Leslie's dad was minister. When people would ask him how he could accept the relationship he alway would reply with this " Jesus taught love and tolerance, caring and acceptence and the Bible says Judge not lest ye be judged and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It is not for me to judge anyone, but to love everyone for if there is anyone who can judge it is only God not man." That has stuck with me all of these years I feel that it is beautiful way to look at things.

When you want to get married it is to declare your love for a person, to announce your commitment to spend your life caring for and loving someone. My stepdad was African American and my mom was White, at one time they would never have been allowed to be married, and I would have missed out on having a wonderful father who always treated me as though I was his own flesh n blood. My biological dad died when I was 2 so the only dad I ever knew was my stepdad. The idea of partnership licenses for everyone regardless of gender is a good one in my opinion. I personally don't care who gets married if both parties are consenting adults. Marriage should only be about love, not religion, skin color, or gender. "

devilishangel61401 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:49 PM:

" Beaches wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:36 PM:

" Name calling and ridiculous attacks aside, I agree that marriage should be a religious "ceremony" and the legal side should be a partnership. And I also agree that partnership brings with it good and bad - good, health benefits, recognition; bad, difficulty of getting out of the situation. But, that is for an adult to decide. "

Beaches thank you so much for this. I agree with you 1,000%. "

Becky wrote on Jun 2, 2009 3:10 PM:

" shoshanna wrote on Jun 2, 2009 10:01 AM:

" FOLKS, we can ignore the truth or compromise. this fact remains, the Bible says sodomy is an abomination to God

You are assuming that everyone everywhere adheres to your religious beliefs and your book of myths called "The Bible". What about those who praise a different God, have different beliefs? Why should we be forced to live under YOUR God's laws? What makes you and your religious dogma any more important than others? And why is religeous dogma even being considered when talking about LAWS of the state? Not letting gays get married because of the bible is like making laws that Jews or Muslims must observe Christmas and Easter in the manner that you do. That's just plain WRONG!!! "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 3:17 PM:

" Shoshanna the Bible does not say that sodomy is an abomination to God. Didn't you read my earlier letter. The word translated as sodomy has been mistranslated and is better translated as a Pederast, a man that exploits boys. It isn't the sexual act that is the problem it is the exploitation, the abuse, coercion, force that God is against. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 2, 2009 3:26 PM:

" Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 2, 2009 9:31 AM:
" jr where are you on this one?? Being the thumper you are I am sure I know. As for me if they are gay thats fine with me, never had a problem with it and never will. Just because they are gay does not mean some kind of germ will jump to me and make me gay.
Corey you showed guts and nerve writing a letter like this, good job. But like Medic is trying to say "I think" is why would you want to "And I will remind you every chance I get." ??
Do not try and force people to accept it, but do not hide it either. There is no reason straight and gays can not coexist "together". "

Rohn you are correct in that all should live in peace together. I have nothing against homosexuals, and have even said I have family members that are. I do believe that the act of homosexuality, not the person, but the act is a sin against God. I do not believe as The Truth, in that "God will get rid of homosexuals" as he/she believes. If they knew their Scriptures better they would know that God loves all people, but hates the sin. He does not encourage hatred, and persecution of homosexuals. These are the same people that believe AIDS is a curse on homosexuals, which is just not true. As for your comment, " jr where are you on this one?? Being the thumper you are I am sure I know." You jumped to conclusions again, what a surprise. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 2, 2009 3:30 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:01 AM:
" It is statements like Mr Truths that drive some men to beat the cra-- out of homosexuals by making them think that they are doing "God's" work. Those who say that I am sorry he was killed but he got what he deserved when speaking about Dr. Tiller are pure hypocrites and are just as guilty as Mr. Truth in creating a climate of hate where life is devalued and the "end" justifies the means. "

Susan you are right. It is ignorance like this that give Christians a bad name. The Scriptures do not encourage, nor condone such activity. Those that encourage and justify such activity are most defiantly NOT doing God's work. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 2, 2009 4:34 PM:

" Very good jr. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 4:39 PM:

" Here comes Susan with her explanations again. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 2, 2009 4:52 PM:

" Here's a challenge for my fellow posters. I would like to see the research that proves homosexuality is a choice. There has been a lot of research dealing with the subject. So let's hear about the studies that show its a choice. How about it medic?

PS, Vanatta's distorted ideas don't constitute legitimate research. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 2, 2009 5:25 PM:

" Well, father bob, my reply was censored.

Go figure. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 2, 2009 5:36 PM:

" Okay to be fair, my censored comment made reference to another comment that has also been deleted. "

kamfong wrote on Jun 2, 2009 6:03 PM:

" Hey Cory thats awesome to stand up for what you believe,and may i ask are you currently unattatched or dating?? "

The Question wrote on Jun 2, 2009 6:34 PM:

" Here's some research, Harry. At the University of Georgia, researchers conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men (as measured by the Index of
Homophobia). 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.
Many therapists have believed that prejudice against homosexuals involves projection-- the transfer of fear and repulsion about
one's own homosexuality onto others. In other words, men (and women) who cannot accept their same-sex desires (suppressed or conscious), release their intense feelings of self-hatred through the condemnation of other people's homosexuality.
But that's probably not the research the right wingers are looking for. Sorry. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:11 PM:

" Thanks Q. Do you think our friend medic will be able to show any studies that support his theories? If he does it will no doubt be on the lines of all those "unbiased" sites that Jon tried to foist off as proof that PPH was an evil organization. "

unknownjoe wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:12 PM:

" Straight up question, excuse the pun, but what rights are homosexuals denied that they would receive from being married? "

Hammbone wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:34 PM:

" I think it's just plain wrong.Wasent ment to be. I dont care for any of them to be around me either.That's my opionion and I'm sticking to it! Happly married for 24yrs to a wonderful Lady.Just thinking about any other way makes my skin crawl. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:04 PM:

" Hammbone, how old were you when you made that choice? Or were you born that way? "

kamfong wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:29 PM:

" Are you born tri sexual,then that leads to bisexual,wich in turn leads to full blown gaydom,or how does one describe that gray area? I'm cornfused. It kinda reminds me of a drug addiction with trisexual being the gateway drug.You try it,it's not enough so you do the bisexual thing,and that progresse's to where your life becomes unmanageble? Really theres alot less drama just having a good ole-lady.Some might just have to revisit their birth to recover from that drama. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 8:46 PM:

" UnknownJoe that is a fair question and it depends on the state where they live but it can include: rights of survivorship (inherit property, make choices about terminal care); health care benefits provided by a company or insurance company for family members; custody of children; upon marriage in many states the property of either spouse becomes joint property and is treated as such in case of divorce or death (a surviving spouse automatically retains ownership of joint property rather than going through inheritance/wills etc.); access to bank accounts; I suspect there are more issues I can't think of. "

lefty wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:31 PM:

" NEOCON ACADEMICIAN wrote

"jg-tc"

"Just Give The Communist-line"

Yknow NEOCON, they said the same thing when MLK took to the streets.

You associate with good people! "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 5:22 AM:

" The Question wrote on Jun 2, 2009 6:34 PM:
" Here's some research, Harry. At the University of Georgia, researchers conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men (as measured by the Index of
Homophobia)..."

I have a serious non argumentative question. What defines someone as homophobic? Surly just because someone does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle they would not be considered "homophobic"? On your finding I would have to disagree, especially if you say that anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle is "homophobic". As for your list of "Homosexuals in History", I don't suppose you would like to show some non-bias proof of your accusations. I randomly searched some the names and could find homosexual authors claiming with out proof the same accusations, or as in Caesars case him denying the accusations under oath. Some, those already known like Rock Hudson, were found in several places. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 6:01 AM:

" The Truth wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:04 AM:
" Actually, GOD will get rid of homosexuals. Any who think otherwise are living in their gay fantasy land. "

You are right God will get rid of those who are involved with homosexual acts. Just as he will the drunkard, the murderer, the divorcee, the adulterer, and all other sinners including yourself. Remember the Scriptures say, "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." - Romans 3:22-24, or do you claim to know God, but do not.
________________________________________

Medic you are way off base with your AIDS is a curse view my friend. If that is the case then lung cancer is a curse to smokers, except some get it who never smoked. Liver disease you said is a curse to drinkers. First if it was it would be to drunkards, not drinkers since the sin is excessive drinking. Anyways, what about the man who has never drank with it. I guess by this logic, homosexuality could be a curse towards divorcees. Blindness a curse to the one who coveted his neighbors wife or belongs. Dumbness a curse to the gossip. You are right in their is a curse for sin that is "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23. That is the only sin, these diseases and sins we have are the result of sin being brought into the world, not as a curse to sinners by God, but because we allowed sin into the world by our own selfishness. God allows it to happen so we will come to him, not to curse us. "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8. We are all sinners, and all sin in God's eyes are the same deserving death. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 6:03 AM:

" father bob wrote on Jun 2, 2009 11:06 AM:
" shoshanna wrote on Jun 2, 2009 10:01 AM:
" FOLKS, we can ignore the truth or compromise. this fact remains, the Bible says sodomy is an abomination to God. to thoses who have chosen to live this perverted lifestyle, you are in rebellion to God. plain and simple."""""

god does not exist.."plain and simple" "

All Christians everywhere but up your Bibles and tear down the churches, Bob has declared that God does not exist. Now we all know the truth "the great and powerful Oz, of Mattoon" has spoken. Just ignore the man behind the curtain when he talks though. "

jo wrote on Jun 3, 2009 7:30 AM:

" Mr. Taylor,

I applaud you for standing up for yourself and others who are too afraid to do it themselves.

Many of the above comments are exactly why people are afraid to express themselves.

It is sad to see so many people still living in the fear and ignorance that if someone is different than themselves, they must be cast aside and ridiculed.

As for the religious ones who bemoan homosexuality, we ALL fall short in the eyes of God, we ALL were born of sin, we ALL will receive forgiveness for ALL of our sins because of our faith in the Lord. My sin may be different than yours, no bigger, no smaller, but in the end, none are better, different, we ALL shall stand in the same sinners row, side by side, and ALL forgiven by God just the same.

Please know that there are people who support you, respect you, and are proud of your spirit. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 3, 2009 8:16 AM:

" homophobia
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling

We see a lot of that on this site.

if the shoe fits, wear it... "

unknownjoe wrote on Jun 3, 2009 8:27 AM:

" Thank You Susan for answering my question. The writer of this article rants on about rights other than legal marriage that is denied him and other gay people. I would like to know what those are. I understand that people who are married are given survivorship rights to property. However, in most cases of the death of a spouse with no will, the spouse must contest the state in order to retain the property without a tax burden being levied against that individual. So, it is wise to have a will drawn up in the first place. Life and death decisions, financial decisions are not automatically passed to the spouse that is why it is wise to have a POA(power of attorney) statement drawn up. In the case of minor children, if one of the gay partners is the actual genetic parent passes away, custody rights would and should/unless under circumstances of child abuse/ be given to the natural parent. If the child was adopted then both partners would/should be listed as the legal adopters of this child. This would have previously gone through legal channels and would be binding. The company that I work for allows employees with same sex partners to add them to their insurance coverage, maybe not all companies do, but the trend is moving in a that direction. Many of the issues that you discuss, heterosexual married couples must deal with through legal means anyway. But, again, this writer speaks of rights that he has been denied other than the right to legal marriage, so I reiterate, what rights have been denied? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 8:44 AM:

" "god does not exist.."plain and simple"
--------

Dawkins admits he has no idea who or what started the origin of life.

Consider also, that Newtonian physics no longer adequately explains the nature of the outer universe as we now understand it.

Now science is considering String Theory. A theory that requires spacetime to have multiple dimensions, parallel universes, black holes and wormholes which are "shortcuts" through space and time itself.

Science does not prove that God does not exist. If anything, science is discovering that the nature of the universe is much closer to the "supernatural" than what we once considered "natural". Hardly plain and simple.

Multiple dimensions, parallel universes, black holes and wormholes; how would a First Century Galilean explain such things?

Ah yes, "In my Father's house there are many dwelling places."

Plain and simple. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:03 AM:

" Medic you are way off base with your AIDS is a curse view my friend.

Where did I say Aids was a curse? "

father bob wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:14 AM:

" jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 6:03 AM:
"All Christians everywhere but up your Bibles and tear down the churches, Bob has declared that God does not exist. Now we all know the truth "the great and powerful Oz, of Mattoon" has spoken. Just ignore the man behind the curtain when he talks though. """"

thank you, happy to have your support!! and that guy behind the curtain....must be vanatta or andres, i live in new mexico. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:14 AM:

" Unfortunately, obnoxiously pushing their demands onto society will only fuel more bigotry and hatred, not less. "

You may be right 7X, but some said the same thing about the civil rights movement a few years back. Take a look at the situation in South Africa and India. Perhaps the gay community in our society, like the black community, and those in south Africa and India is sick and tired of being treated like second class citizens. In a free society there should be no room for oppression of any citizen, regardless of color, religion, ethnicity and yes, sexual orientation. Do you have an alternative suggestion for them? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:58 AM:

" Why arent we fighting with the spirit of the Stonewall rioters? Why arent we lying down in churches with our last breath, wearing blood-red hand prints like ACT-UP did? Why arent we in the streets en masse screaming our demands for civil rights or civil war; GAY RIGHTS NOW?

So, you advocate Violence now.

When Corey wrote this letter, he had only one thing in mind, to call for violence, it's in his own words, and to scream at the top of his lungs that he was Gay and he wanted everyone to know it.

Corey, when you are with your friends, how many Gay jokes do you tell, tell the truth now, I have been around many Gays in my life so I know, how many times have you tried to make a straight person feel uncomfortable with the jokes and innuendoes, then throw a hissy fit when someone not of your persuasion does the same thing. Just like a lot of Black people do when they call each other N_g_er and then throw a fit when a white person does it.

Now, these questions aren't for The Question, Susan Humphries, Father Bob or any others backing you up, they are for you Corey, I noticed you haven't posted since you letter, come on now Corey, answer the questions truthfully.

Now's your chance to remiond me every chance you you get. "

irisheyes wrote on Jun 3, 2009 10:56 AM:

" A little more science behind the idea of a "choice" or not:

Did you know you can have an XY chromosome, and essentially be perfectly female? It is called androgen (testosterone) insensitivy, where the woman lacks a proper testosterone receptor...and many of these women become supermodels.
This is just one example of how our genes make a very large difference in human development. There are many others, some not so drastic. If you understand a little more science behind the human body and development, it is very easy to see that being gay is not a choice, and that there are biological reasons for a sexual preference.

I feel for everyone who is gay out there. To those who say they have a problem with Corey because he is just obnoxious about it: People thought Martin Luther King Jr. was an obnoxious troublemaker as well. He had to be. His people were being oppressed, and being soft spoken about it would have done nothing to help change.

About those who speak of the bible, I applaud you in some ways. It takes a lot to have faith and stand up for it. But I also think religion has had far too much human manipulation over the years, and I urge you to condiser the possibility that not everything you believe is 'right'. This country was started because of political reasons, but the first settlers came over here because of religious persecution. They were tired of being denied their right to follow their own beliefs. And that is why there is the separation of church and state. Whether you agree with it morally or not should not matter. They are doing nothing to harm anyone by getting married, so why should they be stopped?

A longer post than I meant to have, but hopefully it can generate some thoughts. "

das wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:11 AM:

" medic: Did you really complain about gay people making straight people uncomfortable with jokes? Wow. I love with the majority plays victim. Do you not understand that the hatred and misinformation that you spew makes homosexuals very uncomfortable? Come on now, as a society we make homosexuals uncomfortable everyday. They have to be afraid to be themselves in most places, like Mattoon. They have to hide their true selves because they're afraid if someone knows they are gay then they might not like them anymore and or would be ridiculed. How many times have you been made uncomfortable because you're straight? How many times have people attacked you because you're heterosexual? I'm guessing the answer is zero, because even if you go to a gay bar (where plenty of heterosexuals go) no one is going to attack you or ridicule you for being heterosexual. "

The Question wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:31 AM:

" Heterosexuals should be tolerated, as long as they pretend to be gay in public. "

just wondering wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:32 AM:

" Gee das, you need to quit putting your own slant on things other people says. Nowhere did I say it was disgusting and nowhere did I spew any hatred. You seem to be doing the one saying it is vile and disgusting. All I am saying is if you make a choice in life you need to accept the responsibility of the actions to come. Yes people make choices all the time that make others look down on them. People who start using drugs and become addicted made the choice to start. Show me some proof that people are born gay. You cant do it. I probably have more gay friends than you do. They know I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I don't harp on it all the time. They also know not to try to change my feelings on the subject and I don't try to change theirs. Maybe you are the one that needs to take a closer look in the mirror, because you are the one talking hatred not me. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:32 AM:

" "You may be right 7X, but some said the same thing about the civil rights movement a few years back."
---------

That's a fair question Mr Potter, but I see some distinct differences between the two movements.

If the gay rights movement was reasonable enough on it's own it would not need the credibility of the civil rights movement to strengthen it's argument.

The only rights that seem to be in question here are the legal/financial rights that come with marriage. This is far different than the very basic rights denied African Americans such as voting, education, a seat on a bus, the use of a restroom, the use of a drinking fountain, and all the other forms of discrimination that segregated them from most aspects of a free society. This comparison actually diminishes, degrades, and somewhat insults the moral, legal, and yes, religious roots of the Civil Rights Movement.

My humble suggestion would be to change the very premise of the argument.

Instead of changing the definition of "marriage", which has been first and foremost a religious covenant, and at the very least a civil union between a male and a female, why not change the legal definition of "civil union"?

This would grant all the legal/financial benefits to same sex unions without destroying the legal and religious definitions of "marriage". Neither side would be infringed upon and it would keep the state out of the sticky realm of religious doctrine. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:48 AM:

" Unknown Joe you hit on the reasons why marriage is necessary without realizing it. In cases where a child is raised by two mommies and the natural father has had no contact with the child upon the death of the natural mother, the father can claim custody over the surviving non-biological mother who helped raise the child inspite of a will that says otherwise. In the case of property rights the laws vary from state to state, and wills can be contested in court, legal property rights granted by marriage laws is another safeguard. Homophobic next of kin have contested wills and won, they have denied a homosexual partner the right to visit a partner in the hospital and have contested power of attorney holding things up in court with additional expense and burden on the surviving partner. Legal rights need to be granted equally across the board, and in this country where rights are granted by marriage than marriage must be open to all of legal age regardless of their sexual orientation. "

irisheyes wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:26 PM:

" To 'just wondering' asking about proof that they are born that way. It is nearly impossible to definitively prove it, but please read my post just a few above yours. With a little scientific background, it is difficult to deny that there are biological reasons for sexual orientation. Hormones regulate almost everything during development, including differentiation of the brain into a male or female brain (please don't misconstrue this comment...I am merely talking about behavioral differences...although there are certain structures of the brain that are noticeably different such as the hypothalamus). Genetics controls all of this, and there is no single type of female brain or male brain. It is a wide spectrum. Why can't a male have developed towards the end which is associated with female wants, desires, sexual preference, etc? To simply deny that and say it is definitely a choice is not an argument. I have given some evidence to my side...please provide some evidence, preferentially scientific, to yours. "

das wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:30 PM:

" just wondering: Really? You have more gay friends than me? Well, I highly doubt that, but that is beside the point. I was pointing out what homosexuals face and what the people on your side, or the right/religious, feel and preach. I am only merely pointing out what homosexuals face on a daily basis from several different directions. You refused to answer my question about when you decided to become a heterosexual. Did you sit down and weigh the options of which one and then decide that heterosexuality is the right way and the way for you? If you think people choose to be gay, then that would have to mean people choose to be straight as well, right? Also, since people choose to be gay, according to you, then please, explain to me why they choose this? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:31 PM:

" They have to hide their true selves because they're afraid if someone knows they are gay then they might not like them anymore and or would be ridiculed.

Oh my, how terrible it would be to be not liked by someone or to be ridiculed.

Who here hasn't been ridiculed once in their life or had people who didn't like them.

I have never, in my life, been in one (1) fight, don't believe in it, don't believe in violence either. So, while I loath Homosexuals and their lifestyle, I have never and would never condone violence against them. Just don't tell me you're going to remind me of you every chance you get, I will gladly accept your lifestyle as long as I don't know about it and you don't try to ram it down my throat. "

das wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:36 PM:

" Oh and here is an article backing up homosexuality being at least in some part genetic.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,978923,00.html "

jrussell wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:16 PM:

" jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 5:22 AM:

" The Question wrote on Jun 2, 2009 6:34 PM:
" Here's some research, Harry. At the University of Georgia, researchers conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men (as measured by the Index of
Homophobia)..."

I have a serious non argumentative question. What defines someone as homophobic? Surly just because someone does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle they would not be considered "homophobic"? On your finding I would have to disagree, especially if you say that anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle is "homophobic". As for your list of "Homosexuals in History", I don't suppose you would like to show some non-bias proof of your accusations. I randomly searched some the names and could find homosexual authors claiming with out proof the same accusations, or as in Caesars case him denying the accusations under oath. Some, those already known like Rock Hudson, were found in several places

...I get where your coming from, I agree that not agreeing with it isn't homophobia as some people don't agree with murder right, but preventing them from having those few rights as well as the right of marriage is just silly to me, it really isn't going to hurt anyone, i think people worry about how we will be viewed as a state or country or how our children will respond but it's not like movies don't show it and it's not like they don't have the right to display that affection in public as much as the next person "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:56 PM:

" The problem 7X with the civil union position (which I agree with as I have shown on above posts and on other threads over these years) is that many religious extremeists refuse to grant that as a concession claiming it is still a marriage whether you call it something different or not. Personally the state should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses to anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) they should ALL be civil union licenses. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:59 PM:

" Mr. Russell a phobia is an irrational fear, not based on fact or the reality of the situation. Anyone claiming that allowing homosexuals to marry threatens the moral foundations of society is homophobic, there is no rational reasoning, no facts, no basis in reality for such a statement. "

Just an opinion wrote on Jun 3, 2009 3:24 PM:

" shoshanna wrote on Jun 2, 2009 10:01 AM:

" FOLKS, we can ignore the truth or compromise. this fact remains, the Bible says sodomy is an abomination to God. to thoses who have chosen to live this perverted lifestyle, you are in rebellion to God. plain and simple. "

Webster's online:
sodomy
Pronunciation: \ˈs-də-mē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:111
Date: 13th century
: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex

Guess you don't have to be gay to perform sodomy, right? How many hetrosexuals are "rebelling" against their god by living "perverted lifestyles" cuz I've seen some movies.... "

STINKY wrote on Jun 3, 2009 4:39 PM:

" Airy Dite wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:32 AM:
" Would some of you homophobes please enlighten me. What about homosexuality do you fear? (And I don't want to hear any Bible stuff.) How does their sexual orientation affect you personally? "

It affects me when I stumble across gay pornography on the Internet by accident. That stuff grosses me out. Other than that it has no effect on me. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 3, 2009 6:18 PM:

" Just a opinion. You can bet I have and do both with my wife, and am not planning on stopping anytime soon. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 3, 2009 6:26 PM:

" Hey medic, we're still waiting for you to show some proof that homosexuality is a choice. If that's the case, you shouldn't have any problem backing up your claim. It appears that several posters have shown evidence for the opposite. Come on now, we're waiting... "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 3, 2009 6:46 PM:

" Wow, political opinions or calling the sheriff on a poorly-worded statement gets censored, but details of someone's sexual activities get right out there for everyone to read.

Thanks! "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 3, 2009 7:01 PM:

" BTW my comment was for Rohn.

Harry, I hope you brought a crossword puzzle or something to kill time with. "

kamfong wrote on Jun 3, 2009 8:35 PM:

" Anna--I agree,those lewd comments you post about remind me of that creepy scene in the show deliverance(sic) "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:01 PM:

" That might be a tad too much information, Rohn. "

ed miller wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:09 PM:

" Corey,

You are gay. Congratulation. Would you like a cookie or something? You must be a very busy person, what with food service, retail, and saving lives.

BTW, I was unaware that your kind had a trademark on the word "gay" Do you and your other hetrophobic friends think it's cute and clever when you refer to the rest of us as "breeders"? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:43 PM:

" "Just a opinion. You can bet I have and do both with my wife, and am not planning on stopping anytime soon."
---------

You're just made your wife very proud, I'm sure, Mr Gordon. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 10:06 PM:

" Rohn

I'm sure your wife is more than thrilled right now. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 10:42 PM:

" Ahh yes, Deliverance, the 1st R rated movie I ever saw, legally anyways, I think it scarred me for life. The actors who played the two mountain were voted the top movie villins of all time. "

unknownjoe wrote on Jun 3, 2009 10:52 PM:

" I will try the direct approach. What rights are you being denied? "

lefty wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:33 PM:

" ED MILLER, awfully defensive! Hiding something? Deep in a closet?... "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:43 PM:

" father bob wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:14 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 6:03 AM:
"All Christians everywhere but up your Bibles and tear down the churches, Bob has declared that God does not exist. Now we all know the truth "the great and powerful Oz, of Mattoon" has spoken. Just ignore the man behind the curtain when he talks though. """"

thank you, happy to have your support!! and that guy behind the curtain....must be vanatta or andres, i live in new mexico. "

The Wizard was from Kansas your point. You can't even detect sarcasm. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:48 PM:

" medic57 wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:03 AM:
" Medic you are way off base with your AIDS is a curse view my friend.

Where did I say Aids was a curse? "

It was implied with the comment you made, "...Nope, he wasn't the one who gave it a face, Ryan White did. There was a courageous boy who didn't deserve what he got." If that is not what you were saying then I apologize, but I was not the only one who took it that way. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:54 PM:

" jrussell wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:16 PM:

...I get where your coming from, I agree that not agreeing with it isn't homophobia as some people don't agree with murder right, but preventing them from having those few rights as well as the right of marriage is just silly to me, it really isn't going to hurt anyone, i think people worry about how we will be viewed as a state or country or how our children will respond but it's not like movies don't show it and it's not like they don't have the right to display that affection in public as much as the next person"

Though I might not agree with all you said here, I appreciate your honest, non "your stupid", answer. Thank you. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:59 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:59 PM:
" Mr. Russell a phobia is an irrational fear, not based on fact or the reality of the situation. Anyone claiming that allowing homosexuals to marry threatens the moral foundations of society is homophobic, there is no rational reasoning, no facts, no basis in reality for such a statement. "

Not wanting to be around a lifestyle you do not agree with is not a phobia, but a belief and a choice. Just as some homosexuals do not like being around heterosexuals. I guess by your logic they are heterophobics. Not because they are scared of them, but just do not agree with them. "

what? wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:10 AM:

" All these words. Ashes. Life is. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 4, 2009 3:01 AM:

" STINKY wrote on Jun 3, 2009 4:39 PM:

" Airy Dite wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:32 AM:
" Would some of you homophobes please enlighten me. What about homosexuality do you fear? (And I don't want to hear any Bible stuff.) How does their sexual orientation affect you personally? "

It affects me when I stumble across gay pornography on the Internet by accident. That stuff grosses me out. Other than that it has no effect on me. "

I have been perusing the internet since before browsers, when you had to use UNIX command line language, and I have never yet seen ANYONE just stumble accross anything purely by accident. "

kamfong wrote on Jun 4, 2009 6:27 AM:

" Medic 57 I was thinking the same thing nobody just stumbles across gay porm,stinky makes it sound like he was browsing and gay porm jumped out and got him.lol "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 4, 2009 6:36 AM:

" BTW, I was unaware that your kind had a trademark on the word "gay" Do you and your other hetrophobic friends think it's cute and clever when you refer to the rest of us as "breeders"? "

Tell us some of the pets names you use for our gay friends, eddie. I'll bet you have some dandies.

I guess you won't be moving to New Hampshire any time soon. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:17 AM:

" Wait a minute Medic are you saying "Gay pornography" grosses you out, does that mean that "Heterosexual pornography" or "Child pornography" doesn't gross you out? Does that mean you are stimulated by those other kinds of pornography? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:21 AM:

" Speaking of grossing someone out. Medic have you (or anyone else) seen the wonderful new commercial on TV "Oh sweet mystery of life at last I found you", two very fat men running towards each other embracing and then skipping off holding hands into the sunset. What a hoot. I forget exactly what it is they are advertising, some kind of new fast food delight that blends Italian and Mexican cuisine. Talk about in your face. I love it. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:28 AM:

" You can debate my rights forever and it will not matter. Your hate does not change me. Your laws do not change me. I am still gay, and I am still right in front of you. I am serving your food to you in restaurants. I am ringing up what you buy at the cash register. I am taking you where you need to go. I am entertaining you on the radio, on television, at the movies, and on the sports field. I am performing your life-saving operation. I am teaching your children. I am defending you in a lawsuit. I am transporting your goods. I am building your homes.
...............................
Corey,

With everything you are doing, I don't know how you find time to be gay. LMAO "

MemberID100 wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:46 AM:

" There is sure is a lot of ignorance posted on here. It's a mixture of entertainment and discouragement, I would have to say. (I certainly do not want to dismiss those who have shared their support and respect for differences.)

Gay people are everywhere and have always been. Gays are found in the churches, schools, Republican party, post office, and at your family gatherings.

Some of you are so silly with your fear towards gay people!

And to Hammbone: congrats on your happy marriage for 20+ years. Did you know that there are plenty of gay couples who have been together for just as long or longer? Sorry that love makes your skin crawl.

Institutional discrimination is a running theme in this country. I believe eventually walls and other barriers will be broken down to provide equality for all.

Sexual Health Rights for all!! "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 4, 2009 9:51 AM:

" Jrhendren, our other thread seems to have disappeared. Once again, though, you didn't respond to what Susan actually wrote. But ignoring that fact, perhaps you can tell us how same-sex marriage would threaten the sanctity of marriage, or the foundation of society. I mean, how would 2 gays marrying harm your marriage? It certainly wouldn't hurt mine.

No one else has been able to explain this, so go for it. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 4, 2009 10:27 AM:

" I'd like to thank COREY TAYLOR for writing this overtly effusive and dramatic letter to the paper.

It provides so much insight regarding this persons stance and feelings on the subject.

Well done. It was quite informative as well as entertaining.

And now, after reading all of the critical comments from both sides of the subject, how about having a "big people's conversation" over the subject?

Let's start by comparing and contrasting the similarities and differences between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage, on an adult level?

We can first talk about the concept of "love" associated with both sides of the argument.

We can then talk about the "ACTS OF LOVE and PLEASURE" versus the acts of "PRO-CREATION" associated with both sides of the subject.

I'll warn you though certain "acts" as associated with one side of the argument will be censored.

I know this because I used medical terminology associated with these "certain acts" and they were censored from use on this blog.

I wonder why that is?

I know I always consider medical terminology offensive when it's used with things I don't want to hear or consider.

It seems hardly fair though to leave out portions of the information concerning the argument, doesn't it?

The overall ramifications and profound implications of acceptance of gay marriage falls directly on what it means to be "a family", so shouldn't we be able to discuss those "every" aspects "openly"?

I wonder what the "dirty little secret" is that won't allow us to openly discuss these aspects?

I wonder what it is?

We can then discuss the historical perspectives which caused the disavowal of homosexuality, related to disease development associated to the topic, as it pertains to "gay marriage".

No, no...not HIV/AIDS, although incidence rate per certain populations seems to me to be important to the discussion, doesn't it, or is that being too logical?

CAN I USE HIV/AIDS or will that get censored too? I'm rolling the dice here.

How about discussion of all of those other STD's critical to the issue per group incidence? I'm rolling the dice here again...

I wonder if the development of certain medicines and medical treatments have played any part toward societys acceptance" of homosexual activity, and therefore, gay marriage?

If we took those medical developments out, do you think we'd still be arguing this issue?

I wonder?

And then we can discuss the potential intended and unintended consequences and impacts of providing "legal" status to gay marriage.

We can consider how acceptance of gay marriage impacted Swedish society for one.

It's weird though how marriage rates overall declined there since its acceptance, isn't it?

And it's weird how the incidence of un-married births there climbed after its legal acceptance.

We all know how beneficial to society it is for kids to be raised in one parent families, don't we?

Those darn correlations! They always seem to confound people's feelings' on an issue! Maybe we can manipulate the numbers to make people feel better...

Ah, never mind...

Let's just call people "haters" and "phobics", throw tantrums when 7-9% of us don't get our way, and use sympathetic judges to legislate our views into existence.

THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT! "

jukbx wrote on Jun 4, 2009 10:42 AM:

" Well said Neocon! "

das wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:24 AM:

" That's right neocon, 91-97% of the population should be able to control the rights of 7-9% of the population. Wow, I'm really glad we have over stepped this thinking in the past. If not then we're really be a messed up country. The great thing is, it's not a matter of if equal rights will be granted, it's a matter of when. I'm very happy and proud that my generation has been raised to be accepting and open-minded to all people. Our constitution is there it protect the minority from the majority. It's okay if you don't see it now, but one day you will, and when that day comes along hopefully you will finally open your eyes and see that you don't have the right to keep a group of people as second class citizens. Here is a great quote that fits this issue perfectly:
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
-Thomas Jefferson "

medic57 wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:24 AM:

" I wonder what the "dirty little secret" is that won't allow us to openly discuss these aspects?

I wonder what it is?

Duhhh, maybe, The JG-TC doesn't really want 9 and 10 year olds to read it. "

father bob wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:26 AM:

" ed miller wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:09 PM:
"I was unaware that your kind had a trademark on the word "gay" Do you and your other hetrophobic friends think it's cute and clever when you refer to the rest of us as "breeders"? """""

eddie, you are a living example that not all heterosexual couples need to be "breeders". "

father bob wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:58 AM:

" hmmmm.....interesting, using logic found in these threads, my brother and his wife who have no children, shouldn't have been able marry, or in the very least stay married since no procreation has occurred. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:50 PM:

" This is from the Sacramento, CA BEE:

American democracy has always moved toward the expansion of rights and privileges, and the right to marriage will someday be extended to all. Research and polling show that it's only a matter of time before gay and lesbian Americans can choose their own partners in some form of marriage.

Ironically, in their efforts to keep gays and lesbians from marrying, so-called social conservatives may in fact destroy marriage as a socially conservative institution.

Divorce notwithstanding, marriage stands for a lifelong commitment, an unbreakable union of two individuals, recognized and supported by their community. By denying a significant proportion of Americans the right to marriage, we have set in motion a process that is now redefining marriage into various forms of "civil unions." Civil unions, which cannot be restricted to homosexual couples, will themselves become an alternative to traditional marriage, a "marriage lite." Once our society accepts two levels of marriage, the real breakdown of marriage as a founding bedrock institution of society will have begun.

By denying rights to those they deem unworthy of the honors and responsibilities associated with marriage, so-called social conservatives have begun the actual downfall of marriage. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:54 PM:

" "We all know how beneficial to society it is for kids to be raised in one parent families, don't we?"

Why aren't you complaining about divorce?

The effects of divorce on marriage, children and the "traditional family" have been profound and much more detrimental than same-sex unions could ever be. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 1:10 PM:

" Yes lets do address the issue like adults NeoCon. Let's don't forget about syphllis, herpes and gonorhea (sp?). Let's also look at the statistics that show how many of those children born with only one parent on a birth certificate actually grow up in a one parent home. Then lets look at the statistics that compare the affect (final outcomes, run-ins with the law, college degrees, unemployment statistics, etc.) of children from a loving concerned proactive one parent home (and/or two homosexual parents home) to a hate-filled,unconcerned cannot be bothered with the kids heterosexual two parent home. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 4, 2009 1:32 PM:

" Like you said NeoCon, just a bunch of kids throwing a fit because they aren't getting their way. No one has taken away your right, you have the right to be gay, so be gay. Just do it quietly, the heterosexual people are getting a headache from all your whining. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 4, 2009 2:02 PM:

" Speaking of marriage, the conservative that so many on the right side look to for guidance has been married 3 or 4 times. "

Becky wrote on Jun 4, 2009 2:06 PM:

" "Let's just call people "haters" and "phobics", throw tantrums when 7-9% of us don't get our way, and use sympathetic judges to legislate our views into existence.

Isn't it sympathetic judges that are currently legislating YOUR VIEWS into existence neo? Nobody is asking churches or rabbis to perform anything. What gays have a right to is a legally binding contract to a civil union that gives the ADULT couple the same legal rights as you now count on if you are married. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 4, 2009 2:07 PM:

" father bob wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:26 AM:

" ed miller wrote on Jun 3, 2009 9:09 PM:
"I was unaware that your kind had a trademark on the word "gay" Do you and your other hetrophobic friends think it's cute and clever when you refer to the rest of us as "breeders"? """""

eddie, you are a living example that not all heterosexual couples need to be "breeders". "
......................................
bob,

Are you a breeder? LOL "

jukbx wrote on Jun 4, 2009 2:11 PM:

" Harry Potter wrote on Jun 4, 2009 2:02 PM:

" Speaking of marriage, the conservative that so many on the right side look to for guidance has been married 3 or 4 times.
.....................................
If at first you don't succeed.....
At least Neo isn't hanging out in a bathhouse somewhere. "

lefty wrote on Jun 4, 2009 3:22 PM:

" NEOCON, scared of a little gay-sex are ya? ...maybe you shouldn't participate. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 4, 2009 3:39 PM:

" jukbx wrote on Jun 4, 2009 1:32 PM:

" Like you said NeoCon, just a bunch of kids throwing a fit because they aren't getting their way.
----------------------------

Indeed.

See what happens though when the government gets involved with the licensing of your domestic arrangements and faith activities?

In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act too).

By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

Here's two solutions:

1) Get rid of the marriage licensing laws. Just make them all null and void. Everybody will be equal and gay people won't feel slighted over the whole "marriage" thing because of their sexual orientation/activities.

2) Just let the gays get married. No, really. Let'em knock themselves out!

I'll call them "happy" people from hence forth. It sounds so much nicer doesn't it?

Just go ahead and let the "happy" people get their "marriage" licensing from the government to get married.

The government will get their licensing revenue and the "happy" people will feel vindicated.

And then....

All you Christians and appalled heteros out there, just STOP GETTING YOUR GOVERNMENT ISSUED MARRIAGE LICENSES!

If you're already married, and appalled by the whole "happy" marriage issue just go get divorced. It's what I plan to do.

Just live together in the sight of God like you always have done. Who'll be the judge to say your not living piously and "happily", the "happy people"? Nope, just GOD.

I'm sure court system will be able to handle the extra thousands of divorces coming their way.

And those of you hetero-people out there appalled by the whole "happy" marriage licensing thing...

You can just go find a preacher....

...and then make your covenant with your spouse, and your GOD, through the preacher and marry with GOD's blessing!

You won't have to contribute $$$$ to the governments licensing fees and your income taxes will be cheaper too!

Argument solved! "Equality" and "social justice" at work!

Oops! But then the "happy" people will complain they're being discriminated against because they have to get a license to get married!!!!!!! "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 4, 2009 3:55 PM:

" Das said:

1) "Our constitution is there it protect the minority from the majority."

2) It's okay if you don't see it now, but one day you will...
----------------------------

1) Ah..no...it's not.

It's there to protect the "principles" of freedom and equality. Only some of your freedoms were guaranteed and in certain ways.

2) Ah...no...I won't.

Nobody is equal. Never have been, never will be. For example, I don't have Bill Gates money and neither do you.

Only the"principles" of equality are outlined and guaranteed.

Sheesh...some of you fell asleep in government civic class didn't you? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 4:29 PM:

" Father Bob you should have been a bit stronger with your post to Eddie, " an example that all heterosexual couples should NOT be breeders." "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 4:37 PM:

" Excuse me Neo but I think you missed something in your civics class. What good is it to protect principles unless those principles are able to be put into practice? Which would mean actually protecting the rights of the few from the fear and frustrations of the majority? "

cms77cal wrote on Jun 4, 2009 5:05 PM:

" i do belive the saying is we are all created equal so it does not madder if your gay str8 bi or whatever if you look back into the roman days the same sex occured it has been going on throw our time i think ppl are scared of that don't understand and some can't understand why would you want to be with the same sex sex is suppose be about makeing love and who can't help who you fall in love with and want to be with in ever way you can be phcyical emtional sprital it just happens u love who u love no madder if ur gay str8 or bi and if u really care for someone and know them say your dad mom sister brother friend or whom ever yor should care about them they are still them just because what goes on behind close doors in ther own home shouldnt madder how u treat ppl ppl hide things all the time for the fear what ppl think ppl down gay ppl alot and turn the other way and say o thats wrong its agianst the bible but ist also cheating on ur husband or wife agianst the bible but ppl don't so to much when someone cheats on there husband or wife but if the find out ur gay its hole nother issue but ppl are going to think and belive what ever they want to why do u think we still have raceism and so many differnt reglions "

Angry White Female wrote on Jun 4, 2009 5:16 PM:

" Many of us who are against gay marriage are not homophobes though we do fear something. We fear God's judgement upon this nation for perverting the sacrament of marriage He established if our nation were to accept gay marriage. God tends to destroy nations that turn their back on Him and sin as a nation against Him. For those of you who don't believe in God, you can dismiss this comment. Right or wrong it's merely an explanation of why many of us think the way we do. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 4, 2009 5:17 PM:

" What good is it to protect principles unless those principles are able to be put into practice? Which would mean actually protecting the rights of the few from the fear and frustrations of the majority? "
------------------

Good observation, but Das was speaking in nebulus terms, so I obliged.

Yeah they are there...but that a whole different argument.

Concerning the "happy" marriage issue one could argue for/against "separate but equal" but where's the separate or equal issue especially with same sex versus different sex marriage issue...race isn't involved so you can sqaush that argument.

The issue has been and will be the definition of "marriage".

You go there re-opening the definition and you'll definitely open up the whole M-M-F, M-F-F, and polygamy arguments.

Hey don't blame me, blame America following english common law and our government licensing marriage... "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 4, 2009 6:37 PM:

" The Angry White Female wrote:

"We fear God's judgement upon this nation for perverting the sacrament of marriage He established if our nation were to accept gay marriage."

You apparently accept divorce, which has been "perverting" the sacrament of marriage for a long, long time. Why haven't you expressed your holy outrage about the epidemic of divorce in this country, and all the social problems that result from it? Are you, medic, and NeoCon ignoring the divorce problem because so many Christians are contributing to that situation?

Don't be a hypocrite. "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:16 PM:

" CrowWoman:

The divorce issue is non-sequitur to the argument.

The first "happy" marriage couple from Massachusetts already divorced.

So, I guess I should use that fact as an argument against "happy" marriage, eh?

If you want to blame somebody for the divorce rate, blame Hitler, the Womens liberation movement of the '60's, and an ever more secular American society.

When American women entered the workforce en masse during world war 2 they gained economic freedom. Then, when the sixty's came around, Gloria, Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Fannie Lou Hamer came along to put the notion in women's heads that they didn't need men and marriage anymore since they had economic freedom.

Go ahead and blame the Christians for divorce and their divorce rate. They're attacked from all sides in the ever more secularized world; so go ahead and attack their principles and perceived failings. All and all they mostly don't fight back; they're easy targets. That should give you some feeling of empowerment, shouldn't it? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:12 PM:

" "You apparently accept divorce, which has been "perverting" the sacrament of marriage for a long, long time."
---------

I fully agree, but are you advocating the further perversion of the sacrament of marriage by extending it to same sex individuals for the first time in the history of Christianity?

How long will it be before a pair of siblings demand their legal right to "marriage"?

How long will it be before minors, who are now maturing at earlier rates than ever before, are allowed their right to "marriage"?

Don't doubt for one second that this will not happen. Once the "Natural Law" of marriage is tossed aside, all options are equally feasible. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:29 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 4, 2009 9:51 AM:
" Jrhendren, our other thread seems to have disappeared. Once again, though, you didn't respond to what Susan actually wrote. But ignoring that fact, perhaps you can tell us how same-sex marriage would threaten the sanctity of marriage, or the foundation of society. I mean, how would 2 gays marrying harm your marriage? It certainly wouldn't hurt mine.

No one else has been able to explain this, so go for it. "

Once again Susan can count on you to come to here aid. No matter, if you look back I agreed in part with what Susan said, and was just trying to get a clarification of her definition of "homophobic". As for your question, since I believe in what the Bible teaches and it teaches marriage between man and woman, it does go against the sanctity of marriage. In my opinion, that is. Why is it you feel it is so important for you to always defend Susan? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 11:36 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 4, 2009 6:37 PM:
" The Angry White Female wrote:

"We fear God's judgement upon this nation for perverting the sacrament of marriage He established if our nation were to accept gay marriage."

You apparently accept divorce, which has been "perverting" the sacrament of marriage for a long, long time. Why haven't you expressed your holy outrage about the epidemic of divorce in this country, and all the social problems that result from it? Are you, medic, and NeoCon ignoring the divorce problem because so many Christians are contributing to that situation?

Don't be a hypocrite. "

Here comes the bias surveys on divorce. Didn't you already go here once and shown your mistakes. Of course you will now say, "No, I asked you about it, and you avoided the question." Which is your usual reply when you the answer does not agree with you. Heck, even when someone agrees with you, you go and tell them they are wrong. As you have me several times in other areas. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 5, 2009 6:43 AM:

" Wow--Christians hurling stones at the gays for threatening the sanctity of marriage don't seem to enjoy being reminded that they live in glass houses.

NeoCon: If you read Barna's statistics on Christians and divorce, you will notice that they divorce pretty much as frequently as non-Christians--and in some cases more frequently.

Are we to blame Hitler, Women's lib, women in the work force, the secular society, etc. for the fact that Christians disobey Scripture and thereby undermine the sanctity of marriage by divorcing with scarcely a qualm about it? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 5, 2009 6:50 AM:

" J.R., just because you don't like the results of investigative research, you whine about the statistics being "biased." They are what they are. Instead of acknowledging the silliness of Christians harping on gays for undermining the sanctity of marriage, you try to shift responsibility elsewhere. It doesn't work--at least with those who can look at the issue objectively.

What would work to help restore the sanctity of marriage? Christians need to stop applying Scripture to other folk and apply it to themselves. They could begin by tending to their own marriages and families, doing whatever it takes to strengthen them. Obviously, based on divorce rates among Christians, a lot of work needs to be done. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 5, 2009 6:52 AM:

" J.R., I wasn't defending Susan (she can defend herself--I was defending the truth of what she said. It was important to me not to let that slip by. She was referring to research by Barna that I have read, so I knew she was not lying. (Again, why do you claim that people are lying when they say something you don't agree with?) "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:04 AM:

" Mr. Hendren the Bible does NOT teach the concept of marriage as being between one man and one woman. No where in the Bible does it say that is the ONLY form of marriage. Polygamy was fully accepted as were marriages of brothers to a brothers widow, and even cousin marriages. And then there is that wonderful story that you ignore of David and Jonathan. AND then there is the fact that the Bible has been wrong before on the issue of slavery. Wise men and women realized that slavery was wrong and put an end to the practice. Just as they have realized that saying homosexuality is a sin is wrong since it is a perfectly normal part of being human, since homosexuals can be good and are even much better citizens than many heterosexuals. People should be judged on their actions towards their fellow man not by their sexual preference. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:10 AM:

" 7X slippery slope arguments carry no weight. That is the argument where you say if we allow this to happen what is next? The issue is about the rights of consenting ADULTS. So the children will be demanding the right to marry next argument doesn't hold water. Now we can discuss/argue about what the "legal age" (when you become an adult with all legal rights and responsibilities) should be. That is a legitimate topic for discussion. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:13 AM:

" NeoCon if we are going to blame anyone for the divorce rate we should be blaming abusive men. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:22 AM:

" AngryWhite Female and so what if God destroys this nation? You will be saved, or won't you? Ezekial a6:46-48 and lines 49-50: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me;...." And Proverbs 6:16-19 "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that hurry to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family." If you are concerned about God destroying this country it won't be for homosexual behavior (that isn't mentioned in either of those passages) you need to worry about your own sins and attitudes and behaviors. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:27 AM:

" So Mr. Hendren and 7X what are you afraid will happen to YOU if you quit trying to prove that your concept of what is moral and immoral is right, that your religion is the only TRUTH and both must be obeyed/become the law of the nation? "

Beaches wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:41 AM:

" I have many friends who are gay - always have. Their sexuality is not what "defines" them to me. Who they are defines them. They do not feel obliged to remind me every day that they are gay, as I don't feel obliged to remind them daily of my sexuality. It is a small part of who I am as a person. "

father bob wrote on Jun 5, 2009 9:09 AM:

" Angry White Female wrote on Jun 4, 2009 5:16 PM:
"Right or wrong it's merely an explanation of why many of us think the way we do. """""

years of fear and brainwashing will do that to you. "

father bob wrote on Jun 5, 2009 9:59 AM:

" 7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:12 PM:
"How long will it be before a pair of siblings demand their legal right to "marriage"?

How long will it be before minors, who are now maturing at earlier rates than ever before, are allowed their right to "marriage"?

Don't doubt for one second that this will not happen. Once the "Natural Law" of marriage is tossed aside, all options are equally feasible. """""

LMOA!!! guess you've never been to Appalachia. "

The Question wrote on Jun 5, 2009 10:30 AM:

" I believe in the strict biblical concept of marriage -- you know, between one man and 700 women, like Solomon. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 5, 2009 10:45 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:13 AM:

" NeoCon if we are going to blame anyone for the divorce rate we should be blaming abusive men. "

Hump,

That goes both ways. "

The Question wrote on Jun 5, 2009 10:46 AM:

" People who squirm at the sight of bugs or are grossed out by blood and guts are more likely to be politically conservative, new studies have found.
In particular, the squeamish are more apt to have conservative attitudes about gays and lesbians.
A study last year found that when people feel physically clean, they are less judgmental.
Well, I guess we know who's needs a shower around here. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 5, 2009 10:57 AM:

" The keystone argument to come Ms Humphreys *will be* about consenting adults. With our youth maturing (both physically and emotionally) at earlier ages, what is to stop this argument from advancing on it's own merits starting with two youths?

And what about the "marriage rights" between adult siblings, Ms Humphreys? That argument will also take on a life of it's own. I fear that when "Natural Law" is rendered meaningless, all these arguments will have no moral boundaries to stand in their way. When this happens, Madam, you and I and Father Bob will not have to go to "Appalachia".

"Appalachia" will come to us. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 5, 2009 12:17 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:13 AM:

" NeoCon if we are going to blame anyone for the divorce rate we should be blaming abusive men. "
------------------------------------
BS susan women are at fault lots of the time also, stick that abusive men crap where the sun don't shine. "

kamfong wrote on Jun 5, 2009 12:35 PM:

" Father Bob you don't even have to go to the Appalachi,just drive through humboldt.lol "

NeoCon Academician wrote on Jun 5, 2009 1:01 PM:

" LMOA!!! guess you've never been to Appalachia. "
------------

So what does that mean Father Bob?
Any racial innuendo there Father Bob?
Where's that IP octet, stud? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 5, 2009 1:54 PM:

" "So Mr. Hendren and 7X what are you afraid will happen to YOU if you quit trying to prove that your concept of what is moral and immoral is right, that your religion is the only TRUTH and both must be obeyed/become the law of the nation?"
------------

I'm afraid, Ms Humphreys, that it is you who are trying to prove and impose your version of morality on the majority of this nation. From the beginning of this Republic, the only recognized law of marriage was between a man and a woman. If you change that law, then what justification will you use to prevent an even broader definition of marriage, Madam? "

kamfong wrote on Jun 5, 2009 3:00 PM:

" Cory I can respect what your trying to advocate. And I totally encourage you & your friends to petition the coles county fair and have your own pageant also, that would really get you exposure and endorsements. "

62463 wrote on Jun 5, 2009 3:07 PM:

" All you bloggers can relax, MEDIC 57 is in the hospital for a few days "

English Bob wrote on Jun 5, 2009 3:41 PM:

" I am a Christian (cue The Question's eyes rolling) who is totally okay with civil unions, partnership licenses, whatever for homosexual relationships (cue smoke emanting from The Truth's ears). I find spiritual comfort, social connection, charity and some great potluck food through my Christian beliefs, but I do not try to impose those beliefs on others. My beliefs, or anyone else's religious beliefs for that matter, are not the law of the land. Allowing gay civil unions will not cause a breakdown in society. Gay couples have been part of our American society from the beginning and we as a country are still here. These couples should have the same rights to financial/health benefits, child custody, etc. that are available to their hetero neighbors. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 3:58 PM:

" Sorry Mr. Gordon NeoCon suggested blaming divorce on American women entering the work force and I felt blame should be put in a different place. I guess that "abusive men" struck a chord with you. Are you one or have you been abused by one? Whatever, you do need to follow the full thread of a discussion rather than getting all hot under the collar. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 4:03 PM:

" Equal rights for ALL isn't MY version of morality 7X it is what this country is built upon, created to support. I explained your slippery slope argument is silly. Also the age of this Republic has nothing to do with the fact that it is and has committed a great injustice which needs to be corrected. Time nor majority opinion make immoral actions right. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 4:07 PM:

" Now you sidestepped my question 7X what will happen to YOU if you quit trying to force your concept of moral behavior on others? How will YOU be harmed by doing what is right and allowing equal rights for ALL? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 4:14 PM:

" As I said 7X the issue of legal age can and should be addressed but that is no excuse to deny homosexuals who are of the current legal age to marry. Also the issue of consenting cousins, siblings can also be addressed and should be looked at but NOT from a religious perspective. Why were there laws put in place against incest in the first place, are there valid reasons that still apply? Do you even know why there are laws against incest? Address the actual issue that the laws were set up to address not the side issue. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 5, 2009 4:16 PM:

" "NeoCon if we are going to blame anyone for the divorce rate we should be blaming abusive men."
----------

You obviously harbor some sort of resentment towards men Ms Humphreys. It's not surprising that you are such an outspoken advocate of same-sex marriage.

You don't seem to realize that your own inner turmoil is fueling your antagonism towards Christianity. I'll keep you in my prayers Madam.

Remember Ms Humphreys, we are all broken. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 4:21 PM:

" Oh and 7X the Christian Church had a long tradition of same sex marriage. A type of Christian gay marriage existed as late as the 18th century. But don't take my word for it, look it up wwww.gaychristian101.com "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 5:06 PM:

" Thanks 62 for letting us know about Medic hope he has a speeedy recovery and/or everything works out ok. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 5, 2009 5:58 PM:

" "All you bloggers can relax, MEDIC 57 is in the hospital for a few days"

I'm sorry to hear that and hope he'll be well--and be back--soon. "

M wrote on Jun 5, 2009 6:34 PM:

" yeah, kamfong, only Humboldt doesn't quite have the scenery that is found in the Appalachian Mountains...but its probably a close second. lol "

M wrote on Jun 5, 2009 6:38 PM:

" medic, I hope you're okay. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:39 PM:

" I'm sorry to disagree with you Ms Humphreys, but the equal rights that this country was built upon never included the definition of marriage to include same sex partners.
And you never gave any explanation why marriage between siblings or marriage between minors could not be seriously proposed in the future once the definition of marriage is redefined.

And you're wrong Ms Humphreys, the Christian Church did not have a history of accepted gay marriage. John Boswell and Alan Bray's re-interpretation of history has been debunk several times over. They were gay activists with an agenda, and less than sub-par historians. In fact, there are many written accounts of the early churches condemnation of homosexuality. In fact, in the 4th century the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans enacted a law against homosexual marriage.

What I "fear" Ms Humphreys, is a future where all forms of sexual relationships are accepted; gay, incestuous, and minors at younger and younger ages. With each passing "law" these things become more legitimized to our children.

Does any of that bother you Madam? Do you have children? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:40 PM:

" I hope it is nothing serious Medic. I'll definitely keep you in my prayers. God speed my friend. "

Rockin Rotty wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:52 PM:

" "Denying their rights won't get rid of gays"

No, but old age will, just like the rest of us.

Next spitter please. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:23 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 5, 2009 6:50 AM:
" J.R., just because you don't like the results of investigative research, you whine about the statistics being "biased." They are what they are. Instead of acknowledging the silliness of Christians harping on gays for undermining the sanctity of marriage, you try to shift responsibility elsewhere. It doesn't work--at least with those who can look at the issue objectively."

I am not whining just point to the fact of bias in your study. You are the one who continues to say divorce is the unforgivable sin. Your divorce must have been tough on you, for that I am sorry.
________________________________________
"What would work to help restore the sanctity of marriage? Christians need to stop applying Scripture to other folk and apply it to themselves. They could begin by tending to their own marriages and families, doing whatever it takes to strengthen them. Obviously, based on divorce rates among Christians, a lot of work needs to be done. "

Their you go again, deciding that Christians, which you claim to be, do not care really about marriage. We have already gone over time and time again, that divorce, unless for unfaithfulness, is a sin. The problem is no matter how much one says it you ignore it, and continue with your rants.
________________________________________

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 5, 2009 6:52 AM:
" J.R., I wasn't defending Susan (she can defend herself--I was defending the truth of what she said. It was important to me not to let that slip by. She was referring to research by Barna that I have read, so I knew she was not lying. (Again, why do you claim that people are lying when they say something you don't agree with?) "

You need to go back and read, what I wrote before here. I agreed, and was making a clarification. Try actually reading what is wrote in full, before jumping. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:34 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:04 AM:
" Mr. Hendren the Bible does NOT teach the concept of marriage as being between one man and one woman. No where in the Bible does it say that is the ONLY form of marriage. Polygamy was fully accepted as were marriages of brothers to a brothers widow, and even cousin marriages. And then there is that wonderful story that you ignore of David and Jonathan.

Don't tell me you are going to try and bring up the giving of David as a wife lie again. I thought we were past that. Every example of marriage in the Bible is between man and woman. No man and man, no woman and woman. That is a fact that for some odd reason you will not believe. The bible speaks loud about marriage by not speaking of it. If it was an okay thing then why is it not mentioned by marriage between man and woman is? Why does it speak of such things for an elder to be "the husband of one wife", not or the husband of one man?
________________________________________

"AND then there is the fact that the Bible has been wrong before on the issue of slavery. Wise men and women realized that slavery was wrong and put an end to the practice."

Except for the fact that you are wrong in your idea of slavery. Slavery as that in the Scriptures was that of an indentured servant. You know one who pays off his debt by working it off. Not to mention that during the time of Jubilee all were let go, free of charge. Quit thinking of slavery as that of the United States, and you will be okay.
_______________________________________

"Just as they have realized that saying homosexuality is a sin is wrong since it is a perfectly normal part of being human, since homosexuals can be good and are even much better citizens than many heterosexuals."

Wow and you say we are judgmental. Now if you are a homosexual you are a better citizen then heterosexual. They have not "realized that saying homosexuality is a sin is wrong". The truth is according to our beliefs, in the Scriptures it is. The person is not, but the act is. That is what the Bible says, and so we believe.
________________________________________

"People should be judged on their actions towards their fellow man not by their sexual preference."

Um...you just did that with your "homosexuals can be good and are even much better citizens than many heterosexuals." If you are going to blame someone of something you might not want to do the same thing yourself. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:44 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:13 AM:
" NeoCon if we are going to blame anyone for the divorce rate we should be blaming abusive men. "

Most divorces are because of both parties, not just one person and usually over money

"The number one reason for divorce is money.
They say money makes the world go around. But they also say it is the root of all evil.
The other top reasons for divorce:
Infidelity.
Poor communication
Change in priorities. This can be caused by having kids or due to ones job, big things.
Lack of commitment to the marriage.
Sexual problems.

Other reasons that come up frequently, but not as frequently are:
Addictions
Failed expectations of your spouse (believing one is a super hero or that he/she can fix or be everything to or for you)
Physical, emotional or sexual abuse." - Top Reasons People Divorce June 01, 2006 by Linda M. McCloud 2009 Associated Content, Inc.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/35097/top_reasons_people_divorce.html?cat=7

Notice where abuse on the list. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:49 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:27 AM:
" So Mr. Hendren and 7X what are you afraid will happen to YOU if you quit trying to prove that your concept of what is moral and immoral is right, that your religion is the only TRUTH and both must be obeyed/become the law of the nation? "

I ask the same of you. Unless you are homosexual yourself, what happens to YOU if you quit. You have said before that you speak for those who can't. Corey has spoke, so why must you continue to speak? We as Christians are to spread the Good News of Christ. As long as their are those like you and Bob, saying their is no God, I will continue to say their is. I am afraid of nothing, because I know where I'm going. You not being a Christian can mock it and say, "How do you know?", but until you know Christ you can not understand. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:58 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 4:21 PM:
" Oh and 7X the Christian Church had a long tradition of same sex marriage. A type of Christian gay marriage existed as late as the 18th century. But don't take my word for it, look it up wwww.gaychristian101.com "

The first thing I read from you "site" was:
Did you know the
first man to get
saved by grace in the New Testament was a gay man? Read about the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8.

Problem that is a lie. Just because he was a eunuch did not make him gay. Nor is their any other reason to believe he was gay. You might want to try a different place, or go back to not citing sources. Since you do not believe in the Bible, nor Christianity may I suggest not trying so called Bible sites for your sources. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 5, 2009 11:59 PM:

" Get well Medic "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 6, 2009 6:28 AM:

" Jrhendren, where is the bias in Barna's study? Again, maybe you just don't like the results of that research.

I did not claim that Christians don't care about marriage; you read that into what I wrote. I do claim, as I said before, that it is silly for Christians to harp on gays for undermining the sanctity of marriage when they routinely undermine it themselves, through divorce.

It's funny that you assume I am divorced just because I point out this rather obvious hypocrisy with respect to Christians and divorce. Only one love in my life, and I have been married to him for 24 years. "

citizenofmattoon wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:34 AM:

" I don't understand the frustration about people. FIRST OF ALL: they are PEOPLE, HUMAN BEINGS and LOVED ONES. Why do people try and make a difference?
I have two gay daughters(as they have been labeled) They are my daughters. My flesh and blood. I don't feel a bit different about them than I do my other two daughters.
If I had nothing better to do with my time, maybe I would let things like this bother me. However, I'm glad there are people out there that take the burden of worrying off my shoulders.
So while I'm enjoying life; I'll set back and just let the rest of you throw stones and I'll watch.
YOU enjoy and so will I.... "

kamfong wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:45 AM:

" Medic 57 Some people will do anything to hang around purrty nurses all weekend.lol Get well & hurry back:) "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:49 AM:

" There are many reasons given for divorce Mr. Hendren. AND womens liberation nor abusive men are the top reasons given. One curious statistic, Less than 25% of all homes are composed of the biological unit of mother, father, and their offspring. Divorce as Crow Woman has said is and should be a more pressing issue/concern than trying to keep homosexuals from marrying. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:52 AM:

" By your same argument the Bible speaks loudly about the rights and respect deserved for homosexuals by not speaking about it. Very interesting logic Mr. Hendren. If you are going to use that argument to support heterosexual marriage it can be used in other areas. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:57 AM:

" Sorry Mr. Hendren you can't sanitize slavery in the Bible. Conquered people were enslaved, they didn't become endentured servants. Don't forget the Jubilee year was thrown aside along with the other "Laws" that Christians couldn't be bothered with. Also don't forget Pauls letter where he says directly it is ok to have slaves that are not Christians but not okay to have slaves that are Christians. It is all right there for all to see. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:59 AM:

" Of course some homosexuals are much better citizens than many heterosexuals, many are less judgmental of those that are different. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 8:02 AM:

" Fortunately Mr. Hendren your kind is now in the minority and losing ground by the minute. Proof is now on TV, when Madison Avenue (the big advertisers) start using homosexual concepts in advertising mainline products you know the tide has turned. I just love that new commercial, "oh sweet mystery of life at last I found you". Saw it on CBS prime time. You should look for it. "

kamfong wrote on Jun 6, 2009 8:04 AM:

" M, Between the population of stray cats,the new illegal unsightly recycling center,and the huge inbread population,the only out of town visitors to this small village are the steady flow of wannabe meth cooks visiting our local FS for their ammonia,fix.Just thought I'd throw that in there since the gay stuffs about ran it's course.Have a nice weekend ya'll. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 8:05 AM:

" I have no problem with "real" men 7X, just men like you. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 8:10 AM:

" Sorry to debunk your myth 7X but the equal rights this country was built on has included everyone, even though a few were denied those rights from the start, blacks and women and Jews to name a few groups. The line "all men are created equal" has been interpreted to mean all human beings, not just heterosexual white males. "

illinoisbound wrote on Jun 6, 2009 8:30 AM:

" And...u won't change the straight people who think your lifestyle is sin. We will still be here speaking up for the morality of this nation. We are in your restaurants, at your cash registers, driving you where you need to go, on the radio, t.v., at the movies, on the sports field, in the operating rooms, teaching children, lawyers, transporting good and building homes. We are heartland America and have the majority vote for this to remain a nation with a moral compass. We will not remain silent... and we will remind you every chance we get. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 6, 2009 9:34 AM:

" Medic get well soon my friend.
Susan he was showing that is when the divorce rates starting skyrocketing. But what you both missed is that is when women started doing more and being listened to more is what caused it, they now had voices.
And no Susan I am NOT one nor have been abused. I only spoke up for the unfairness of the blaming men and not women. I feel there is not a single race, sex, age group or religion that is to blame for divorces, its a fact of life. "

unknownjoe wrote on Jun 6, 2009 9:46 AM:

" Since no one especially the writer of this letter fails to address the rights that are so outrageously denied him I won't ask the question again and just comment. The only rights that any of us are allowed are the ones spelled out in the constitution of our federal government and state governments. What that boils down to is equal protection under the law. Equal protection under the law is what everyone who is a citizen is entitled too. The writer will not spell out the rights that have been denied him, so I will make an educated guess from his words that the rights that he is ranting about have to do with acceptance of his lifestyle. Not one single person is entitled to acceptance of who they are and what they do. Not one. To sit there and flatly declare that you deserve to be accepted and demand acceptance from everyone is ludicrous. Try practicing some acceptance yourself. Accept the fact that not everyone will accept you. If you work from that premise and you are happy with who you are, then who cares what other people do or say. If you can be strong and stand firm on that; you would earn more respect(at least from this writer)than pining away about how somehow you are more special and more oppressed than anyone so you deserve my acceptance. Enacting legislation to force acceptance only fosters more disdain and oppression. Then the disdain and oppression becomes covert, and that is where we begin to have problems. Put on a new pair of glasses and stop playing the victim role, and you possibly could see that the violations of your rights simply do not exhist. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 10:12 AM:

" Speaking of "fear" Ms Humphreys, why do you fear revealing your own choice of lifestyle?

Side-stepping the question with your usual non-answer that it is "none of my business" does not address the point of the question, Madam.

The point is, what could you possibly fear? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 10:45 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 5:06 PM:

" Thanks 62 for letting us know about Medic hope he has a speeedy recovery and/or everything works out ok. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 5, 2009 5:58 PM:

" "All you bloggers can relax, MEDIC 57 is in the hospital for a few days"

I'm sorry to hear that and hope he'll be well--and be back--soon. "

You know what I just found out?

They have computers in the hospital too. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 11:01 AM:

" Time to log out, it's pain killer time. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 11:55 AM:

" "I have no problem with "real" men 7X, just men like you."
------------

Well Ms Humphreys, apparently your "belief system" allows you to make judgments and to cast stones the same as us "hypocritical Christians", doesn't it Madam.

Welcome to the broken species of humanity, Ms Humphreys. Christ welcomes you and forgives you, unconditionally, with all your hypocrisies and failures, Madam. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 11:56 AM:

" Welcome back Medic. I hope all is well. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 11:59 AM:

" "Of course some homosexuals are much better citizens than many heterosexuals, many are less judgmental of those that are different."
---------

And obviously many homosexuals are incredibly judgmental towards the norm of society known as, heterosexuals.

You seemed to be filled with resentment, Ms Humphreys. Have you always hated men? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 12:22 PM:

" "Sorry to debunk your myth 7X but the equal rights this country was built on has included everyone, even though a few were denied those rights from the start, blacks and women and Jews to name a few groups. The line "all men are created equal" has been interpreted to mean all human beings, not just heterosexual white males."
-----------

First of all Ms Humphreys, we have an "unalienable right" to life. Including the unborn. And that is a much stronger comparison to the Civil Rights issue than gay marriage.

Secondly Madam, Marriage is first and foremost a religious covenant. A religious sacrament. By it's very definition it has always been at the very least a legal union between a man and a woman, exclusively.

Thirdly, the very rationale of your argument, can and will, be used to further corrupt "marriage" to include incestuous unions as well as multiple partner unions, and yes, unions between what is now considered minors.
Minors who are now allowed the very adult right to an abortion without parental consent, and who can easily find study after study to "prove" how much faster they are "maturing" psychologically as well as physically, will have a much easier time to lobby for their "right" to marry, once the definition has been destroyed.

The burden is upon you Ms Humphreys, to provide evidence that this runaway train of societal degradation can be halted. Or if it even should be halted, in your estimation, Madam.

As a society, how low will we go, Ms Humphreys? What are the limits of what you find to be morally "acceptable", Madam? Where do you draw the line? And why? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 12:33 PM:

" 7X I don't fear anything my lifestyle, my marital status, sexual orientation, financial situation are simply none of your business since I am not running for office or for saint of the year, AND since they have nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. Ideas/arguments stand on their own, they are not dependant on the credentials of the person that presents them. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 12:41 PM:

" Heavens Mr. Hendren gayChristian is not MY site. It is just another interesting site that I was sure would rattle your chains. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 12:44 PM:

" UnknownJoe you are blind or intentionally refuse to see what is happening in the world around you. Perhaps it is time you joined the real world. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 12:48 PM:

" Mr. Gordon than why didn't you speak out against NeoCons first statement where he blamed womens lib? Or do you just attack my responses? If you think that we should be fair about where the blame is placed than be fair about speaking up when anyone makes an extreme remark. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 1:01 PM:

" Illinoisbound you are right this nation has lost its moral compass, it did that when it first denied equal rights to humans that weren't just like them (blacks, Jews, American Indians, people of other religious traditions, women). It did that when it tried to make this a "Christian" nation. It did and does that when it ignores the "rule of law" and decided that the ends justify the means. fortunately your "immoral" majority is fading away, although you are still doing a great deal of harm to this nation. "

M wrote on Jun 6, 2009 4:12 PM:

" Don't forget those goats, kamfong! In fact, I'm actually not sure those are goats...probably someones grand"kids". BTW, I think those "kids" are on meth, too. lol Enjoy your weekend as well. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 6, 2009 6:23 PM:

" 7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 10:12 AM:
" Speaking of "fear" Ms Humphreys, why do you fear revealing your own choice of lifestyle?

Side-stepping the question with your usual non-answer that it is "none of my business" does not address the point of the question, Madam.

The point is, what could you possibly fear? "

Why should she have anything to fear, regardless of her "choice of lifestyle"?

Way to bring Corey's point home. This thread has reached fruition!

(lol fruit) :P "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 6, 2009 6:26 PM:

" Oops forgot to say

Get well soon Medic! "

M wrote on Jun 6, 2009 6:53 PM:

" unknownjoe, I agree with you. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 12:50 AM:

" "Why should she have anything to fear, regardless of her "choice of lifestyle"?
--------

That was precisely my point, AnnaNiemaus.

Why wouldn't Ms Humphreys use the actions of her own life as a living example of her definition of moral behavior? After all, hasn't she "mastered" life? Does she not lecture Christians endlessly about their actions; their "hypocritical" life styles?

Isn't she applauding Corey's courage to "come out" and get in our collective face?

I would ague that, *not* courageously stating her lifestyle, actually diminishes her argument and completely nullifies the validity of her position. "

pj1983 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 7:38 AM:

" "Marriage is first and foremost a religious covenant. A religious sacrament" If you look back through history it's more of a business arrangement than anything.

I for one don't see the big deal. I understand what people are saying about it being against "God's will" that's all fine and dandy, disagree with homosexuality if you want, no one is making you "go gay"

what i don't understand is how people can use that as an argument for a law denying a fraction of the population the same rights as the rest of us. we wouldn't pass a law denying african americans, asians, short people, or tall people from getting married so why gay people? "

kamfong wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Unknown joe, Although we as citizens have rights nobody is even guaranteed their next breath. I for one take that for granted all the time and when I read civil post like yours it kinda keeps me in check for awhile,and revist where that next breath comes from and It seems i have a less negative day there after. :) "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:58 AM:

" 7X "right to life" depends upon viability. If you believe that life starts at conception than don't have an abortion. Others believe that life starts at a viable birth. It isn't mine to judge what a woman chooses to do when she is faced with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason) it is only for me to do what I can to see that young people get full, and complete sex education, FREE birth control, and competent medical care and whatever support she needs for whatever choice a woman makes. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:59 AM:

" You know 7X your altar ego BDD tried all of these arguments before and made a fool out of himself then. "

kamfong wrote on Jun 7, 2009 10:06 AM:

" M- Lmao, I believe theres more truth to the goat statement than originaly thought. Whilest driving by the goat herders shack i swear I heard an animal bellow out DDDAAADDDYYY COOOMMEE BAHHHHHHHCK.lol sorry Unknown Joe i slipped off my spirituality for a minute. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 10:44 AM:

" 7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 11:56 AM:

" Welcome back Medic. I hope all is well. "

I'm not back yet, they have compukers in the hospital.

Although I find one thing strange, of all the people who have wished me good health, most of them have been from the people I argue with,

NeoCon Academician

If you want to blame somebody for the divorce rate, blame Hitler, the Womens liberation movement of the '60's, and an ever more secular American society.

When American women entered the workforce en masse during world war 2 they gained economic freedom. Then, when the sixty's came around, Gloria, Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Fannie Lou Hamer came along to put the notion in women's heads that they didn't need men and marriage anymore since they had economic freedom.

You hit the nail on the head right there, nothing has been the same since then and nothing ever will be. "

Rockin Rotty wrote on Jun 7, 2009 11:27 AM:

" A question to all of the spitters.

Do you truthfully see the day that total equality reigns in at 100%?

I'll answer first.

No, no I don't.

Everyone can keep plugging away with their beliefs, but, in the bigger scheme of things, it's just not going to happen, ever.

Someone, or some people, are always going to want more.

Henceforth, certain spitters will always be spitters, & will never die - except for old age. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 1:39 PM:

" AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 6, 2009 6:23 PM:

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 10:12 AM:
Speaking of "fear" Ms Humphreys, why do you fear revealing your own choice of lifestyle?

AnnaNiemaus

Although Susan and I disagree on most eveything, she should not put her preferences on this site for the same reason that Dr. Tiller should never have never ask for his 15 minutes of fame. Dr. Tiller, (in my opinion) was a horrible, evil man, still, he did not deserve what happened to him, that right is for God and God alone. It's just plain stupid. People who use their real name take to much of a chance already. Everyone should be able to use their own names here without fear of retribution, but sadly, that's not the case.

Now, about Mr. Taylor, I truely dipise his choice of lifestyle and I think it is wrong, I believe he will burn in H_ll for it, (those are my opinions) even if The Governmaent makeks it legal I will not change my feelings towards Gays and Lesbians, I won't stick up for Gay rights, I also won't advocate violence against Gays, I also don't expent him, or them to try and shove their views down my throat. "

unknownjoe wrote on Jun 7, 2009 3:18 PM:

" Miss Humphreys: I am sorry to break the bad news to you but I have been living in the real world for long time. My question was never really answered about the rights, true rights that have been denied. It is a matter of perception, I suppose that is why you suggested that I wake up and look around. I shoot back at you the same thing. Wake up and look around you. Most of us Heteros know that homosexuals are in the community and here is a secret, maybe you are not aware of. Most of us don't care! Wow what a shocker! So with that, I will pose another hypothesis in that I think that the whole idea that we dont care is what angers the gay community the most, not the so called violation of your rights, but the idea that most of us on a daily basis dont really care whether gays are gay or not. It is the indifference of most of society that really burns you the most. Most people on a daily basis tend to keep mindful of the matters that are important to them, like paying their bills and going to work. Once the basic needs are taken care of, that is when people might think about the plights of others. My opinion is that everyone who is a citizen deserves equal protection under the law. My opinion on gay marriage is that if you want to get married/have a civil union or whatever you want to call it by all means go for it. Keeping and maintaining a marriage is a difficult thing. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:11 PM:

" Because 7X no one should feel they need to strive to live up to my perfection I don't feel that I must impress anyone with my sordid past and triumph over adversity.Get over it. There are some things in this world that are one of your business. There are some things in this world that have no bearing upon whether you are or are NOT a good person or have any bearing on the TRUTH of your arguments. Such things include your sexual orientation, gender, wealth, social status, ethnicity, race, and religion or lack therof. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:15 PM:

" Ain't it the pits Medic, you give women an education and the right to vote and look at what happens. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:18 PM:

" UnknownJoe if MOST folks don't care than why all this effor to deny homosexuals their right to marry? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:20 PM:

" Rockin Rotty I agree with you, NO I do not see there ever being full equality. BUT that is NO reason not to strive for better equality for a mor just society. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:27 PM:

" Susan I explained why to you. I am not sure he was blaming the women per say. I was under the thinking of the meaning of his words. Because when women began standing on their own, their opinions and words then gained strength. They no longer had to stay in abusive marriages. No longer had to stay in unhappy marriages. Many things like that. So in no way at all did I take it as "blaming" women. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:31 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:15 PM:

" Ain't it the pits Medic, you give women an education and the right to vote and look at what happens. "

There's the problem, we never should've done those 2 things either. :)

Sorry for the last couple of posts, but they really have good drugs here at the hospital, (explains my grammar)

Hey, couple of more days and I'll agree with Corey. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 5:59 PM:

" I full agree with you Medic. I would never wish for any harm to come to Ms Humphreys. I just find the disconnect between Cory's letter that asks "Why arent we in the streets en masse screaming our demands for civil rights or civil war", and Ms Humphreys steadfast refusal to admit anything about her lifestyle, to be at complete odds with one another.

I wish you nothing but the best Ms Humphreys. And no, I have no alter ego's Madam. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 6:01 PM:

" "I'm not back yet, they have compukers in the hospital."
----------

I meant welcome back to the site, Medic. I pray all is getting better. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 6:03 PM:

" No Ms Humphreys, right to life does not depend upon viability. If that were the case anyone who was ever hooked up to life-support would lose their right to live. Any AIDS patient who could no longer sustain their ability to function without medication or artificial oxygen would lose their right to live. Physicians would no longer have a legal and moral obligation to save the unborn when the mother is dying. In short, any human being with a sever physical disability would no longer be deemed "viable" and would have to relinquish their unalienable right to life.

And a final question, Ms Humphreys; is the premature infant in the incubator less than human, Madam? "

unknownjoe wrote on Jun 7, 2009 6:42 PM:

" Susan, I think you watch too much tv news. I think most of the hype over the issue of gay marriage is contrived by the media to stir up controversy in order to have something to report and make money off of advertising. I believe in the accuracy of my statement in that most people don't care about the issue. Whether it is CNN, MSN, Foxnews or otherwise, the news isn't there to report the news anymore, their first and most important goal is to make money. How do you get viewers to tune in? You create controversy. What creates controversy in this day and age. Right vs. Left, or even better, Right Murders Left, or visversa. No matter how it is spun, it is spun to make dollars period. By the way, back to my original question, what rights have been violated. Save your diatribe, because I know you cannot give one because there is no answer. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 7, 2009 6:45 PM:

" Medic57,

It wasn't me who suggested Ms. Humphreys' lifestyle is our business, it was 7x6z9. I quoted his statement to remind him it is explicitly not our business, and to point out the absurdity of his using her (suspected? I don't know) lifestyle choices as something she should be put down over. Also, and maybe you all know something about Susan that I do not, but I know you don't have to be gay/lesbian to recognize that those who are have long been discriminated against.

On election night, on hearing that our country had elected our first black president, I felt a stirring of pride that we had come far enough to overcome some bigotry. Then I heard the results of the California election and realized we still have a long long way to go before we are truly treating our fellow man with the kindness that Jesus died trying to teach us. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 7:28 PM:

" AnnaNiemaus, I was never putting Ms Humphreys down over her lifestyle choice. I don't even know what her lifestyle consists of. I have never put anyone "down" over their sexual inclinations. I believe in Christ's compassion and mercy towards all. I may disagree with actions and deem them wrong. But I try not to insult or degrade anyone. I may fail at that sometimes, and when I do, I'll ask mercy and forgiveness from all of you. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 7:40 PM:

" I have never said Gays and Lesbians should be discriminated against. I simply don't believe that they should be able to Marry, I believe that sanctity should be for a man and a woman only. There are very easy ways for gays and lesbians to have rights to each others bank accounts, insurance, healths decisions and so forth.

AnnaNiemaus Wrote:

On election night, on hearing that our country had elected our first black president, I felt a stirring of pride that we had come far enough to overcome some bigotry.

I guess I really don't understand the pride thing, I thought we elected an American as President.

Then I heard the results of the California election and realized we still have a long long way to go before we are truly treating our fellow man with the kindness that Jesus died trying to teach us.

You know what Californians said, we want to bypass the courts, we want a constitutional admendment, something that will hold up in a court appeal, well guess what, Proposistion 8 did just that, only problem was, The Gays and Lesbians lost, and THIER appeal also lost.

Be careful what you ask for. "

middle of road wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:07 PM:

" Medic said "There are very easy ways for gays and lesbians to have rights to each others bank accounts, insurance, healths decisions and so forth." Sure medic, if they have money, and if piles upon piles of paperwork is your idea of "easy". Doesn't it seem like discrimination to you for one group of people to have to pay more money and take much time and effort than another for the same rights? Hetero couples get a bundle of rights automatically with a marriage license. Just a few of those same rights that gay couples would have to gather up and rack up attorneys' fees for include: hospital visitation, health benefits, family leave, social security benefits, nursing home residency, pension beneficiaries. What a marriage license grants immediately are things gay couples have to get a will, power of attorney/health care, power of attorney/financial, etc. to gain. There's some of your rights, people, that gays are denied. You don't have to like what gays do in the bedroom (who cares anyway). Discrimination is discrimination. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:10 PM:

" Then I heard the results of the California election and realized we still have a long long way to go before we are truly treating our fellow man with the kindness that Jesus died trying to teach us.

All they are asking for is more violence.

It's like Physically Handicapped people wanting to be treated like normal people.

OK, next time you go to Wal-Mart, park out by McDonalds like I have to. "

unknownjoe wrote on Jun 7, 2009 8:48 PM:

" Dear Middle of the Road. The list you rattled off in your last post are not rights. I am married and I have to have all of those things in place anyway, in order for my wife not to be taken to the cleaners on taxes if I die. If my wife owns property other than what is ours jointly, and it isnt spelled out in a will that it goes to me, then I must file paperwork with the state, county in order to obtain that property as next of kin, and pay a fee for the filing of the paperwork in court, and get taken to the cleaners for 35 percent of the value of the property. We have to have a medical power of attorney drawn up, we have to have a financial power of attorney drawn up. So there really is no difference. "

middle of road wrote on Jun 7, 2009 9:09 PM:

" well joe, I have never known a married couple that needs more than a will to obtain basic rights for each other if something happens to one of them. gay couples I know automatically have to have all that extra paperwork, no matter what their circumstances. it doesn't sound fair to me. can the hospital refuse to let you see your wife when she is admitted to their facility? does your work allow you to legally take unpaid leave to take care of your wife if she is sick? your pension would go to your legal spouse -- your wife -- and gay couples do not have that option because they don't have the option to get married. That sounds like some of us having rights that others don't to me. "

Rockin Rotty wrote on Jun 7, 2009 9:57 PM:

" Thank You, Ms Humphreys, & I agree as well. "

M wrote on Jun 7, 2009 10:11 PM:

" lol, kamfong! I think the next time I am by MD's petting zoo I will stop, walk over, say 'boo' just to see if the "goats" faint! I hope I don't have to pluck out any needles from their little arms!
ps-I imagine unknownjoe isn't too worried about the little backsliding bit earlier. He seems to be reasonable enough. "

townie2 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:04 AM:

" Once again people why are ya all worried about what the next one does? I just dont get it? If half of us in this damn world worried as much about ourselves as we did the next person this world we definetly be a better place. I am a straight female- but who am i to condemn a gay/bi-sexual person? Do they condemn those of us who are straight? They are who they are and us straight people are who we are! Get over it and worry about your damn self and not those who have different beliefs than you!I think that we as a country should focus more on letting illegals be here, seeing our "so-called" stae officials lock non-violent criminals up and convicting them of felonies, and when ya maximize the good on that issue well we the people loose! Imagine that hu? I think that we all should just let it be! Why cant we all just get along! Gay, black, white, straight- We were all born in this country with the same rights and we all have the right to be happy we all have the right to choose who makes us happy! So really what are you opposeres bitchn about? I think ya's need to find happiness with in and let those who wanna be happy be happy! Dont be HATE"N!!! If all I had to do was sit around and condemn what others are aboit does and say negaitive verbage then I guess that would mean Im bored! Gays arent gonna change who they are just because our government says they cant be married! People arent gonna stop smokn pot just becaue our government says we cant! No matter what the law states we are gonna do what we need to do on life! Thats natural! People of the same sex are gonna be attracted to each other, people who need marijuana are gonna smoke it! If its a need its a NEED PEOPLE!! Dont you need your significant other to feel complete?For those of you who have migraines dont you NEED your medication? So for those of you who think your opnion matters just remember POLITICIANS dont care what you have to say! They will cast thier vote in a manner that they see fit to their beliefs. Hats off to Corey!! "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:24 AM:

" Thanks for your support Anna for folks like 7X they seem to have to prove that anyone that isn't a Christian just like them is some sort of monster. They have tried the arguments that only someone who has had an abortion would feel compassion for someone else in that position; only a homosexual would support equal rights for homosexuals;..... In one way it is a way to deflect attention away from the topic at hand when they don't have valid arguments to refute my statements. I don't have purple spiky hair (not that there is anything wrong with purple spiky hair), I am not covered with tatoos (not that there is anything wrong with tatoos), I don't wear black leather, chains and motorcycle boots ( not that there is....) I'm afraid 7X would meet me on the street and wouldn't know that I was "different". Which is my point from the start: don't judge people on the superficial appearances, or because they "claim" to be a Christian, look at their day to day actions towards their fellow man, that is ALL that matters. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:49 AM:

" First of all 7X, "right to life" was your terminology not mine. It is mentioned in the Constitution as one of our unalienagle rights. BUT as I said it all depends on what you see as the starting point of life. Viable birth, fertilization, or just the sex act itself before fertilization even occurs (for Catholics it is a sin to spill semen on the ground, to use birth control to keep egg and sperm from meeting). Cut the histrionics with babes in incubators, and old folks on life support machines. Those are other issues which include, "the right to die". "

Why Not wrote on Jun 8, 2009 8:43 AM:

" I just don't like lispening to the lisp...why the lisp? "

Kamfong wrote on Jun 8, 2009 8:45 AM:

" Townie 2 why you be hate'n on hater's foe doesn't that make you's a hater 2,yo? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:17 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 7, 2009 4:15 PM:

Ain't it the pits Medic, you give women an education and the right to vote and look at what happens.

Ever since we gave you the right to vote, horrible things have happened, My ex-wife has a Masters in Special Ed, Some of us have to cook our own meals, women are riding Harleys (well, some of them look like women anyways) you are mowing your own grass now, (that one was ok and even my own doctor is a woman. But stay away of the holiest of holy's, don, I repeat, do not even think about cooking out on a grill. Nope, you're just better off staying in the kitchen making the Potato Salad, barefoot if you want. Oh, and not to much mustard if you please. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:36 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 5:06 PM:

" Thanks 62 for letting us know about Medic hope he has a speeedy recovery

Not to speedy yet, been here since Thursday, maybe this is why.

A1C is over 10
Clolesteral is over 500
Triglycerides are ove 1700
Pancreas has pretty much quit working (moderately painful.

Meds are

Crestor Chloesterol
Insulin Diabetes
Lisynopril Blood Pressure
Vicodin Neuropathy
Pancreatic Enzymes Pancreatitus
Dilaudid Severe Pain

Thanks for Susans and some others of you heathens thoughts (figured prayers wouldn't be there. :) :) "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 8, 2009 11:08 AM:

" Good heavens, Medic, I didn't know cholesterol and triglycerides could get that high! Take care of yourself. This heathen will send up a prayer for you. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:09 PM:

" You are safe Medic I don't cook on a grill that is for sissys. I smoke cook meat in a homemade wood fired barbecue oven. Although I was a Girl Scout and when I got married I could cook better over an open fire than I could on a stove. In my last house I had a wood fired cook stove. Now that takes talent to cook and bake using a wood cook stove. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 12:56 PM:

" "BUT as I said it all depends on what you see as the starting point of life."
---------

No Ms Humphreys, it depends on what we can "prove", to be the starting point of a human life.

It is irrefutable that at conception a new, singular organism is formed, complete with it's own unique DNA. And that, Madam, is not a matter of perspective. That is a scientific fact. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 1:29 PM:

" Why do you feel the need to intentionally misrepresent my views Ms Humphreys?

I have never labeled, nor have I ever implied that non-Christians were monsters, Madam.

I have never said that only people who are homosexual, or who have had an abortion, would show compassion or support for those people or views, Madam.

I have never advocated judgments based on people's superficial appearances, Madam.

But I do agree that actions can and should be judged, Ms Humphreys. And your act of intentionally distorting my views to elevate your own sense of morality is nothing short of degrading, both to me, and to yourself, Madam.

Over the years, Ms Humphreys, I have counted as my "friends", people who have been horribly deformed, people who have suffered visibly debilitating mental illnesses, and people who have lived the entire gamut of lifestyles. But none of them Madam, took on the ugliness of your attempt, to intentionally misrepresent my stated views.

I would be honored to call you a "friend" Ms Humphreys, and I have tried to extend to you the respect and dignity that that entails. I'm sorry if I have failed in that attempt. But please, let us try to conduct our discussions as adults, Madam, with mutual respect and dignity. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 8, 2009 2:18 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:24 AM

I'm sure that 7X would be able to tell you are different right away, just based on you defensive attitude. You wouldn't have to say a word! "

jrussell wrote on Jun 8, 2009 2:53 PM:

" no argument intended Mr. Hendren and Ms. Humphreys, i guess if people are phobic of gays then fine, it is silly to fear gays to me but hey there are some weird phobias out there, it is mainly a problem when people interfere with the happiness of these people and their rights, i do feel that it is somewhat ignorant to fear gays and sends a bad intolerable message to society but respect peoples rights to disagree with that lifestyle just as i disagree with certain lifestyles "

jrussell wrote on Jun 8, 2009 2:54 PM:

" jukbx wrote on Jun 8, 2009 2:18 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 7:24 AM

I'm sure that 7X would be able to tell you are different right away, just based on you defensive attitude. You wouldn't have to say a word! "

...ah yes the bluedog knows all huh lol "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 3:13 PM:

" Mr. Russell since you haven't noticed I will be blunt I don't care what you believe (homosexuals aren't good people, folks of other religions aren't as good as you), it is totally irrelevant. Your actions however are a different story because those actions affect ALL of us. It is your actions that are important not your beliefs. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 3:15 PM:

" Oh and mr. Russell the "chip" as you call it on my shoulder doesn't show when I walk down the street but I am sure your bigotry and hatred shines forth for all to see. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 8, 2009 3:17 PM:

" I mislabel your views for the same reasons you mislabel mine 7X. If you want folks to label you correctly than try doing the same to them. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 8, 2009 3:20 PM:

" "Oh and mr. Russell the "chip" as you call it on my shoulder doesn't show when I walk down the street but I am sure your bigotry and hatred shines forth for all to see."
----------

That was an entirely, unnecessarily harsh response Ms Humphreys. You are better than that Madam. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 8, 2009 3:46 PM:

" jrussell wrote on Jun 8, 2009 2:53 PM:

" no argument intended Mr. Hendren and Ms. Humphreys, i guess if people are phobic of gays then fine, it is silly to fear gays to me but hey there are some weird phobias.

You crack me up. It used to be straight people were the norm, now the gays are trying to make themselves the norm. You label people who disagree with this lifestyle phobic. I wouldn't call it a phobia, I'd call it normal. "

pythuis wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:05 PM:

" I am neither pro or anti gay rights. Waiting for or marching on Washington and demanding your rights don't seem very productive. You might wind up in Seattle, check your leaders. Try putting your last wishes in a will and give up on all the unnecessary drama. Best of wishes either way. "

pythuis wrote on Jun 8, 2009 9:35 PM:

" I see a lot of you like defintions. God love the Homosexual, He hates homosexuality. Any of you can define "homosexuality" ? Example, for me - If a man have sex with a man, that's homosexuality. If a man f**** a man out his property, that's homosexuality. You can increase the list ad infinitum. Slam the homosexual if you wish, maybe it's because he's a mirror to you, so you got to get rid of the mirror. Stop screwing your male friends out of their rights and the homosexual will become more tolerable to you. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 8, 2009 11:27 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:49 AM:
" There are many reasons given for divorce Mr. Hendren. AND womens liberation nor abusive men are the top reasons given. One curious statistic, Less than 25% of all homes are composed of the biological unit of mother, father, and their offspring. Divorce as Crow Woman has said is and should be a more pressing issue/concern than trying to keep homosexuals from marrying. "

Are you now saying that abusive men is not the top reason. Your first sentence is confusing. If that is what you are saying then once again you are saying two different things. First they were the top reason and after you've been shown to be wrong change what you said again. Make up your mind and be clearer. Are men the top reason or not? "

what? wrote on Jun 8, 2009 11:34 PM:

" Tell the sun not to shine, tell the moon not to pull the seas ashore, might as well. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 8, 2009 11:49 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:52 AM:
" By your same argument the Bible speaks loudly about the rights and respect deserved for homosexuals by not speaking about it. Very interesting logic Mr. Hendren. If you are going to use that argument to support heterosexual marriage it can be used in other areas. "

Actually it does speak of homosexuals in the Bible. It does say how they are to be treated, which is the same as all. Once again you try and make the person the sin, and sorry that just is not the case. The act is the sin, not the person. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. Good try though.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:57 AM:
" Sorry Mr. Hendren you can't sanitize slavery in the Bible. Conquered people were enslaved, they didn't become endentured servants. Don't forget the Jubilee year was thrown aside along with the other "Laws" that Christians couldn't be bothered with. Also don't forget Pauls letter where he says directly it is ok to have slaves that are not Christians but not okay to have slaves that are Christians. It is all right there for all to see. "

Again no citing just your interpretation. Where does Paul say directly "it is ok to have slaves that are not Christians"? I ask this since Paul never used the word "Christian" directly. Of course then when we look at the Hebrew and Greek words for slavery in the Bible we see they are the same words used for that of an indentured servant. You need to quit thinking so finite. Slavery does not always mean "slavery" as that of the United States had.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 7:59 AM:
" Of course some homosexuals are much better citizens than many heterosexuals, many are less judgmental of those that are different. "

That of course is your opinion with NO research to back it up. I have known some homosexuals that were more judgmental towards heterosexuals. The reason one gave, "I just don't care for them, and their kind." Of course that would only have been a discriminating comment if said by a heterosexual right? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 9, 2009 12:08 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 8:02 AM:
" Fortunately Mr. Hendren your kind is now in the minority and losing ground by the minute. Proof is now on TV, when Madison Avenue (the big advertisers) start using homosexual concepts in advertising mainline products you know the tide has turned. I just love that new commercial, "oh sweet mystery of life at last I found you". Saw it on CBS prime time. You should look for it. "

Fifty-seven percent of Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should not be recognized by the law as valid. - Gallop Poll May 27th, 2009

"Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?"
Yes No Unsure

45% 54% 1%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009.

Proposition 8
Result Votes Percentage
Yes 6,838,107 52.3%
No 6,246,463 47.7%

You might want to look up the definition of majority. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 9, 2009 12:10 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 6, 2009 12:41 PM:
" Heavens Mr. Hendren gayChristian is not MY site. It is just another interesting site that I was sure would rattle your chains. "

Not in the least, I found it quite humorous actually. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 7:29 AM:

" 7X it may have been harsh but it was what was needed to put an end to these personal attacks on me. The issues are what is up for discussion not me personally, not my lifestyle, my religion, my financial situation. I have warned folks before that if they want to throw verbal stones I also can throw stones and my command of the language and nuance of speech (wry humor and dry wit) is greater than theirs. "

Hammbone wrote on Jun 9, 2009 8:56 AM:

" pack them all off to a deserted island "

Hammbone wrote on Jun 9, 2009 9:04 AM:

" stick a sock in it Ms humpy "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 9, 2009 9:43 AM:

" "I have warned folks before that if they want to throw verbal stones I also can throw stones and my command of the language and nuance of speech (wry humor and dry wit) is greater than theirs."
-------------

I can only speak for myself Ms Humphreys, but if you feel that I have attacked you, then I apologize. That was never my intention. But let us all remember Ms Humphreys, that retaliation serves no one, and degrades all of us. As a Christian, I understand that humility would serve us well if we always keep in mind that we are communicating with another human being. And I say that to myself as much as anyone, Ms Humphreys. We are all brothers and sisters of God. In truth we are all children, and at times, act as such.

I consider you my friend in here Ms Humphreys. And I will try not to offend you again. I appreciate our debates, Madam, but if they result in hate and anger, then they have lost all there usefulness. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 9, 2009 10:19 AM:

" "stick a sock in it Ms humpy"
-----------

That was entirely uncalled for, Hammbone. Please do not insult my friend. "

lclaws13 wrote on Jun 9, 2009 10:37 AM:

" Amen! The only excuse anyone can give for why homosexuality is wrong is a religious reason, which this county specifically hoped to avoid in it's laws when it was founded. Stating that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage has obviously never watched daytime talk shows. Sanctity? When the divorce rate is over 50%, I think we can safely say there is no longer sanctity in marriage as is.
The United States was founded with the belief that all men are created equal, and afforded the unalienable rights of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. The founding fathers forgot to include, however, that those rights are withheld if you are in any way different from status quo.
I hope that one day, SOON, this country I love will allow those rights to all of it's citizens. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 9, 2009 10:49 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 7:29 AM:
" 7X it may have been harsh but it was what was needed to put an end to these personal attacks on me. The issues are what is up for discussion not me personally, not my lifestyle, my religion, my financial situation. I have warned folks before that if they want to throw verbal stones I also can throw stones and my command of the language and nuance of speech (wry humor and dry wit) is greater than theirs. "

Wow. I know the level of stupid here can get pretty deep at times, and while I don't think you are dumb but nothing you've posted has made me think you are
smarter or more educated than everyone else here. Unless you consider making every thread all about you some measure of intellect. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:26 AM:

" Sorry 7X your fake apologies don't cut it. I don't retaliate I teach. Sometimes the lessons are difficult for folks like you. And as I have said many many times tit for tat is a game we can all play. But if I am not willing to sacrifice and be your teacher who else will? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:27 AM:

" Oh and 7X ours haven't been debates. You don't seem to have an understanding of the concept. "

kamfong wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:51 AM:

" I would really like to see a Gay coles county queen pageant it would be refreshing ,then off to the demo derby. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 9, 2009 12:42 PM:

" pack them all off to a deserted island "

I'm sure you're referring to all the gay bashers, right? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:00 PM:

" "But if I am not willing to sacrifice and be your teacher who else will?"
----------

Who will be my teacher, Ms Humphreys?

Ultimately, the One Who gave the Supreme Sacrifice: Jesus, The Christ.

But I can certainly learn from you too, Ms Humphreys. You have taught me that forgiveness does not always come easily, and I understand. You have taught me that I may not be justified in asking for your forgiveness, at least not yet. You have taught me that I was too proud and too hurtful in my words towards you, Ms Humphreys, and for that I am truly sorry, Madam.
But more than anything else, Ms Humphreys, you have taught me how fortunate I am, how blessed I am, to have been given the grace of God to see my sins and mistakes in your words.
And for that, I am most grateful to Our Lord, for allowing us to have this encounter in all it's flaws and misunderstandings. And for that, I thank God for you, Ms Humphreys. "

father bob wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:13 PM:

" Pat Robertson: Abusive Coaches And Guidance Counselors May Be Making People Gay

LMOA!!!! "

Hammbone wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:28 PM:

" Oh yeah sure I was Harry,,ROFLOL Your just too funny Harry. "

Becky wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:50 PM:

" "You might want to look up the definition of majority. "

That's why our founding fathers set us up as a REPUBLIC!! This way, the rights of the minority couldn't be taken away by the majority......you may want to look up the definition. "

Hammbone wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:59 PM:

" I clearly see alot of people in here claiming to be Opnipatent.Makes me sick to my stomack to read of this garbage.Those that support this life style clearly have NO Moral Values.No concept of right from wrong.Just blithering away as to what they think about what ever,,,It's just plain wrong.The human body wasent ment to be used in that way. Those that embelish this idea are just a bunch of sick twisted sicko's... "

crit wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:24 PM:

" OMgoodness! Whose business is it of ours what people do behind closed doors? I know- I know "it wes Adam & Eve NOT Adam & Steve"...hahahaa..but where in the Bible is divorce ok? But we accept that. Bigotry- I suppose that is ok too? Teaching hate- I am sure that was what Jesus had in mind. Boy- I am glad we can all sit around on our thrones and take King James' version of events. Lord only knows what he left out or ADDED to the word. Sheesh! It is NONE of OUR BUSINESS!!! Gay rights is more than just the right to marry- just like Black rights was about more than the freedom to vote. this is where it all starts, freedom to choose. Are you afraid of the gay teacher? then keep your kids home and school them yourselves! Are you that committed to your "faith"? certainly committed enough to fear monger and hate slash, but put your money (or your kids) where your beliefs are.
Didn't we seperate the religion from the state?? what gives? if you are a member of a church that believes in the rights of gays to marry- then I dare the court to deny you that religious right. no matter what state.
You can't just bring the "old testament" into the conversation when it supports your stance. what about biggamy? come on!! I know that deep down inside you homophobes are only upset b/c the gays infiltrate society and you have NO IDEA who they are- or where they are. Just like the Nazis you'd rather have then tattooed...hahaha
America- we are soooo free...
I support you Corey, and all others like you, forget about all of these nay-sayers...we all have to answer for our sins before the lord...and if they would have read it ALL THE WAY THROUGH- they would have seen the part where it says -let he who has never sinned, cast the first stone....
biggotts- hypocrits- and you wonder why there are no new members joining your church...
you are no judge of mine- and that brings me peace. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:34 PM:

" 7X if you truly are sorry you'd stop using the word "Madam" that word hasn't been used as a title of respect for women for two centuries. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:38 PM:

" Mr. Hendren I never said they were the top reason. Once again you read more than what is said. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:42 PM:

" Anna I have been putting up with 7X and his altar egos for two years now. The only way to deal with his inane comments is to do him one better. It is called wry, dry, ascorbic wit. When he is ready to address issues on an adult level than I will respond on an adult level. If he wants to continue to play games than I will play games. I will respond responsibly to other posters that are interested in addressing issues and not personalities. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:45 PM:

" I couldn't have said it better Crit. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:56 PM:

" I'm sorry Ms Humphreys, I use "Madam" in the same context that I use "Sir". I meant no disrespect to you, Ms Humphreys. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 9, 2009 7:10 PM:

" I have no alter ego's Ms Humphreys. And I never meant to harass you, Ma'am. I hope we can have a future of meaningful dialogue with mutual respect, Ms Humphreys. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 9, 2009 9:38 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:42 PM:
" Anna I have been putting up with 7X and his altar egos for two years now. The only way to deal with his inane comments is to do him one better. It is called wry, dry, ascorbic wit. When he is ready to address issues on an adult level than I will respond on an adult level. If he wants to continue to play games than I will play games. I will respond responsibly to other posters that are interested in addressing issues and not personalities. "

shumphreys, you said "I have warned folks before that if they want to throw verbal stones I also can throw stones and my command of the language and nuance of speech (wry humor and dry wit) is greater than theirs. " This seems to be directed at more than one poster here, and sounds very much like unwarranted arrogance to me.

I do agree that 7X6Z9's apologies and faux civilities don't jibe with his other posts and I don't blame you for being upset with him, but your condescension is out of line. And if you're going to go into a forum and call posters stupid, perhaps you should be informed that an altar is a place where sacred ceremonies are held, and ascorbic acid is vitamin C. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:08 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:34 PM:

" 7X if you truly are sorry you'd stop using the word "Madam" that word hasn't been used as a title of respect for women for two centuries. "

Hey Susan

Maybe he knows something we don't. ;) "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:28 PM:

" Becky wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:50 PM:
" "You might want to look up the definition of majority. "

That's why our founding fathers set us up as a REPUBLIC!! This way, the rights of the minority couldn't be taken away by the majority......you may want to look up the definition. "

Susan said, "Fortunately Mr. Hendren your kind is now in the minority and losing ground by the minute...". I was simply showing that she was the one in the minority. Oh, and this country was set up that the majority vote decides, not the other way around. The whole, "The good of the many, out ways the good of the one." "

woodtick wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:36 PM:

" Equal human rights for all human beings in an open society is not a new concept warranting so much debate. Those who multi-post throughout the day or depend on monotheistic guidance are demanding extra-equality for their viewpoint.

Equal rights covers civil & criminal law, property, education, employment, health, welfare, finance & opportunities inherent to our society. Whatever rights you expect to be available to you & yours are undeniably linked to the equal rights of others.

The GLBT lobby deserves a voice, as well as an unbiased community within which to participate. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:36 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:38 PM:
" Mr. Hendren I never said they were the top reason. Once again you read more than what is said. "

Really so then this was not you, "shumphreys wrote on Jun 5, 2009 8:13 AM:
" NeoCon if we are going to blame anyone for the divorce rate we should be blaming abusive men."

Hurry someone else is using your name. Your implication is quite clear. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 9, 2009 11:38 PM:

" Crit you might want to read all the Scriptures not just part of the Scriptures. We are to tell others when they are doing wrong, and homosexual acts is mentioned as wrong. Again not the person but the act. "

Late Bird wrote on Jun 10, 2009 12:26 AM:

" Anna, I couldn't have said it better, thank you! "

Late Bird wrote on Jun 10, 2009 12:32 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:42 PM:
" Anna I have been putting up with 7X and his altar egos for two years now. The only way to deal with his inane comments is to do him one better. It is called wry, dry, ascorbic wit. When he is ready to address issues on an adult level than I will respond on an adult level. If he wants to continue to play games than I will play games. I will respond responsibly to other posters that are interested in addressing issues and not personalities. "

shumphreys, you are the only one with an ego problem and several personalities, so don't try to transfer your problems onto whomever you are choosing to pick on for the time being.

As for the rest of this statement and many of your others, how childish you are- grow up.

None of us feel the need to learn anything from you except for how not to be, act, and live.
Hopefully you are done teaching these things. Now it's time for you to learn something. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 10, 2009 8:17 AM:

" No Mr. Hendren you need to follow the "whole" story. Read what I was responding to. You keep saying you shouldn't take Bible passages out of context that holds for other statements as well. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 10, 2009 8:22 AM:

" Anna I don't (generally) call posters stupid. I prefer to be more subtle. The sly under the table dig is more my style. As I said I will treat those that discuss issues in an adult manner as adults and those who don't as the children they are. Personal attacks are ways to avoid discussing issues and the standard tool of bullys, abusive men (and some women) and children. "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:21 AM:

" JR- you are just as bad as all of the evil Kings in history that distorted the Word to their own agendas, and now pass it off as the "true word of God". You use the scripture to justify your own hate. I know what the Bible says- my Father is an ordained Minister, I grew up in the church-literally. There is a certain level of responsibility that Christians have; to point people in the right direction regarding salvation & the word of God, I agree with that, but to be so judgemental? So bigotted? I assure you no where in the Bible does it say- if you can't convince them of my word then HATE THEM. Teach others to hate them- teach your children to hate them. Spread my hateful word!! that is rediculous!
You can also bring out all of the CNN polls you want- but we all know that those polls are tainted. People in America aren't allowed to think for them selves, where have YOU been! Thanks to people (like you) that spread half-truths and fear among the masses and dress it up as the true word of God, people are scared to think for themselves- for fear that their souls might be gobbled up by satan.
What business is it of yours or mine or anyones except the people ACTUALLY involved?? That is the point. It is NONE of your business, we are talking about 2 consenting adults here!
I believe- and I hope most TRUE Christians believe that God's lesson was more about love- and teaching others to love, and to abolish HATE when it is found among our Brothers and Sisters, like I am trying to do for you now. it is not the person- but the action- you are right, but your actions in this instance are totally filled with deciet and hate. Either way you slice it- YOU are creating negativity and hate among the Lord's followers- what if you are wrong? How many will you lead down the path to Purgatory?
I know that it is hard to see beyond your own emotional and -what you think-are spiritual issues regarding this subject- but really??? You cannot preach the word of the Lord and spew hate at the same time!!! That is a decietful way to live!!! Your soul deserves better! My soul deserves better & hey, you know what every homosexual has a soul- and they deserve better too! that is what God's love is all about. So relax.....you don't have to "save" them all- believe it or not most of them are already "saved" that's WHY they want to participate in a RELIGIOUS ceremony in the first place!
It's not going to be the end of the word if we let Gays marry each other.
Can't you just be a beacon of light-hope& love for the Lord? Your haterid is spreading like a disease...& giving good Christians a bad name globally. :) "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 10, 2009 10:05 AM:

" Awesome post, crit! "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 11:39 AM:

" Thanks for the props Anna- I try to not get upset by the things I read or others' opinions usually- but the very idea of using our good Saviors word to forward an agenda filled with haterid and half-truths is where I draw the line. The KKK and white supremasists tried to use the word of the Lord to push their haterid in the past, and now the far right are doing the same.
How they can justify that; I just don't see.
You have to ask yourself who will I be standing by when the Lord comes for me?? - Rush Limbaugh & his followers? I think not.
I teach my kids, as I learned- that the Lord IS love. that is how God intended it. There should be no disputing it. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 10, 2009 12:04 PM:

" crit,

You're soooo wrong. Their lifestyle directly affects each and every one of us. If you were raised by a preacher, you should know the biblical history and what God does when nations turn their backs on him and act immorally. Homosexuality is immoral. Even ten years ago you would not have heard this type of garbage. Now, you hear nothing but gay, gay, gay. I feel sorry for our children and their futures. The next generation will not have pictures of Grandma and Grandpa, but pictures of Grandma and Grandma and Grandpa and Grandpa. I'm starting to realize how it must have been in Sodom and Gomorrah in the last days. "

Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 1:37 PM:

" Listen, I dont need to know your sexual orientation. If you are going to walk down the street screaming at the top of your lungs "I'M GAY" (pretty much what you're doing here), then yeah, i'm going to look at you funny and tell you to stay the heck away from my kids. I have no problem with your lifestyle, but is there a need to broadcast it to the world? personally I dont associate with homosexuals. I'm sure there are plenty that are really nice people. I just cant seem to stomach them. I must have just been born that way "

medic57 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 1:37 PM:

" crit, what a crock

Universal Life Church

ONLINE ORDINATIONS
After you have completed the ordination form you will receive an ordination credential, which serves as receipt of your ordination. The staff views every ordination application. As a minister, you can officiate wedding ceremonies, baptisms, and other rituals. You can even start your own ministry. You don't have to purchase anything to gain the legal benefits and respect of being a minister. We do offer a variety of Wedding & Minister Supplies to assist you, however.

Anyone, including dogs can become ordained, only a select few are called and answer that call. There has to be a will to serve the people, not a will to get a paycheck. You, your Father or your Mother may be ordained ministers, that doesn't mean that you, or they, are ordained by god. "

The Question wrote on Jun 10, 2009 1:43 PM:

" The American right wing terrorists strike yet again, this time in DC. Shall we round them up at random, disappear them and torture them some to "save lives?" Why not? That "24" time bomb is ticking, isn't it?
Oh, let's do. Then let's cover up the evidence on the pious grounds that exposure of our crimes would "undermine American troops."
What fun this vicious lawlessness is. No wonder Republicans love it. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 10, 2009 1:52 PM:

" crit,
I'm not saying that gay people are not also loved by God, but God also loved the people of Sodom and he destroyed them. Just 40 years ago, people would have been appalled at the very thought of gay marriage. But, thanks to the media and Hollywood, it's literally shoved down our throats. Because a small % of people want gay marriage does not mean that gay marriage should be legal. "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 2:00 PM:

" I know far too well the stories about what our Lord will do to the nations that turn their backs on Him. You do not need to remind me, thank you though. (Again with the OLD TESTAMENT)
But truely to blame the immorilization of America on the homosexuals is truely unjustified!! Almost laughable!
If we as a society are going to be judged as a whole- one Nation together- then we all just need to throw in the towel right now, don't you think? And even beyond that- of all of the atrocities that have happened not only in this nation but across the world by our own hands, and NOW you claim that it is going to be the gays that drive us straight into Hell??? LOL! In a rainbow colored bus- no less I am sure!!
I personally believe that we have a loving God that will judge us accordingly.
Are we a nation that filled our children with hate and taught them to discriminate? Are we a nation that taught our children to love and be tolerant? Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.
And I recall decades ago when the races started mixing and the far right wingers were crying- think of the future generations!!! We will ALL be of mixed race, from all nations...the Lord will surely spite us!!!
Nope- we are still here. Still praising the Lord, and loving our savior, still praying for salvation and for yours too.
What your grandkids think is directly relative to how much hate(or love)you put in their little hearts before you leave this earth.
P.S. there are a lot of kids out there that have no grandparents-or parents for that matter- I am sure you could ask them if you wanted to, but I am willing to bet they would take 2 moms or 2 Dads or 2grand-dads or a 2grandmas; they don't care who they SLEPT with! so long as they love the kid, because in the end- only LOVE matters...
And just while we are talking about it- I can think of several sex acts between a man and a woman that are questionable to say the least. Talk about Sodom & Gamorrah...but I appreciate your comment. "

Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 2:16 PM:

" I cant wait to have to explain to my 6 year old why 2 guys are making out at disney. I suppose I'm wrong for not wanting my kid to see that? "

father bob wrote on Jun 10, 2009 2:21 PM:

" Hammbone wrote on Jun 9, 2009 3:59 PM:
" I clearly see alot of people in here claiming to be Opnipatent.Makes me sick to my stomack to read of this garbage.Those that support this life style clearly have NO Moral Values.No concept of right from wrong.Just blithering away as to what they think about what ever,,,It's just plain wrong.The human body wasent ment to be used in that way. Those that embelish this idea are just a bunch of sick twisted sicko's... """"""

it hurts to read your twisted spelling.... "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 2:46 PM:

" You cannot compare what happened in Sodom & Gamorrah to Gay marriage!!! LOL! You are harsh for thinking that way!! Gay marriage is about 2 people that love each other coming before the Lord and their families and making a commitment to each other. to answer before the Lord together.
-
The city of Sodom was destroyed for it's great wickedness (more than just homosexuality were abundant-but that is where the focus is placed by society to further their agendas)- &&& if you recall the story correctly the elders of Sodom came to Lot's home to call out his visitors so that ALL in the city young & old may "know" them which would have been like a modern times gang rape. Why isn't the focus on the idea that they wanted to rape Lot's guests, why only that homosexuality was present?? Why not press the issue of rape? Because in the days of censoring the word of God- each and every king that had a hand in the Word had also a bed-slave, wether same sexed or not. Did the Lord destroy Sodom b/c of the rapes? or b/c of the homosexuality??
And Lot refused to bring out his visitors. AND Lot was rescued by the Lord because he was a richeous man.
So in fact- one could argue that although the "corrupt nation" was destroyed- the richeous were spared. Which are you-that spill hate through the veins of your children? the richeous? or the wicked?
AND as I said before- if you think homosexuality is going to be the end of all times for America- then you aren't paying attention to the true atrocities in this nation of ours... "

Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:10 PM:

" Questions,

you have the right to publicly criticize this nation as you are doing now. You also have the right to leave at any time. If you hate it so much then go. I for one am glad that we detained those criminals. Who are you to claim their innocence? It has become quite obvious that you have a much better view than the rest of us from that pedestal you are up on. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:15 PM:

" "That is the point. It is NONE of your business, we are talking about 2 consenting adults here!"
----------

Since the original definition of marriage is being thrown to the wind, are you prepared to extend this new "right" of "marriage" to siblings, Crit?

And when minors who are now allowed the very adult right to have an abortion without parental consent, and who are more mature and adult than ever before, ask for their "right" to marriage, will you demand that Christians accept that as well, crit? "

Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:27 PM:

" And to the homosexual community......'Thats gay' or 'youre gay' or 'you homo', are all permanent fixtures in my vocabulary. Sorry Corey, thats non-negotiable. just equate it to pollock jokes and move on. if i ever use those terms in a deragotory fashion towards you then you may punch my in the mouth..... with your fist "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:32 PM:

" Mattoon- I understand your arguement. But at the same rate do you feel any better about explaining to your 6y/o why there are huge billboards showing women dressed provocatively? baring their breasts, if not more? That is acceptable to you? which is the true evil- the blatant sexual exploitation of women and it's acceptance among our culture or same sex marriage? wow- what a toss up. It's funny what we as a society see as "acceptable" and who in reguards to that makes the final decision. Sexuality is something that should be left in the bedroom, that is the point I am trying to make. it is NONE of your business, it is none of my business.It is none of our governments business. Equal rights under the law. We are all deserving of that. Why is it such an issue to some? I don't see what the hang-up is?? because -o man, God is gonna get us?? Open your EYES man, God is already gonna get us!!! For far more than this!!!
I understand that many will never be swayed, such is the case in all civil iberties, but eventually you have to come to the realization- that this isn't just your life to live... "

Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:34 PM:

" Can i marry my dog? Seriously "

middle of road wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:37 PM:

" Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:34 PM:

" Can i marry my dog? Seriously "
No disrespect to dogs, M-I-D, but they are not consenting adults. Not to mention, surely any dog would have better taste than to want to marry you. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:39 PM:

" crit,

You might want to re-read your bible. It was the men both young and old that called out the male angels to have sex with them.

God made marriage, not man and to think of changing that divine union is sacrilege.

I would rather teach my children morality (hate as you call it) than immorality (perversion). "

Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:41 PM:

" LOL, Middle...... you got me man, you got me :D "

Mattoon_is_dying wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:46 PM:

" crit, you make some good points. However, just because 'god is gonna get us' for the more severe creases in the our moral fabric doesnt mean that things like this will be over looked. I can agree that yeah lude and sexual acts should be left in the bedroom. yet, my child sees some casual smooching between two guys and he wants to know whats going on. Come on. If its a man and woman then I say they love each other very much and we move on. If its 2 guys or girls then I say they love each other very much and then we just opened a HUGE can of worms for a 6 year old. Yeah, you're right, leave it at home. But i'm still going to have my reservations between same sex relationships (unless 2 really hot women are into me) :D that was a joke "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:49 PM:

" First of all the issue that started this debate is the right for same sex couples to marry. Not abortion- not sibling marriages. So don't be silly. I will not even justify that with an arguement, again your rebuttal is laughable.
I can understand you getting defensive and having to "make up" other arguements to push my buttons instead of having the verbal berevity to debate the issue with me. I applaud you for your efforts. however, as all good debate persons well know (i was captain of the debate team) the main objective is to stay on course and not let your emotions get the best of you.
so in response let me say- I am debating the issue of gay marriage here. If you want to go out on some unfathomable tangient because there is no more wind in your sails to push your ship, that is your choice; just as it should be a persons choice to marry the person they love. simple.
LoL to the guy arguing that homosexuality is a sin then joking about beastiality...kudos to your humor! "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 3:51 PM:

" When an adult wants to "marry" their parent, Crit, will you as a Christian, support their "right" to do so? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 4:16 PM:

" Once you redefine marriage, Crit, how can you not allow incestuous marriages? How can you not support all forms of "marriage"?

Let us continue with your understanding of the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah:

"So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father." (Gen 19:3336)

Is this really such a silly question, Crit? If so why? "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 4:18 PM:

" jxbx- I am well aware that all of the men from all corners of the region came out to "know" Lots visitors. Thus the insinuation on my part that this was a gang rape, funny how that part of the story doesn't bother anyone.. and I can assure you that the elders of the regions were the ones that spoke to or negotiated with Lot for the turning over of his guests. Thanks for taking my opinion so literally, funny how you search for indiscrepancies and try to sensationalize them, but in no way will try to answer my questions, or take a legitimate stance on your own opinion. my question to you is this...would the Lord have destroyed Sodom if it had been an opposite sex gang rape that the men were crying out for. (I know, I know- Lot offered his daughters up in the angels stead-but the men wanted the angels..you don't have to remind me)but don't you think Sodom was just as corrupt in the idea of the gang rape no matter who was being raped??
and for the other sillies that just can't come up with any other arguement other than =what about this...do you agree with this?? or what about that?? we are talking about gay marriage! Not about any of the other trivial things you want to come up with to make my point seem any less valid. the true test here is if you actually have a point, or are you just the bully on the play ground that likes to point and laugh to keep others from pointing and laughing @ you? come on! Actually have a valid point here! gay marriage is going to be the end of the world?? I am getting bored! "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 4:22 PM:

" 7x- hey man I am right there with you. I have been wondering why the idea of Soddom & Gomorrah was brought up in the first place! that was exactly MY point thanks for making it so clear for everyone else! Gay marriage does NOT equal the attempted gang rape, that is the pinnacle story of Sodom & gamorrah. And btw- I was not the one that blessed Lott and said he was richeous- it was our Lord and Saviour. My POINT is that you cant RELY on the OLD TESTAMENT for your MORALITY!!! I totally led you into that conclusion and you never saw it coming!!! hahaha that was GREAT! thank you!! so- who wants to bring up the OLD TESTAMENT again??? hahaha this is great! "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 10, 2009 4:24 PM:

" crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 11:39 AM:
" Thanks for the props Anna- I try to not get upset by the things I read or others' opinions usually- but the very idea of using our good Saviors word to forward an agenda filled with haterid and half-truths is where I draw the line. The KKK and white supremasists tried to use the word of the Lord to push their haterid in the past, and now the far right are doing the same.
How they can justify that; I just don't see."

crit, I've said it here before; I can't help but wonder if that is what is meant by taking the Lord's name in vain. There is a lot more in the bible about loving your fellow man (teehee) than about having a cuss word come out of your mouth. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 4:33 PM:

" "we are talking about gay marriage!"
----------

Actually, Crit, I'm talking about the redefinition of "Marriage" and the inevitable consequences that will soon follow. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 4:40 PM:

" "I totally led you into that conclusion and you never saw it coming!!! hahaha that was GREAT! thank you!! so- who wants to bring up the OLD TESTAMENT again??? hahaha this is great!"
----------

That was never my conclusion, Crit. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 4:43 PM:

" What *do* you rely on for your morality, Crit, and what does it tell you about incestuous marriage? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 5:10 PM:

" Apparently your understanding of The Old Testament is in question, Crit.
The reason Lot's daughters slept with their father was to continue the process of life in a world where they thought all of humanity was destroyed. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 10, 2009 6:12 PM:

" Crit, though I don't agree with everything you say, I am enjoying your posts. We needed a new voice for this ongoing debate, and I think we got it. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 7:12 PM:

" The point I was trying to make (that Crit did not want to address) was this:

If marriage is simply a civil "right" that is dependent on each individual's interpretation of what is or isn't "morale", then we as a society have absolutely no choice but to grant that civil "right" to virtually every "adult" for any reason.

So do any of you advocates for "gay marriage" have any moral qualms with any of the various other types of "marriage" that will surely follow? Incestuous? Or between minors who could lobby for their "right" to be considered adults? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 7:14 PM:

" I meant to say "moral" not "morale". Butterfingers. :-) "

medic57 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 8:45 PM:

" And I recall decades ago when the races started mixing.

crit

You said it exactly, Races!!! NOT Genders. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 8:52 PM:

" crit wrote on Jun 9, 2009 4:24 PM:

" OMgoodness! Whose business is it of ours what people do behind closed doors?

No one, problem is, The "Gay" Community doesn't want to stay behind closed doors, they want to broadcast it to the world that they are Gay and no one is going to get into their way. Here's an idea, go and have a Gay Pride Parade in Iran, Iraq, Russia, China or almost any country in the world and see where it gets you. "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 8:53 PM:

" alright- I was NOt trying to avoid any issue- contrary to popular belief I left my job around 4:30 today and had things to do around the house with the kids etc before giving this my attention again.
Obviously Im confusing some of you so I will make it clear-
the Old Testament keeps getting called upon as an arguement to the idea of gay marriage- particularly the story of Soddom & Gamorrah. which has nothing to do with the issue (other than the lustfull parts which Heteros are guilty of and the sodomy - which also heteros are guilty of as well as gays, but whatever) - I digress, if you follow the tangient long enough- you will find that the Lord sees Lot as a richeous man and saves him as an INDIVIDUAL (thus closing the arguement that the "whole nation will burn" if gays are given the right to marry)then later Lot breeds with his own children. So, roughly you cannot rely on only part of the story to support your stance and not take it as a whole- for all that it is worth. That is what I am trying to get across to you!! Is that SOOO hard to understand!? don't use that story as an example regarding this issue, because eventually you are looking down the throats of incestuous relationships, and that is SOOO much better than homosexuality!! LOL
here's the difference as far as the "law is concerned.. seeing as how we are "re-inventing marriage" through the court systems... obviously there would never be an allowance for a father to marry his child or a brother to his sister in this day - because IF children were born of the incest (& here's where the civil liberties of others are being violated) the child would most likely suffer from some type of malformation- thus taking from the child their right to a happy/healthy life. so that's the difference.? get it?? there would be NO offspring in a same sex marriage. Whose rights would be violated? yours? mine? my childrens? I think not. But in the incestuous relationships you blatantly threw out there- there would be negligence on the part of the parents. that conclusion would not be hard for a first year law student to make. there are NO victims in the same sex marriage to be found. so- why this idea was even brought up is beyond me- other than to say - "well what about this??"
We can argue the topic as long as you want- I might not ever change your mind- you definitely won't change mine. I believe in Love. I believe in the Lord. I believe his most awesome gift was forgiveness and love. To say that two (non-related) people should not be allowed to answer for THEMSELVES in the eyes of the Lord is rediculous and vain, among other things! I am not trying to be anyones "voice" nor am I trying to upset anyone- I just don't see where it is anyones business, but those involved. to spew haterid on an issue that does not even involve you is beyond my understanding! Shouldn't we be blogging about the child rapists and molesters instead of trying to keep people from loving each other?
I just don't get it. "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:14 PM:

" hahaha- medic-
you are SO silly I think you are confused. the genders have been mixing for centuries..
so recently the races started mixing and it was just atrocious- don't you know? absolutely the end of the world of mankind as we know it-
so NOW the genders maybe want to not mix so much...
and about the Gays- throwing it in your face comment- they are marching for heir RIGHTS- just as WOMEN did, just as BLACKS did, just as they will UNTIL they are seen as equals and TREATED as equals. that's what all of this 'in your face-ism is all about.to be treated fairly, if you were beig discriminated against- I am sure you'd have some "in your face moments too" AND your point about going to other countries to parade & fight for their rights??? Didn't you know this was the land of the free? If you agree more with how gay people are treated in those countries- doesn't that make you a communist? a socialist? I think it might. I would hate to see how they would treat ANY free thinking American. How could you insinuate such a thing?? Civil liberties founded this country..get over it- England did.. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:21 PM:

" WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday agreed with the Obama administration and refused to review Pentagon policy barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the dont ask, dont tell policy.

It seems the U.S. Government doesn't want to be reminded every chance they get either. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:23 PM:

" Raider65 wrote on Jun 2, 2009 5:46 AM:

" Medic57, obviously you do care if Corey is gay, or you wouldn't have responded so negitively.

I wouldn't have responded at all if he didn't want to ram it down my throat, or, maybe more appropriately, stick it up my ___. "

Rockin Rotty wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:29 PM:

" 7X6Z9 has a pretty good point.

If gay people were given the right to marry, all across the board, would everything be a-ok, & simmer down, then?

What would be the next thing or "right" fought for, & by who or whom?

The world could do without the haters, & one-siders, but where does it end, or do we draw the line?

Do we say "yes" to everyone, or is there a place for the dreaded "no"?

I'm willing to bet old age gets us first. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:36 PM:

" Sorry to disagree with you, Crit, but I've got news for you, there are states that already permit cousin marriage with restrictions that the couple will not reproduce- did you know that Illinois is one such state?
So what is preventing siblings from this "civil right"? And what about same sex siblings? How do you not allow them their "civil right" to "marriage"? And what is to prevent minors from being granted this status since they could easily prove that they are more mature physically and psychologically than ever before. They are already allowed to have abortions without parental consent.

And I clearly explained why I brought these arguments up Crit. Here it is again: If marriage is simply a civil "right" that is dependent on each individual's interpretation of what is or isn't "morale", then we as a society have absolutely no choice but to grant that "civil right" to virtually every "adult" for any reason. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:37 PM:

" Crit

Why do you keep going on about gang rape and child molesters? Could it be that homosexuality precipated the people of Sodom to commit more agregious sexual sin. Could it be that you know child molesters will be the next ones demanding their rights? What's to stop them. Interesting.

As I said, God made marriage, not man. God made Adam and Eve as a couple to compliment each other. Two very different creations. Had he wanted two men or women he could have chosen that, but he didn't. You, as a christian, can surely understand that. You are like everyone else that accepts this lifestyle, you want to be tolerant, accepting, liked.

You also keep on bringing up the fact that this is Old Testament. I hope you don't think the New Testament in any way changes or takes the place of the Old Testament. There is no way you can have one without the other. Even Jesus followed the laws that God set forth in the Old Testament. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:42 PM:

" I've said this before and I'll say it again:

If the gay rights movement was reasonable enough on it's own, it would not need the credibility of the civil rights movement to strengthen it's argument.

The only rights that seem to be in question here are the legal/financial rights that come with marriage. This is far different than the very basic rights denied African Americans such as voting, education, a seat on a bus, the use of a restroom, the use of a drinking fountain, and all the other forms of discrimination that segregated them from most aspects of a free society. This comparison actually diminishes, degrades, and somewhat insults the moral, legal, and yes, religious roots of the Civil Rights Movement. "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:51 PM:

" for those of you that maybe don't read a post all the way through..
In refrence to the "where do we draw the line??" question:
we draw the line when the actual civil liberties of others would be violated..as per my earlier post:

here's the difference as far as the "law is concerned.. seeing as how we are "re-inventing marriage" through the court systems... obviously there would never be an allowance for a father to marry his child or a brother to his sister in this day - because IF children were born of the incest (& here's where the civil liberties of others are being violated) the child would most likely suffer from some type of malformation- thus taking from the child their right to a happy/healthy life. so that's the difference.? get it?? there would be NO offspring in a same sex marriage. Whose rights would be violated? yours? mine? my childrens? I think not. But in the incestuous relationships you blatantly threw out there- there would be negligence on the part of the parents. that conclusion would not be hard for a first year law student to make. there are NO victims in the same sex marriage to be found. so- why this idea was even brought up is beyond me- other than to say - "well what about this??"

what it comes down to is this- realy who is this hurting? for gays to marry each other? who is affected by this? I obviously will answer to my Lord, for MY actions, you will answer for yours and so on..I would rather face the Lord with love in my heart than with self richeousness and haterid for my fellow man. I am just as good as you, and gays are just as good as me. we all sin- in different ways, no sin is better or worse than the next, all must be repented all must be forgiven. If not by you then by the Lord. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 10, 2009 10:18 PM:

" There are hunting laws that say I can kill a deer. I don't think that precipitated any law that says I can kill a human being.

Some of the things being posted here are beyond ridiculous. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 10:30 PM:

" Apparently you didn't read my post, Crit. Let me restate it:

There are states that already permit cousin marriage with restrictions that the couple will not reproduce- did you know that Illinois is one such state?

Did you get that Crit? The restriction of no children already applies.

So what is preventing siblings from a similar "civil right", once marriage is completely redefined, Crit?

And if birth-defects is your primary rationale of a "civil liberties" argument, then shouldn't our society outlaw drinking and smoking during pregnancy? Shouldn't we also prohibit two individuals who are carriers of the same genetic defect from procreating?

And what about same sex siblings, Crit?

There would be no offspring involved in that union would there, Crit.
How do you not allow them their "civil right" to "marriage"?

And what is to prevent minors from being granted this status since they could easily prove that they are more mature physically and psychologically than ever before. They are already allowed to have abortions without parental consent. "

crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 10:31 PM:

" you debate your own arguement with your words
you say: If marriage is simply a civil "right" that is dependent on each individual's interpretation of what is or isn't "morale", then we as a society have absolutely no choice but to grant that "civil right" to virtually every "adult" for any reason. "
is this not the way that heterosexual marriages are arranged already??? LOL!
Are incestuous relations not legal already as you have stated:I've got news for you, there are states that already permit cousin marriage with restrictions that the couple will not reproduce- did you know that Illinois is one such state?
so why are you asking ME what I think about that? when in fact your state has already agreed that it is allowable? Do I all of a sudden make the laws that govern man? although I am confused why your state would allow such things and you would bring it up in a debate as a reason to JUSTIFy gays not being allowed to marry...you would think it would be fuel for the other side as in: you allow cousins to marry - but you won't allow gays?? where is the religious sanctity in that?
as far as your next posting goes- I bring up the gang rape issues because that is what the people of Sodom were intending towards the Angels..to gang rape them, same sex or not, rape is RAPE. To say that homosexuality was a prerequisite to that type of CRIME is a stretch- although homosexuality was rampant, OTHER sexual indiscrepencies were present as well..that is quite a leap to make, but one you took easily no doubt.
and I only brought up molestation ONCE and that was in refrence to us (Christians)all actually finding a place to voice our beliefs reguarding a TRUE SOCIAL PROBLEM like child molestation, which I don't personally believe this gay marriage thing is a social issue. where as child molestation is rampant in our country- but we'd rather debate about the gays than actually fight the good fight.
and- no- child molesters have few rights- because of that whole "violating the rights of others" thing I have already mentioned.
I realize God made Man & woman FOR EACH OTHER...I get that. Do you get that what I am arguing here is? it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS..what ANYONE does behind closed doors?? that the word of God you spread should be about love and peace- not about hate and intolerance, let our Saviour do what he was meant to do for all of us- bear witness to our sins and eventually forgive.
AND I keep bringing up the OLD TESTAMENT becaus people keep using it as a tool to boost their morality- but that is not how the old testament is. Those were the days of unleavened bread & biggamy & sacrificing of chidren to the Lord- it was more about the fear of God. Yes it is the foundation of the New Testament- yes the 10 commandments comes from there- I see the validity in your statement. but you can't just cut and paste what you want it to mean to mankind. You can't spew hate then use God's word to validate that stance!don't say "well Adam & Eve", the renegg on the whole bigammy & child sacrafice parts..at least be consistent in your debate.
AAnd finally- before I go to sleep- I am not using the civil rights as a stepping stone for the gay rights movement- I am sorry you don't see it that way. When people feel their rights are being violated they will take it to the streets, they will be in your face about it, that's just the way it works, one movement inspires another. Gays are black, white, tan, women & men, all of them are a part of this movement, I am a part of this movement- just as there were whites fighting for the rights of the blacks and men fighting for the rights of women. I think there is no shame in fighting for the equal and fair treatment of our brothers and sisters, no matter what color, gender, or sexual orientation. I am saddened by the idea that those that fought for their rights so long ago, would not see the desperation in the fight that is still ongoing today.. and for you to insinuate that the gay rights movement isn't "reasonable enough on it's own"??? I pity you, and your lack of tolerance understanding and love. If only you could feel the love I feel in my heart through Jesus Christ and his love for all things. when this life is over- you can ask him yourself how he could love someone that doesn't meet your standards- that is IF you have met his. Until then, I hope you find a place of peace within yourself that no man can extinguish.. love to all.. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 10, 2009 10:40 PM:

" Oh and what about infertile siblings, Crit? What would prevent them from their "right" to marry? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 10, 2009 11:39 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 10, 2009 8:17 AM:
" No Mr. Hendren you need to follow the "whole" story. Read what I was responding to. You keep saying you shouldn't take Bible passages out of context that holds for other statements as well. "

I did and you did. I read the whole story and you did imply that it was because of abusive husbands. If you did not mean for it to sound that way just say so. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 11, 2009 12:22 AM:

" crit wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:21 AM:
" JR- you are just as bad as all of the evil Kings in history that distorted the Word to their own agendas, and now pass it off as the "true word of God". You use the scripture to justify your own hate.

Obviously you have never read my posts if you believe I am justifying hate. I have always said that we are to love all people, and hate sin, as the Scriptures say. I have also discouraged and spoke against those that engage and encourage violence and hate towards others. I have even gone so far as to write to Mr. Phelps in Kansas, though with no reply back, to rebuke his ways.
________________________________________

I know what the Bible says- my Father is an ordained Minister, I grew up in the church-literally.

Just because ones Father is ordained or they grew up in the church does not mean they know the Bible. Getting into the Scriptures, and learning what they say, the languages, and why they were written is knowing the Scriptures.
________________________________________

There is a certain level of responsibility that Christians have; to point people in the right direction regarding salvation & the word of God, I agree with that, but to be so judgemental? So bigotted? I assure you no where in the Bible does it say- if you can't convince them of my word then HATE THEM.

I again have never said to hate them. I have also never said they had to agree with me. I am stating my opinion just as everyone else does. In fact if she were to be truthful even Susan would have to say that I have said she has a right to her opinion just as much as I. Not agreeing with a lifestyle is not hate. I have said before I have family that is homosexual, and I love them just as I did before they, "came out".
________________________________________

Teach others to hate them- teach your children to hate them. Spread my hateful word!! that is rediculous!

Show one place where I said this. You can't because I never did.
________________________________________

You can also bring out all of the CNN polls you want- but we all know that those polls are tainted.

How are they tainted?
________________________________________

People in America aren't allowed to think for them selves, where have YOU been! Thanks to people (like you) that spread half-truths and fear among the masses and dress it up as the true word of God, people are scared to think for themselves- for fear that their souls might be gobbled up by satan.

So now people can't thank for themselves. What half truths. Listen if you are going to make accusation towards me back it up. Cite my "half-truths".
________________________________________

"What business is it of yours or mine or anyones except the people ACTUALLY involved?? That is the point. It is NONE of your business, we are talking about 2 consenting adults here!
I believe- and I hope most TRUE Christians believe that God's lesson was more about love- and teaching others to love, and to abolish HATE...."

Why is it my business, because I believe in the sanctity of marriage as shown in the Scriptures. Between a man and a woman. As one who "knows the Bible" you should know that. You should know that not speaking up against sin is to okay it. Every instance of marriage in the entire Bible speaks of man and woman, not same sex.
________________________________________

"...when it is found among our Brothers and Sisters, like I am trying to do for you now. it is not the person- but the action- you are right, but your actions in this instance are totally filled with deciet and hate."

Again cite you false accusation. I have shown no hate, unlike you are towards me.
_______________________________________

"Either way you slice it- YOU are creating negativity and hate among the Lord's followers- what if you are wrong? How many will you lead down the path to Purgatory?
I know that it is hard to see beyond your own emotional and -what you think-are spiritual issues regarding this subject- but really??? You cannot preach the word of the Lord and spew hate at the same time!!! That is a decietful way to live!!! Your soul deserves better! My soul deserves better & hey, you know what every homosexual has a soul- and they deserve better too! that is what God's love is all about. So relax.....you don't have to "save" them all- believe it or not most of them are already "saved" that's WHY they want to participate in a RELIGIOUS ceremony in the first place!
It's not going to be the end of the word if we let Gays marry each other."

So you disagree with the Bible and marriage. You seem to believe in "as long as your a good person" salvation too. Again I say you might want to read what you claim to know.
________________________________________

Can't you just be a beacon of light-hope& love for the Lord? Your haterid is spreading like a disease...& giving good Christians a bad name globally. :) "

You can quit with the lies anytime with you hate rants. If I did not care about all then I would not care what they did. If I did not care about those who are living in sin, I would not tell them they were. That is not hate but love. Just as the Lord tells us he wishes all to be saved but all will not. Sin is sin, and all sin leads to death. We have all sinned, and will. To say "oh well", because all will sin is not of Him. We can not say who is saved and who is not, that being because only God himself can, but we are to let a brother/sister know when they are doing wrong. If not their blood be on our hands. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 11, 2009 12:28 AM:

" .I would rather face the Lord with love in my heart than with self richeousness and haterid for my fellow man. I am just as good as you, and gays are just as good as me. we all sin- in different ways, no sin is better or worse than the next, all must be repented all must be forgiven. If not by you then by the Lord. "

Crit you claim to know the Scriptures so answer me this then, is the act of homosexuality sin or not? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 11, 2009 1:54 AM:

" "is this not the way that heterosexual marriages are arranged already??? LOL!"
----------

Yes. The operative word being "heterosexual" as it defines "marriage". I thought that less than minor point was already established in this conversation.

"Are incestuous relations not legal already as you have stated"
-----------

Only between heterosexual cousins, which is bad enough. But when the societal barrier of gay marriage is destroyed, sibling marriage, including same sex siblings, will be sure to follow. And why aren't you using cousin marriage as a justification for gay marriage? Do you find cousin marriage morally unacceptable?

The reason I bring all of this up is simple; Do any of these scenarios offend your morals? Should all forms of "marriage" be allowed in your opinion? Would you mind if your children were exposed to any or all of these versions of "morality"? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 11, 2009 7:01 AM:

" "Imply" Mr. Hendren is not the same as saying it is the one and only absolute ultimate cause. Note I said "if you are going to blame anyone". IF is a qualifying word Mr. Hendren. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 11, 2009 7:25 AM:

" "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me;...." Ezekial 16: 49050 And what were those abominable things? Proverbs 6: 16-19, "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that debvises wicked plans, feet that hurry to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family." Homosexual behavior isn't mentioned. Crit gets it, It is ALL about harming others (physical and verbal abuse, economic and sexual exploitation), your day to day actions and how you treat your fellow man. "

AnnaNiemaus wrote on Jun 11, 2009 9:24 AM:

" All of you here talking about legality of gay marriage and the bible seem to be forgetting the words "separation of church and state".

One poster even goes so far as to say,"Here's an idea, go and have a Gay Pride Parade in Iran, Iraq, Russia, China or almost any country in the world and see where it gets you. "

Isn't America supposed to be different than those countries? It seems we are becoming a country of people who want their own freedoms but not their neighbor's. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 11, 2009 9:29 AM:

" After reading some of the comments on here, I think we have our own Reverend Fred Phelps right here in east central Illinois. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 9:31 AM:

" J.R., you wrote (yet again) "If I did not care about those who are living in sin, I would not tell them they were. That is not hate but love....We can not say who is saved and who is not, that being because only God himself can, but we are to let a brother/sister know when they are doing wrong. If not their blood be on our hands."

We've already agreed that divorce undermines the sanctity of marriage (not to mention the stability of society), yet I don't see you expressing anywhere near the level of concern for the problems associated with divorce. You've given a nod or two in that direction but obviously reserve your Bible-thumping for homosexuals who want to marry.

Again, there is no scriptural justification for your concern about what gay people are doing. I assume you don't believe they are "real" Christians, based on past statements. Paul gives no precedent for trying to change secular society to make it adapt to Christian beliefs. Instead, he focuses on "cleaning up" the church, on Christians living out their calling.

So, I'll ask again. Why aren't you dealing with the divorce problem that is rampant in the church? Why don't you thump your Bible at those WITHIN the body of Christ who are undermining the sanctity of marriage by divorcing and remarrying? After all, their blood is on your hands. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 9:56 AM:

" "Then the Lord said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.'" (Genesis 18:20-21)

Unlike our mistaken ideas about Sodoms sin, the cry God heard was not about sexual immorality.

Our Sunday school stories do not teach the real sin of Sodom. It was not homosexuality, lasciviousness, lust....It was far greater. And its all wrapped up in the Hebrew word tseaqah and its companion zeaqah. The first word is found in this verse (cry) and the second in the previous verse (cry), but as you can see, there are two different words in Hebrew. Nevertheless, the impact of these two words melds into a single offense so great that God brings wrath upon those who embrace them.

What does tseaqah and zeaqah mean? Sarna says that these two words describe the anguished cry of the oppressed, the agonizing plea of the victim for help in some great injustice. This is moral outrage at the total disregard for human compassion and civility. This is the very opposite of what any human being would consider justice.

This is not simply dishonoring God. This is dishonoring our own kind, a wanton display of human insensitivity toward other human beings. If you want to see what this looks like, you do not have to descend into the brothels or sleaze shops. You can watch the news about racial cleansing across the globe. You can recall the history of the Holocaust or the actions of Pol Pot. You can realize that we live in the most brutal, most inhuman, most despicable century that the world has ever known. The destruction of human beings in the name of religion, politics and economics makes us all look as though we not only live in Sodom, but that we have also expanded its city limits to the edge of the globe.

Push aside the idea that Sodom was about sex. Sexual perversion was only one of the symptoms of a culture that cared nothing for those who could be used and abused. Ezekiel lays the blame right where we need to hear it:

Behold, this is the guilt of your sister, Sodom. She and her daughters had pride, were more than full of food, and prosperous case, but did not aid the poor and the needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it. Ezekiel 16:49-50 "

jukbx wrote on Jun 11, 2009 10:16 AM:

" Hump,

Homosexuality falls under "feet that hurry to run to evil". "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 11, 2009 10:38 AM:

" That is a good point Anna. They also forget that their freedoms are dependent on the freedoms of others. My right not to be a Christian is dependant upon the same laws that guarantee their right to be a Christian. If you want your soldiers/citizens to be free from torture, to be treated by the rule of law than you have to do the same for their soldiers and citizens. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 11, 2009 10:44 AM:

" Jukebx spreading lies, bearing false witness, are feet that hurry to run to evil. That includes spreading misinformation about homosexuals. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 10:50 AM:

" Homosexuality falls under "feet that hurry to run to evil".

The context of this passage does not support your interpretation. Instead, it suggests someone who's running around to stir up trouble. Apparently, God hates that behavior enough to call it an abomination--yet it's something that routinely happens in every Christian church. Again, we need to remove the beam from our own eyes before complaining about the splinter in someone else's eye.... "

jukbx wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:15 AM:

" crit,

I could care less what people do behind closed doors. Like I said in a previous post, "No one has taken away your right, you have the right to be gay, so be gay." Just keep it behind closed doors. Don't bring it into the public square and make demands.

Also answer the question from jrhendren "Crit you claim to know the Scriptures so answer me this then, is the act of homosexuality sin or not? "

By the way, it's a Yes or No question! We don't need another mile long rant. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:20 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 10:50 AM:

" Homosexuality falls under "feet that hurry to run to evil".

The context of this passage does not support your interpretation. Instead, it suggests someone who's running around to stir up trouble. Apparently, God hates that behavior enough to call it an abomination--yet it's something that routinely happens in every Christian church. Again, we need to remove the beam from our own eyes before complaining about the splinter in someone else's eye.... "

Are you kidding! Now you're grasping! "

jukbx wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:37 AM:

" CrowWoman

Okay, let's go with you interpretation....it sure seems like the gay community are the ones who are stirring up trouble. Like you said 'we need to remove the beam from our own eyes before complaining about the splinter in someone else's eye.... "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 12:51 PM:

" Grasping? I don't think so; read the passage from Proverbs 16:16-19 again: "There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are detestable (an abomination)to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies, and one who stirs up dissension among brothers."

There is no sexual connotation at all with "feet that are quick to rush into evil." Anyway, if the Lord finds these things in Prov. 6:16-19 to be abominable, why aren't Christians more concerned about practicing them? Could it be people gossip and stir up trouble so often at church that no one thinks much about it? These are good Christian abominations, aren't they? "

Shadowjack1965 wrote on Jun 11, 2009 2:48 PM:

" Hi,

I'm a newcomer to this forum but was interested in the topic of conversation so thought I'd register.

I'm curious to see where my views fall into the debate.

I spent 10 years in a pentecostal church, (was even a minister for a brief time), but have since left that denomination and don't currently attend anywhere, (please refrain from extending invites to attend, I'm not accepting any at the moment). I still believe in the bible and what it says, and am relatively fluent with the message regarding marriage and homosexuality. I believe the message in the bible that same-sex intercourse is a sin is clear.

Having said that, I do believe in a separation of church and state, and have fought to defend any American's right to worship, (or not worship) as he/she chooses.

Personally I find the act of same sex intercourse repulsive, (not trying to offend), and do not believe said act to be as "equally acceptable" as heterosexual intercourse. After reading some of the earlier posts regarding "studies" done on the subject, I'll state that to the best of my knowledge I'm not "repressing" any homosexual tendencies and have never experienced "arousal" on those few instances I've been briefly exposed to gay pornclips on the net.

I interpret marriage as being between a man and a woman, and would vote to maintain that definition.

On the other hand, I believe we are a secular society and our laws should not be solely based on Christian morality.

I was raised by a single mother who was in a same-sex relationship, so I'm vastly sympathetic to the "love" aspect of homosexual relationships. I witnessed my mother's life long partner's pain in having to deny their relationship and that decisions for her remains were left to me.

For this reason I would probably support the concept of a civil union and would vote to allow same sex couples access to the same civil and legal rights available to heterosexual couples, I would however vote that a civil union is "not" marriage in the traditional sense. This may be viewed as splitting hairs to some, but it is how I see it currently.

Thankfully there are people much smarter than me out there making these decisions, because if things were left up to how *I* view things, we'd all be Green Bay Packer fans and shop for clothes at Wal-Mart lol.

Thanks for your time. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 11, 2009 4:51 PM:

" ShadowJack thanks for speaking up. Personally I also support the concept of Civil Unions for the reason that non-religious people should also have a greater variety of options (ways to get hitched). Civil Unions for ALL, religious, non-religious, homosexual, heterosexual, as far as the law goes, Civil Union license. BUT and this is important, when the whole debate started many, many, many years ago the Homosexual community was generally tho not all, open to Civil Unions. BUT the religious right wouldn't and many still don't even want to allow that. SO the result is the push for full and complete marriage, the whole enchilada. Sometimes the extremeists shoot themselves in the foot with their unwillingness to compromise, and even grant basic rights to others. "

Laramie wrote on Jun 11, 2009 5:27 PM:

" It's funny, E.I.U. has a Miss EIU Pagent in which all women at EIU are allowed to participate in, they also have a Miss Black EIU Pagent that only Black women are allowed to participate in. I used to work at a Roller Rink, (not the local one) one time, the local black community came to the manager and said they wanted to have a skate on a Tuesday, this skate would be open to the public but would only be open to Black skaters, The Manager said fine, next month I am going to have an open skate and only white skaters are allowed, you should have heard their response.
One new years eve, we had a big skate, (as is custom on new years eve) we had some trouble, The owner decide to close early, we had 465 skaters, normal croud, about 65% white skaters and 35% black skaters, he told them all to come back next week and get a refund, he made one huge mistake, he should have given out tickets to exchange for addmission. One (1) white person showed up for a refund, 1200+ black skaters showed up, anyone know why? Now, some of you will say, yeah right, hey, I was there, I saw it.

Simple fact is, Gays and Blacks still want different rules to play by, why is that.

I am a firm believer in the fact that the job should go to the person who is most qualified for it, no matter his color or preference, just don't try to shove rules and regulations down anyones throat. Quotas were the worst thing that ever happened to this country. With quotas, it doesn't matter who is better, it only matters what color they are or what persuasion they are. Not yet on the persuasion, but it is definately coming. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 5:50 PM:

" Jukbx wrote, "it sure seems like the gay community are the ones who are stirring up trouble."

Do you believe their fight for equal rights is stirring up trouble? Most of those involved fight through political (and non-violent) means, which seems fair enough to me.

The marriage issue is the one that is most up front, but there are so many others. As long as people are verbally--and often physically--attacked for being gay, as long as young people feel they have to commit suicide due to being ridiculed, a battle needs to be fought for the most basic of civil rights. "

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 11, 2009 7:53 PM:

" " Jukbx wrote, "it sure seems like the gay community are the ones who are stirring up trouble."

Just change one word in the above and it was they same thing the rednecks said about MLK. "

shadowjack1965 wrote on Jun 11, 2009 10:14 PM:

" Susan,

Yeah it is easy to understand how the CU concept isn't looked favorably upon by either side. For the conservatives even this is a compromise, (marriage by any different name, etc), for the supporters, this is still viewed as discrimination, (separate but equal perhaps), so the fight is to gain "marriage."

As for me, I have enough crap going on in my own life to really worry too much about what other people do in their bedroom; however, if someone comes to me and asks me to vote on this I'd go yes for CU but no for marriage simply because I personally don't view same sex intercourse as being 100% equal and I interpret same-sex marriage as asking me to change my beliefs.

I've had this discussion with a few of my lesbian friends and they understand where I'm coming from (even if they don't fully agree with me).

I've only really interacted (outside work) with one gay man and he wound up drinking too much and making a pass at me. I was kind of freaked by it as nothing like that had ever happened to me before, and for the record, all that talk about "if someone ever did that to me I'd kick his butt!" goes RIGHT out the door lol.

I politely left and we talked about it the next day, (he swears he doesn't remember what happened), but I've never really had an opportunity to form a friendship with a gay man...then again I don't have many friends here period other than my wife... :)

Keep fighting for what you believe in all! "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:30 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 11, 2009 7:01 AM:
" "Imply" Mr. Hendren is not the same as saying it is the one and only absolute ultimate cause. Note I said "if you are going to blame anyone". IF is a qualifying word Mr. Hendren. "

That is true if it is used in a different form then you used it. Problem is you did not say it in the way you are trying to pass off. You said, " NeoCon if we are going to blame anyone for the divorce rate we should be blaming abusive men. " - shumphreys Jun 5, 2009 8:13 AM. That is a statement. So actually I was wrong you did not imply it, you just said it. You made the claim that divorce is because of abusive men. Your statement speaks for itself. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:47 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 9:31 AM:
" J.R., you wrote (yet again) "If I did not care about those who are living in sin, I would not tell them they were. That is not hate but love....We can not say who is saved and who is not, that being because only God himself can, but we are to let a brother/sister know when they are doing wrong. If not their blood be on our hands."

We've already agreed that divorce undermines the sanctity of marriage (not to mention the stability of society), yet I don't see you expressing anywhere near the level of concern for the problems associated with divorce.

Wow, your divorce must have been brutal. Anyways, lets look at the topic here once again, "LETTER: Denying their rights won't get rid of gays". Maybe that is why I am speaking of homosexuality and not divorce since it is the topic. Like last time you once again though bring up divorce. You bring up a survey, that you can not show if those divorced were divorced do to unfaithfulness. You know the reason given in both the Old Covenant and New for divorce to be allowed. You continue to try and change the subject to fit your anger, and willingness to say, "if this sin is allowed, which it is not, then all should be."
________________________________________

You've given a nod or two in that direction but obviously reserve your Bible-thumping for homosexuals who want to marry.

On the contrary, but the fact remains the letter was about homosexuality not divorce. Write a letter about divorce and then we can discuss that topic. Oh wait, you'd have to tell who you are. Never mind.
________________________________________

Again, there is no scriptural justification for your concern about what gay people are doing. I assume you don't believe they are "real" Christians, based on past statements.

Right, because Christians, which you claim to be, are to just ignore sin, and condone it. Then let the blood of those we did not help be on our hands.
________________________________________

Paul gives no precedent for trying to change secular society to make it adapt to Christian beliefs. Instead, he focuses on "cleaning up" the church, on Christians living out their calling.

Actually that is exactly what he is doing. If he was not then he was a terrible preacher. He took at least three, possible four mission trips to do just that. What do you think he was doing when he preached in Greece at the Areopagus. To those who did not know of God, but worshiped an "UNKNOWN GOD", just in case they missed someone. Yes he did teach to clean up the churches, after he established them, preaching the Good News of Christ.
_______________________________________

So, I'll ask again. Why aren't you dealing with the divorce problem that is rampant in the church? Why don't you thump your Bible at those WITHIN the body of Christ who are undermining the sanctity of marriage by divorcing and remarrying? After all, their blood is on your hands. "

So I will answer you again and maybe it will sink in, this topic was homosexuality, not divorce. Also you have never shown were the divorce rate in the church is not from that of unfaithfulness, or of one of the partners not being a christian. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:55 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 12:51 PM:
" Grasping? I don't think so; read the passage from Proverbs 16:16-19..."

I did here it is, "How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather than silver! The highway of the upright avoids evil; he who guards his way guards his life. Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud." - Proverbs 16:16-19

Try Proverbs 6:16-19. It helps your argument when you quote verses correctly. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 12, 2009 6:51 AM:

" Indeed it does Mr. Hendren we threw an extra 1 in there. Thanks for pointing out the error. Sometimes the fingers have minds of their own when it comes to typing. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 12, 2009 12:07 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 12:51 PM:

" Grasping? I don't think so; read the passage from Proverbs 16:16-19 again:
----------------------------------
jrhendren wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:55 PM:
" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 11, 2009 12:51 PM:
" Grasping? I don't think so; read the passage from Proverbs 16:16-19..."
------------------------------------
Then comes this post

shumphreys wrote on Jun 12, 2009 6:51 AM:

" Indeed it does Mr. Hendren we threw an extra 1 in there. Thanks for pointing out the error. Sometimes the fingers have minds of their own when it comes to typing.
------------------------------
Susan??? You just answered for CrowWoman. And in your answer you said "WE" threw in a extra 1. Is there something you would like to share with us?? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 12, 2009 3:16 PM:

" Certainly Mr. Gordon I made the error first and Crow Woman just repeated my mistake. I checked back to the original letter and the error was there. I'd love to blame the typesetter but that wouldn't be quite fair. It is curious that it took this long for someone to check the reference though. Don't you think? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 12, 2009 4:31 PM:

" I actually got the Proverbs 6 reference typed correctly when I mentioned it the second time in the 12:51 (6/11) post. I had looked it up in the NIV, so I knew where it was. Still, typing at another computer in a cramped space with the keyboard turned sideways, I was happy what I wrote turned out half way understandable.

Anyway, Rohn, we're not the same. I'm not into Gnosticism, and I am sure Susan wouldn't claim CrowWoman's views! :~) "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 12, 2009 4:48 PM:

" You are showing the weakness of your position, J.R. You cannot dispute that divorce undermines the sanctity of marriage, nor the fact that divorce is common among Christians--therefore, you start making outlandish claims about my personal life.

As I said before, on 6/6 at 6:28 a.m., I have never been divorced. My observations are quite objective. I could turn the tables and ask, Have you or someone you're close to been divorced? Is that why you are defending it?

The truth is, though, I don't care one way or the other. I suspect you simply cannot admit that you are wrong about this (the prevalence of divorce among Christians), because it might mean that you are in error about many things you believe. And I am sure you don't want to go there. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 12, 2009 5:23 PM:

" Once again, Reverend Crit clams up when ask a yes or no question. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 12, 2009 10:13 PM:

" How are you getting along, Medic? Are you still in the hospital? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 12, 2009 11:40 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 12, 2009 4:48 PM:
" You are showing the weakness of your position, J.R. You cannot dispute that divorce undermines the sanctity of marriage, nor the fact that divorce is common among Christians--therefore, you start making outlandish claims about my personal life.

As I said before, on 6/6 at 6:28 a.m., I have never been divorced. My observations are quite objective. I could turn the tables and ask, Have you or someone you're close to been divorced? Is that why you are defending it?

The truth is, though, I don't care one way or the other. I suspect you simply cannot admit that you are wrong about this (the prevalence of divorce among Christians), because it might mean that you are in error about many things you believe. And I am sure you don't want to go there. "

How can I be wrong when I have said time and time again that divorce, except on the grounds of unfaithfulness as the Scriptures state, is wrong. You really do not read posts do you? You just decide you know what someone is going to say and go from there. The main point still remains, the subject of the letter was not divorce. You are the one who is stuck up on divorce being the unforgivable sin, which it is not. You observations are not objective, but full of bias, for some odd reason. You are the one claiming "divorce is a sin, but the act of homosexuality is not." When the Scriptures are clear that divorce, except in the area of unfaithfulness, and the act, not the person, of homosexuality are both sin. Equal sins in God's eyes. I have never said divorce did not hurt the sanctity of marriage, but the complete opposite. God never attended for divorce, but man brought it in to play. God, did place the condition of unfaithfulness as the only reason for divorce, as did Christ. We know God/Christ are not for divorce by the passages:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.", "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." - Matthew 19:4-6,8-9

That is marriage in a nutshell. A union of male and female into one forever. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 13, 2009 1:32 AM:

" Home Now, for a few days, Getting along pretty good, thanks for asking. Still in a moderate bit of pain with the Pancreas not worrking anymore, don't know quite what to eat yet. Have to take these Pancreatic Enzyme Pills so I can digest food and they are verrrry nasty tasting. A person really should try to take care of themselves, it's really isn't much fun later when you haven't. Thanks to Dr. Howell and all of the great Nurses for taking care of me when I didn't feel very good. They did a great job. Diabetes is a very sneaky disease and Pancreatitus is a potentually deadly desease. Please, don't treat either lightly just because you don't seem to feel real bad at the time. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 13, 2009 9:54 AM:

" Was just asking Susan and Crow. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 13, 2009 10:08 AM:

" This is rather amazing.
The Obama Justice Department on Thursday, just defended the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) as they dismissed the first same sex marriage case filed in federal court.

But what's truly astounding?

The Obama Administration invoked incest and adults marrying children:

ABCNews- The Obama administration cited Catalano v. Catalano (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage), and re Mortenson's Estate, (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").

I have made the case in here that once marriage is redefined, there will no longer be any legal or societal barriers, or moral arguments, that can prevent overall widespread acceptance of all unions involving minors, or any combination of incestuous relationships.

Are we as a society ready to accept that? Do any of you gay marriage advocates have any qualms with this? After all, what people choose to do with their private lives is none of your business, right?

So shouldn't you just accept this as the new "normal" in our free and equal society? Why should you even care? Does it effect your life?

Let me know. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 13, 2009 10:21 AM:

" Glad to hear you're feeling better, Medic. You're always in my prayers. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 13, 2009 10:44 AM:

" Corey wrote:

Why arent we fighting with the spirit of the Stonewall rioters? Why arent we lying down in churches with our last breath, wearing blood-red hand prints like ACT-UP did? Why arent we in the streets en masse screaming our demands for civil rights or civil war; GAY RIGHTS NOW?

Harry Potter wrote on Jun 11, 2009 7:53 PM:

" " Jukbx wrote, "it sure seems like the gay community are the ones who are stirring up trouble."

Just change one word in the above and it was they same thing the rednecks said about MLK. "

Harry, difference was, MLK NEVER advocated violence. ALL of these Gay and Lesbian groups are advocating violence.

Seems to me that Corey has no guts, he started all of this rukus, he has done nothing but Blow (so to speak) hot air. He wrote the letter wanting violence, but has not made 1 post since. "

shysport wrote on Jun 13, 2009 12:26 PM:

" homophobic, that pretty much sums it up. you want to quote the bible, but doesnt the bible say "judge not least they be judged"? you people need to look at your own back porches. corey its a beautifully written letter, and we should continue out fight for what is already suppose to be, equal rights. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 13, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Mr. Hendren where does it say that marriage between same sex couples is forbidden? Nowhere. Where does it say that marriage between one man and many women is not allowed? Actually there are several places where polygamy is the standard approved practice. Yet we as a people decided to not allow that practice. Cousin marriage is practiced in the Bible yet we as a people decided not to allow that practice. If we can go against the Bible on those things we can certainly allow same sex marriage which is NEVER addressed in the Bible. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 14, 2009 1:14 PM:

" I know it would be fun lots of time for sure. But can you men out there really imagine having several of those nagging pms sessions every month instead of only one?? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 14, 2009 2:43 PM:

" but doesnt the bible say "judge not least they be judged

It's not judging someone when they admit what they are doing.

shumphreys wrote on Jun 13, 2009 4:40 PM:

" Mr. Hendren where does it say that marriage between same sex couples is forbidden?

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Websters definition of a wife;

A woman joined to a man in marriage; a female spouse.

The first country to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally recognized marriage was the Netherlands, effective in 2001. Since then, six other countries and seven U.S. states have followed suit, though voters in California revoked it through passage of Proposition 8.

Six countries, out of 193 countries and 6 states out of 50, with California, of all places turning it down by PUBLIC vote, can't blame the government on that one, of course now they scream that the vote wasn't fair. What wasn't fair about a vote by the people, for the people? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 14, 2009 5:18 PM:

" Honestly Medic that passage does NOT FORBID same sex couples from marrying, now does it. It is simply a wonderful poetic line in a Paul Stokey song. Oops that song was written a bit later than the Bible. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 14, 2009 5:22 PM:

" Now Medic you might want to argue that the passage shows or tells us what Gods plan was. BUT we all know that life is what happens in spite of all of our plans. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 14, 2009 5:25 PM:

" Also Medic the California vote wasn't a vote "by the people for the people". It was a vote against a specific group of people. The majority has been wrong before as they are with that vote. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 14, 2009 6:06 PM:

" Once again, J.R., the point I'm making is that divorce undermines the sanctity of marriage, and that it is hypocritical for Christians to attack gay marriage yet tolerate the divorce that is rampant in our churches. All of your denials, excuses, and protests cannot change this simple truth. It is there for the entire world to see--and to laugh at. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 14, 2009 9:13 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 14, 2009 5:25 PM:

" Also Medic the California vote wasn't a vote "by the people for the people". It was a vote against a specific group of people.

Correct me if I'm wrong Susan, but the group who lost the vote also took part in the vote, truely making it a vote by all of the people for all of the people. And if I recall right, it was the loosing side that demanded the vote in the 1st place. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 14, 2009 10:21 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 13, 2009 4:40 PM:
" Mr. Hendren where does it say that marriage between same sex couples is forbidden? Nowhere. Where does it say that marriage between one man and many women is not allowed? Actually there are several places where polygamy is the standard approved practice. Yet we as a people decided to not allow that practice.

Yes their are in the Old Testament, but once again even then it's between a man and women, not a man and men or woman and women. Thank you for once again providing more evidence of your wrongness."
________________________________________

"Cousin marriage is practiced in the Bible yet we as a people decided not to allow that practice. If we can go against the Bible on those things we can certainly allow same sex marriage which is NEVER addressed in the Bible."

It is address by the fact that every example of marriage is between a man and woman. Do you really not understand, or is it you refuse to understand? As for "relative" marriage, which once again was a man and woman, you are talking about a time when humans were to "be fruitful and multiply". Later when God gave the Law they were told to no longer.
Forbidden Marriages:
Between mother and son. (Note that sexual relations between father and daughter are prohibited by - Lev. 18:6 and 21:2-3) Leviticus 18:7-8
With stepchildren. - Leviticus 18:8,17
With an aunt. - Leviticus 18:12-14
With sister or half-sister. - Leviticus 18:9; Deut. 27:22
With half-sister and stepsisters - Leviticus 18:11
With daughter-in-law. - Leviticus 18:15
With your sister-in-law. - Leviticus 18:16
With your granddaughter. - Leviticus 18:10
With your step-granddaughter. - Leviticus 18:17

This being said, the Scriptures talk about homosexuality in both Covenants as sin, and all examples of marriage as heterosexual. Sorry this goes against your personal beliefs, but facts are facts. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 14, 2009 10:31 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 14, 2009 6:06 PM:
" Once again, J.R., the point I'm making is that divorce undermines the sanctity of marriage, and that it is hypocritical for Christians to attack gay marriage yet tolerate the divorce that is rampant in our churches. All of your denials, excuses, and protests cannot change this simple truth. It is there for the entire world to see--and to laugh at. "

So since the church, I believe you said you used to go to, did not condemn divorce as wrong all churches don't. Once again you group. The truth is I have heard several churches, from several denominations, say the same thing about divorce. It is the same thing I have said. Divorce is not right, but with the exception of unfaithfulness. Something the Scriptures say. It is you, the one who claims to be a "christian", who says that "well if the church is not going to condemn divorce, then they should say homosexual acts are okay." That is justifying, and okaying sin. With you logic then the church should never say anything about murder, adultery, stealing, or any other sin. As I pointed out that your survey does not ask, "Was your divorce do to unfaithfulness in the marriage?", or "When you remarried was it to your first wife?" Both of these questions would be legitimate questions, with either being a "yes", the divorce and marriage acceptable in biblical standards. These are not excuses, but as I said, legitimate and actually needed to be asked questions. If they were asked it would have put the survey into more accurate stats. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 14, 2009 10:38 PM:

" medic57 wrote on Jun 14, 2009 9:13 PM:
" shumphreys wrote on Jun 14, 2009 5:25 PM:

" Also Medic the California vote wasn't a vote "by the people for the people". It was a vote against a specific group of people.

Correct me if I'm wrong Susan, but the group who lost the vote also took part in the vote, truely making it a vote by all of the people for all of the people. And if I recall right, it was the loosing side that demanded the vote in the 1st place.

Medic the outcome was not what it was supposed to be, therefor it was not right. Remember Medic "the California vote wasn't a vote "by the people for the people"", it was just people getting out filling out a paper in voting booths and casting their opinion. Wait that is voting isn't it. Never mind. Do you think if the not-vote, for Susan, would have been the other way then the Susan would keep her argument, "The majority has been wrong before as they are with that vote." Wait she now says its a vote. I'm so confused. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 15, 2009 7:42 AM:

" I'm not at all surprised that you are confused Mr. Hendren, you don't seem capable of serious thought. I will explain for you, Homosexuals are part of the collective called "the people". Since this vote was against their rights it wasn't a vote by "the People" for "the People" it was against on group of "the people". AND as I have said before the majority have been "wrong" before, the Bible has taken the "wrong" stance and religious groups have taken the "wrong" stance. What do I mean by "wrong", I mean morally wrong. "

jukbx wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:18 AM:

medic57 wrote on Jun 15, 2009 1:09 PM:

" So now the Bible is Morally wrong, right Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 15, 2009 3:04 PM:

" in regards to slavery, eye for an eye, destroying all but the virgins and rape them, ....... YES Medic there are many places where the Bible endorses/accepts/encourages/condones morally wrong practices. So if YOU judge the morality of an entity on one single act(as you and many others on these pages do with people), not on the overall goodness, than YES the Bible is morally wrong. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 15, 2009 3:08 PM:

" I support a womans right to choose Mr. Hendren it is morally wrong NOT to. I also support the rights of ALL folks to choose: their religion, how to live their life, who they will marry or not marry,to committ a "sin" or not to committ a "sin", it is morally wrong NOT to support equal rights for ALL. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 15, 2009 4:01 PM:

" "it is morally wrong NOT to support equal rights for ALL."
----------

So it is morally wrong not to accept same sex sibling marriage, Ms Humphreys? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 15, 2009 4:48 PM:

" shadowjack1965 wrote: I've only really interacted (outside work) with one gay man and he wound up drinking too much and making a pass at me.

Yet, as ALL Homosexuals always say, wer're not interested in forcing our ways on others. Now, take that a step further and imagine that person being a school teacher and doing the same thing to a student.

Funny, if you had come on to a woman and she slapped you, you would have had it coming, if you would have slapped him, it would have been a hate crime.

shumphreys wrote on Jun 15, 2009 3:08 PM:

" I support a womans right to choose Mr. Hendren it is morally wrong NOT to.

Is it morally wrong not to suport a 30 week old childs right to live? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:51 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 15, 2009 7:42 AM:
" I'm not at all surprised that you are confused Mr. Hendren, you don't seem capable of serious thought. I will explain for you, Homosexuals are part of the collective called "the people". Since this vote was against their rights it wasn't a vote by "the People" for "the People" it was against on group of "the people". AND as I have said before the majority have been "wrong" before, the Bible has taken the "wrong" stance and religious groups have taken the "wrong" stance. What do I mean by "wrong", I mean morally wrong. "

That is correct they are part of "the people", and all of "the people" voted. All of "the people", homosexual, and heterosexual, voted and the outcome was not what you wanted so it is wrong. The fact is it does not matter whether you like it or not, the majority of a vote wins. I guess the next time the majority passes a bill in Congress, the minority can use the Susan excuse, "that's not fair, because I don't like it." The Bible has not taken a morally wrong stance, except if you redefine slavery as you do. In the area of homosexual acts the Scriptures say they are sin, as do the Scriptures show us the examples of what marriage is to be.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on Jun 15, 2009 3:08 PM:
" I support a womans right to choose Mr. Hendren it is morally wrong NOT to.
I also support the rights of ALL folks to choose: their religion, how to live their life, who they will marry or not marry,to committ a "sin" or not to committ a "sin", it is morally wrong NOT to support equal rights for ALL. "

Before you start your rants you might want to check and see who actually see who said it. Now who is the one jumping to conclusions? I do agree with them Susan but you still jumped the wrong person. Looks like someone is getting flustered. Here is the post:

jukbx wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:18 AM:
"....LOL. "morally wrong"....this from a person who supports abortion! " "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 15, 2009 11:55 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 15, 2009 3:04 PM:
" in regards to slavery, eye for an eye, destroying all but the virgins and rape them, ....... YES Medic there are many places where the Bible endorses/accepts/encourages/condones morally wrong practices. So if YOU judge the morality of an entity on one single act(as you and many others on these pages do with people), not on the overall goodness, than YES the Bible is morally wrong. "

Of course the Bible does not condone slavery as you define it, nor rape of virgins. Wait that is right you don't believe in right and wrong, unless you've changed religions on us again. It is so hard to keep up. The Bible is the MOST Moral book in the world. Especially if you read the entire Bible and not just the parts you twist to say what you want. If you need a good Bible I will get you one free of charge, since the one you paraphrase from seems to be missing parts. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 16, 2009 7:55 AM:

" My apologies Mr. Hendren you all begin to sound alike after awhile. Yes I should have addressed the one post to Jukebx. As to the Bible I think this goes to you but if not everyone will read it and still get the message..... it is a good book worth reading and full of good advice, and accounts of vengance (sp?) murder, rape, rules for treating slaves,stories of cousins marrying, brothers marrying brothers widows, all kinds of acts that today most normal people consider wrong...perhaps you are the one that needs to get a "better" Bible your copy seems to have left out a few of the juicier parts. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 16, 2009 7:56 AM:

" A womans life comes first 7X anything else is morally wrong. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 16, 2009 9:10 AM:

" Both lives are of equal value Ms Humphreys. Pitting the mother against the child in her womb is an unnatural abomination and most certainly, morally bankrupt. And making this inhuman act "legal" does not erase the innate guilt and pain that the mother will sadly carry with her for life. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 16, 2009 7:18 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 16, 2009 7:56 AM:

" A womans life comes first 7X anything else is morally wrong.

I agree with that Susan, a Womans LIFE comes first, defects in the baby's developmet are NOT cause for abortion, no matter what, unless the mothers life is in danger. There is a certain amount of risk with pregnancy, aborting a baby because you THINK something might happen is not viable. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 16, 2009 11:31 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 16, 2009 7:55 AM:
" My apologies Mr. Hendren you all begin to sound alike after awhile. Yes I should have addressed the one post to Jukebx.

Apology accepted even with the jab remark.
________________________________________

"As to the Bible I think this goes to you but if not everyone will read it and still get the message..... it is a good book worth reading and full of good advice, and accounts of vengance (sp?) murder, rape, rules for treating slaves,stories of cousins marrying, brothers marrying brothers widows, all kinds of acts that today most normal people consider wrong...perhaps you are the one that needs to get a "better" Bible your copy seems to have left out a few of the juicier parts. "

No, mine has all the verses, I guess I just know how to read in context, and check what I'm reading. Once again you make all your claims with no references. I realize that by making your claims without references it makes it harder to rebut your claims. Of course that is why you do it in the first place, just as how you paraphrase your verses. By doing this you can redefine slavery, say that rape was condoned, and other outlandish claims. Oh and your claim that "brothers marrying brothers widows" is "act[s] that today most normal people consider wrong." is a lie. Not only is that not seen as wrong, by normal and abnormal people, but it is perfectly legal. Again another out their cry by you. I suggest a good concordance is need, or at least knowledge of the subject matter. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 17, 2009 6:28 AM:

" "The number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people killed in bias-motivated incidents increased by 28 percent in 2008 compared to a year ago, according to a national coalition of advocacy groups.

Last year's 29 killings was the highest recorded by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs since 1999, when it documented the same number of slayings, according to a report released Tuesday by the coalition.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_us/us_anti_gay_violence "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 17, 2009 7:15 AM:

" AND what do the anti-choice folks (like you) do 7X? They put the life of the fetus over that of the mother. AND as you say "pitting one over the other is morally wrong." So how do you decide whos life takes precedent when decisions have to be made? You and I don't decide for someone else. The choice belongs to the woman. AND that 7X is what the "pro-choice" position is all about. It isn't up to me or you to second guess, pit one against another, judge, condemn, ridicule, harass, intimidate, or interfere in the decisions a woman makes about her own body. AND as long as that embryo is totally dependant upon her for all functions, the decisions are hers alone. Women are NOT baby producing machines, and if it ever gets to the point where they loose control over their choices that is what they will become and ALL of us will have lost something far more important than just our right to choose or not to choose to have an abortion. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 17, 2009 7:22 AM:

" Mr. Hendren I don't need to give chapter and verse when saying that the Bible is full of tales of rape, murder, slavery, etc. I would hope that people would read the Bible for themselves. You can't deny reality Mr. Hendren, the Bible is what it is. I don't redefine slavery it is all there in the Bible. AND yes Mr. Hendren, many still believe that widows should not marry their husbands brothers. Or perhaps I should add be forced to marry their husbands brothers. Society has come a long way and realizes that much of what is in the Bible are stories that are designed to instruct and educate. Sometimes we learn that what a story sanctions isn't right. Sometimes we learn that what a story sanctions is right. But you are correct you have to read the "whole" story. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 17, 2009 10:17 AM:

" Susan

As I have said many times, the mothers life should alwayd take precidence over the life of the baby, however, past 25 weeks, that argument no longer is feasable as both mother and child can be saved through a C Section. So, past 25 weeks there is no feasable reason to have an abortion, If the mother no longer wants the baby simply because somthing Might be wrong with the baby, then 2 things should have been done. She either should have gotten pregnant in the 1st place or she should give it up for adoption. There are risks that go along with being pregnant, ie... birth defects for babies, dangers for the mother, all of these are known facts now a days. So Susan, your assumption that it is only a womans choice doesn't fly anymore. There are many valid choices nowadays, and abortion is at the bottom of the list. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 17, 2009 10:38 AM:

" I'm afraid you are wrong Ms Humphreys. I do not put the life of the fetus over the mother's. In a life-threatening situation (which is rare I might add) it is morally acceptable to perform medical procedures to specifically prevent the death of the mother. If these procedures indirectly result in the death of the fetus, then that is acceptable.
I do not pit the child and mother against each other, nor do I judge, condemn, ridicule, harass, or intimidate the mother. However Ms Humphreys, *your* animosity towards the unborn and motherhood in general is obvious when you make derogatory statements by calling women baby producing machines.
Motherhood is a beautiful and wondrous gift that God has given women, Ms Humphreys. The greatest achievements of man can not compare to this life-giving ability.
The "Pro-Choice" position is, in reality, the choice of death for the unborn. It is more accurately "Pro-Death". Which is why the opposite position is call "Pro-Life". Let us stop candy-coating these titles, shall we Ms Humphreys? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 17, 2009 2:43 PM:

" Medic abortion is at the bottom of the list for you which is fine. BUT you do NOT have the right to force it to the bottom of other folks lists.AND Medic it is VERY VERY important to note that in 2003 in the US only 1.4% of ALL abortions were performed at or after 21 weeks. In 1997 the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the US past 24 weeks to be .08% or approximately 1,032 per year. No reasons are given for why those are performed BUT we know that in many instances they are performed as in Dr. Tillers case for medical reasons NOT just on a whim. Now when you read the stated reasons for those who have late term abortions which is any after 16 weeks of pregnancy the reasons show that full complete information is essential and that pressuring women is NOT helpful and that 2% cited they had a fetal problem with the prenancy which would cover that .08% who had a really late term abortion. So before you judge, condemn, harass, and scare women perhaps you should check the statistics and discover just what it is you are talking about. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 17, 2009 2:50 PM:

" The "Pro-Choice" position is, in reality, the choice of death for the unborn. It is more accurately "Pro-Death". Which is why the opposite position is call "Pro-Life".

No, the opposite of "pro-choice" is "anti-choice"--yet another label that fails to grasp the complexity of viewpoints that people bring to the abortion debate.

I know women, Christian friends of mine, who are against abortion yet are at the same time pro-choice. Pro-choice means to be in favor of allowing the pregnant woman to make up her mind. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 17, 2009 2:52 PM:

" No 7X the "opposition" are NOT prolife, if they were they wouldn't support the death penalty which many do, they also wouldn't get an abortion themselves which many do. Your lack of understanding of my statement and the full complexity of the issue shows in your attack on me saying my "animosity towards the unborn and women in general". Grow up. Learn to address issues responsibly in an adult fashion. The fact is as I said, "pro-choice" in the abortion issue is vital to ALL of us. It carries over into issues of our rights as adults to choose medical care or to reject specific medical treatment as well as our right to choose the right to deny life saving procedures. The BIG picture is that it is ALL about our right to control our own lives and bodies. When we loose that right we will have lost a great deal in deed. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 17, 2009 4:07 PM:

" Pro-Choice? A choice to do what?

A choice to kill the unborn. That's Pro-Death.

And Ms Humphreys, I don't support the death penalty, so please, don't imply my position without asking my views. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 17, 2009 4:19 PM:

" The law in Kansas requires a second opinion for a 3rd trimester abortion by a doctor that has no relationship with the abortion doctor. This was never the case with Tiller, He hired shrinks to ok the abortion by saying the mothers had some sort of mental disease, Have you ever been to a shrink Susan, I can guarantee you, if you go to one just one time, he will have you on some kind of medicine, which means you are sick and are ok for a 3rd trimester abortion. There simply is NO medical reason for a 3rd trimester abortion. None whatsoever. If the mothers life is in danger, it can be solved by a C Section, if the mother doesn't want the baby because of some birth defect, she didn't deserve a baby anyway and she can always give it up for adoption. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 17, 2009 7:57 PM:

" My daughters have a friend that is 20, she became pregnant. when she went to her second Dr. appointment the Dr. told her the baby had no brain activity and if she carried to term it would only live a couple of minutes . They told he she should abort. Her mother and others told her to abort. She said "NO I AM NOT". Every Dr. appointment they told her the same thing.
She brought the baby boy by my house yesterday. He is fine and is now two weeks old.
So even when the Dr. says they will be dead or something else they can be 100% wrong period end of story. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 17, 2009 11:23 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 17, 2009 7:22 AM:
" Mr. Hendren I don't need to give chapter and verse when saying that the Bible is full of tales of rape, murder, slavery, etc.

So you admit you just say what ever you want.
________________________________________

I would hope that people would read the Bible for themselves. You can't deny reality Mr. Hendren, the Bible is what it is.

I also hope all will read for themselves and look into the Scriptures. I do not believe however, that you really want the Bible read, since you yourself do not believe it, nor quote from it correctly. You are right the Bible is what it is, the Word of God.
________________________________________

"I don't redefine slavery it is all there in the Bible. AND yes Mr. Hendren, many still believe that widows should not marry their husbands brothers. Or perhaps I should add be forced to marry their husbands brothers."

First you do redefine Biblical slavery from an indentured servant, to slavery as we had here in the past. Second, you once again make claims without reference, oh wait that's right no one is allowed to question you. What you say is the absolute truth. Even when shown wrong. In the Law of Moses the brother was to marry his brothers window, and the child of the two was to keep the name of his dead father to keep the family line going. However, you once again leave out that they were not forced to, and was a way to "get out" of the bond. This practice is also no longer practiced on the New Covenant, something you like to leave out.
________________________________________

Society has come a long way and realizes that much of what is in the Bible are stories that are designed to instruct and educate. Sometimes we learn that what a story sanctions isn't right. Sometimes we learn that what a story sanctions is right. But you are correct you have to read the "whole" story. "

Things have changed since the Old Testament, that is why we have the New Testament. The New Covenant that we are under now. A new promise, of grace, not the Law. I have never said, "you have to read the "whole" story.", but that you have to read the entire Book. You have to cross reference the Old and New. You know all the things you do not do, nor will because then you would have to admit you are wrong about what the Scriptures say. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 17, 2009 11:29 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 17, 2009 2:50 PM:
" The "Pro-Choice" position is, in reality, the choice of death for the unborn. It is more accurately "Pro-Death". Which is why the opposite position is call "Pro-Life".

No, the opposite of "pro-choice" is "anti-choice"--yet another label that fails to grasp the complexity of viewpoints that people bring to the abortion debate.

I know women, Christian friends of mine, who are against abortion yet are at the same time pro-choice. Pro-choice means to be in favor of allowing the pregnant woman to make up her mind. "

I am all for pro-choice, as in you had the choice, in most cases not all, of having sex or not. You choose to have sex you run the risk. Why should a child be killed because of somebody else's bad choice. By that logic if I choice to speed down the road and I kill someone, Oh well I had the choice to speed or not, so you can't blame me. That is absurd. You choose to have sex then you made your choice and need to stand up to the plate and face the music. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 1:25 AM:

" Rohn

I have a friend, her and her husband were told the same thing, no brain activity and the baby had no chance to live past a few days, then weeks, then momnths, of course a few years ago he graduated High School and now pays taxes. What a waste of a human life that would have been. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 18, 2009 7:39 AM:

" Pro-Choice? A choice to do what?

A choice to kill the unborn. That's Pro-Death."

No, it is leaving the choice up to the one who is pregnant. She is responsible for making her own choice. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:20 AM:

" "No, it is leaving the choice up to the one who is pregnant. She is responsible for making her own choice."
---------

A "choice" to do what, CrowWoman? A "choice" to kill the unborn child.

Stating your position exclusively on the "right" of an individual's action and not on the specific action itself, reeks of obfuscation, Madam. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:40 AM:

" Mr. Gordon I'd be more likely to believe your story if it wasn't identical to one told by others,some on these posts and others on internet sites. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:52 AM:

" Mr. Hendren people do know how to read, although some refuse to do so, and some like you refuse to accept what you read. The Bible is what it is a good book, full of great stories, well worth reading and important reading, but no holier than any other book. Slavery is slavery whether you try to clean it up by calling it indentured servitude. Rape is rape and murder is murder. It is all there for folks to read. Oh and as to references on slavery try Titus 2:9-10 (just one example). "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:26 AM:

" "Mr. Gordon I'd be more likely to believe your story if it wasn't identical to one told by others,some on these posts and others on internet sites."
-----------

Are you calling Mr Gordon a liar, Ms Humphreys? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 10:32 AM:

" Ms Humphreys, is this couple lying?

Catholic sextuplet parents tell how they ignored doctors who said to abort some of the babies

DailyMail.CO.UK (June 14 2009) Nuala Conway, who gave birth to the first sextuplets in the UK for more than 25 years, was warned about the high risks of carrying so many children. The first-time mother and her husband Austin were told at 14 weeks that they could terminate some of them to reduce the risk during the pregnancy. But the former fashion store worker insisted she was putting her faith in God and wanted to go ahead.
----------

Do you believe their story, Ms Humphreys? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2009 12:20 PM:

" Cut the BS 7X. The kinder nicer you certainly didn't last long. When you loose an argument you resort to character assasination. Get real, grow up and address the issues responsibly as an adult. The issue is over control of ones medical decisions, and as I said many times, the womans life comes first, once we forget that we will have lost much more than just the right to choose or not to choose to have an abortion. You are the one that is so fond of "slippery slope" arguments. Well this is the BIG slippery slope. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 18, 2009 12:24 PM:

" The fact is well established that smoking is harmful to babies in utero, and that second-hand smoke is harmful to children--in a variety of ways. Do we deny pregnant women (or parents in general) the choice to smoke?

No, most people in our society have accepted the fact that people make their own choices when it comes to smoking, in spite of the harm that smoking causes.

Shall I waste my time moralizing about whether smoking during pregnancy is wrong, or whether parents smoking around their children is wrong? How effective is that?

Rather, I can support efforts to educate people about the effects of smoking. Also, I can support efforts directed towards smoking prevention or cessation. I can encourage efforts to educate children about the dangers of smoking.

Moralizing about the abortion problem is a waste of time, J.R. and 7X. The exact definition of "pro-choice" does not matter much. Clearly, what the term means to you is not the same as what it means to me. Of course, the two of you will claim to be "right." That, too, does not matter much. Moralizing about the results of people's behavior does not matter a whole lot, either.

The rightness or wrongness of abortion is irrelevant; abortion is here, and it is likely to be with us for a long time. The question is, how can we as individuals help prevent abortions from occurring? "

medic57 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 1:51 PM:

" 7X6Z9

She is calling Rohn and I a liar, I don't know the couple involved in Rohn's story, they could be the same story, they might not be. Susan, life if full of the same kinds of stories from different people, are they all liars? Susan doesn't like those kinds of stories because thay can only have one explanation and science and medicice ain't it. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 2:36 PM:

" Susan

When my wife and I were told she was pregnant and with our second child and she also needed to have her gal bladder out, the doctor wanted to know if we wanted to consider abortion since there was a better than average chance that the baby would be born with something wrong, needless to say, we never thought about it or even considered it an option, in fact, my wife fell down a flight of stairs while pregnant with him with no adverse effects. He is now married and has children of his own and a good job with a good life in Florida.

Now, cut back a year earlier, my wife is pregnant, everything is going fine, no complications, they did have to lightly induce labor, not unusul. My first born has a head full full of Blach Hair and eyes the color of lunp of coal, other than that, nothing unusul, about a year later he has an ear infection, convulsions and a high fever, by high, I mean 108.8, turns out he has epilepsy, cerebral palsy and learning disabilities, after several trips to Children in S. Louis, all of this is diagnosed. We were told he would be lucky to walk correctly, work or ever be able to tie his shoes bcause of his fine motor skills loss.

He learned how to tie his shoes at 17 years old, he got his drivers license at 19 years old and he is getting married next month.

All of this AFTER a Doctor suggested an abortion. In his spare time he fixes his and his firends computers when they break. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2009 2:50 PM:

" Your point being what Medic? The internet is full of stories, whether they are true or not is anyones guess? Is your story true, I don't know and as I said to Mr. Gordon I'd be more inclined to believe it if you were more truthful with your facts in other areas. I am not calling you a liar I am just saying that your reputation for factfulness on these threads isn't the best. In otherwords you have cried Wolf, too many times. NOW about your "story" and a somans right to choose. You and your wife were given the option how would you have liked not to have the option, to be told you will have an abortion whether you like it or not, that is the flip side of this whole issue Medic. A womans right to choose or NOT to choose. Quite honestly the way this world is going it will more likely be towards forced abortions, due to the cost to society, overpopulation, environmental pressures, etc. etc. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:27 PM:

" "Do we deny pregnant women (or parents in general) the choice to smoke?"
------------

We can't very well deny smoking out of concern for the unborn, when we routinely kill the unborn as a mere matter of choice, now can we Crow Woman.

"The question is, how can we as individuals help prevent abortions from occurring?"
-------------

Why would you ever want to prevent abortions from occurring, CrowWoman?

Why would you ever want to prevent one of the "choices"?

And since you feel that a woman should be allowed to do with her own body as she pleases; I assume you have no moral objections to a woman abusing drugs?

I'm sure you have no moral objections to a woman committing suicide? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:36 PM:

" "Cut the BS 7X. The kinder nicer you certainly didn't last long. When you loose an argument you resort to character assasination."
---------

Character assassination, Ms Humphreys? How exactly did I do that, Madam?

" and as I said many times, the womans life comes first, once we forget that we will have lost much more than just the right to choose or not to choose to have an abortion."
-----------

Yes Ms Humphreys, we might lose our right to....maybe live? But wait, the unborn have already lost that right haven't they Ms Humphreys. So yes, let's talk about slippery slopes, Ms Humphreys. How long will it be before the elderly or the infirmed are deemed "inviable"? "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:39 PM:

" I think you missed my point, 7X.... "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:40 PM:

" "She is calling Rohn and I a liar,"
----------

It would seem so, wouldn't it Medic.

What other explanation can there be? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 3:50 PM:

" "I think you missed my point, 7X.... "
----------

On the contrary CrowWoman, I would say I defined the nature of your point, Madam. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 18, 2009 5:01 PM:

" Susan

We were insulted even to have been givin the option.

The only reason I didn't offer any provable facts with my other story is because I didn't want to involve the family I was talking about because of privacy.

Susan wrote: Quite honestly the way this world is going it will more likely be towards forced abortions, due to the cost to society, overpopulation, environmental pressures, etc. etc. "

For once Susan, you are absolutely right, but not for the reasons you listed, With the plitical group in power right now, Obama and America are quickly heading down the same road as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, Mussolini took thrie country's. You know what the one common denominator is in all of these country's is?

NO PUBLIC PRAYER.

And the party in power is making it far easier to become Homosexual than it is to be straight. Before long, Homosexuals will have far more rights than anyone in the country. That's a fact. It seams as California's morals go, so goes the rest of the country, and we all know how good of shape California is in. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 18, 2009 11:40 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 18, 2009 8:52 AM:
" Mr. Hendren people do know how to read, although some refuse to do so,..."

I would agree, especially since I never said they didn't.
________________________________________

..."and some like you refuse to accept what you read."

Didn't you mean to say this off yourself? You are the one who changes "homosexual acts" to "feminine men" as not inheriting the kingdom of God. I accept what I read, that would be that does not.
________________________________________

"The Bible is what it is a good book, full of great stories, well worth reading and important reading, but no holier than any other book."

In your allowed opinion. It is so funny how the "intolerant Christians" are the ones who say, "you are allowed to have your own opinion" and the "tolerant" yous are always saying, "That is wrong to have a different opinion."
________________________________________

"Slavery is slavery whether you try to clean it up by calling it indentured servitude. Rape is rape and murder is murder. It is all there for folks to read. Oh and as to references on slavery try Titus 2:9-10 (just one example). "

Slavery is not slavery when speaking of indentured servants. I hate to bust your bubble. As for rape and murder they were not condoned in the Scriptures. Capital punishment is, but not murder. As for Titus 2:9-10 you quoted an example that is great. Problem it still means as a indentured servant, not slave as you define it.

The Hebrew and Greek words for slave are usually rendered simply "servant," "bondman," or "bondservant." Slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. - Dictionary.com

Here is your biggest problem, and I believe most would agree with me, you think you know all about everything. I do not know what you occupation is, but lets say it's a math teacher. If I came to you and said, "Pi does not really stand for 3.14...., but is just 2", you would be better equipped to show me why I am wrong. I, in this case, have the study hours, papers, and references to show you are wrong. The problem still being you do not believe anyone can be right but you. Slavery as you define it is found in the Scriptures, read the book of Exodus to see slavery as you want it to be. I will not even go into your sickness of saying God condoned rape. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 18, 2009 11:45 PM:

" Medic did Susan just say:

" Your point being what Medic? The internet is full of stories, whether they are true or not is anyones guess? Is your story true, I don't know and as I said to Mr. Gordon I'd be more inclined to believe it if you were more truthful with your facts in other areas."
I'm sorry she really did just say, "I'd be more inclined to believe it if you were more truthful with your facts in other areas."? Now is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? This from the person who also has said, "" Mr. Hendren I don't need to give chapter and verse when saying that the Bible is full of tales of rape, murder, slavery, etc."

Once again Ms/Mrs Humphries:
POT OR KETTLE? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 7:15 AM:

" And Medic what was the common denominator in many of the failed states in the world, PUBLIC PRAYER, No separation of State/Church. Don't try an argument that can be just as true when turned around. PRAYER isn't the issue Medic. It is your failure to understand that that is the issue. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 7:20 AM:

" AND Medic don't be ridiculous. The party in power is NOT making it easier to BECOME homosexual as you say. Hopefully they will fix the legal system so that it is easier to BE homosexual. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 7:23 AM:

" Oh and Medic if any administration was headed in the direction of Hitler and Stalin et.al. it was the Bush administration. Obama respects human rights, Bush and his pals disdained human rights. What separates us from Hitler and Stalin is our respect for Human Rights. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 19, 2009 10:24 AM:

" Susan it is true she was told to abort, and did not he is fine period.
You are the one that partially reads, then tells everyone what the "true" meaning of the scriptures not me.
I am guessing that you scour the net and find stories like the ones you spout and bring them here to use is why you think everyone does. Wrong again we do not all do it.
You know I do not get in the abortion threads about yes they should or should not. So why would I have posted the story?? Just to get a few of my words read?? Not hardly. I posted it to show that the Dr.s and science is "not always correct". Something you must not agree with, as shown by your oh yeah sure it did you made it up attitude.
I am still waiting for all of my non truthful facts you talk of.
Susan do you take your red cape off before bed?? Do you rub the horns on trees to keep them sharp?? Does the pointed tail smart a tat when sat on wrong?? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 11:01 AM:

" "Obama respects human rights, Bush and his pals disdained human rights."
-----------

Really, Ms Humphreys? President Obama has not only continued the extraordinary rendition program originally created by the Clinton Administration, he will most likely expand it.

And what's more, *candidate* Obama criticized the Bush Administration for it's use.

It's usually a good idea to be aware of all the pertinent facts of an issue before you make such emphatic statements, Ms Humphreys.

You could prevent looking so uninformed and foolish next time, Madam.

You're welcome, Ms Humphreys. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 11:52 AM:

" Susan

What rights did you personally lose under the Patriot Act, What rights did any of you frirnfd lose. I noticed that not only has Obama kept the Patriot Act, he has actually asdded to it. How many Gun rights is Obama trying to change after 200 years.

The unemployment rate in coles county is now 10.1% under Obama, over 3000 Auto Dealerships nationwide are now gone. GM is now owned by The Federal Government.Peopla say, well anyway, it can't get worse, that's what they said in 1929. We'll see. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 12:43 PM:

" Mr. Gordon like Medic and 7X I nolonger know what to believe about what you say. The fact is that prolifers pass the same stories around the net as their proof that abortion is wrong. The only thing those stories show is WHY prochoice is important, freedom to choose or not to choose. AND the fact is that those stories have nothing to do with the issue, they are solely for the purposes of eliciting emotion. The issue is about a womans right to decide about medical issues regarding her own body. "

medic57 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 2:06 PM:

" Susan

Tell me htre was no Illegal Prayer in Columbine High School one day. "

father bob wrote on Jun 19, 2009 2:15 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 12:43 PM:
" Mr. Gordon like Medic and 7X I nolonger know what to believe about what you say. The fact is that prolifers pass the same stories around the net as their proof that abortion is wrong. The only thing those stories show is WHY prochoice is important, freedom to choose or not to choose. AND the fact is that those stories have nothing to do with the issue, they are solely for the purposes of eliciting emotion. The issue is about a womans right to decide about medical issues regarding her own body. """""

i see the bible thumping degenerates are still at it.....carry on susan, you fight a good fight. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:03 PM:

" "Mr. Gordon like Medic and 7X I nolonger know what to believe about what you say."
------------

Strange you should make such a statement Ms Humphreys. Especially since I was just forced to correct your baseless assertion that Mr Obama respects human rights when he is clearly continuing and expanding the use of extraordinary rendition.

That was only a few hours ago.

If anything Ms Humphreys, I'm afraid that puts *your* veracity in doubt, Madam. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:25 PM:

" "freedom to choose or not to choose."
-------------

Freedom to choose *death* for the unborn.

That is Pro-Death. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:32 PM:

" Medic you don't blame the janitor who is cleaning up the mess for the mess he is cleaning up. So quit blaming Obama for the mess the country is in. It makes you look like a sore looser. Oh I forgot you are a sore looser. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:36 PM:

" Oh and Medic remember even "all the Kings horses and all the Kings men couldn't put humpty dumpty back together again." There is only so much that Obama can do to fix this mess, one other legacy of the Bush administration is that Obama's hands are tied, in some instances. Then there is the issue of priorities, but that is another issue beyond your comprehension. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:38 PM:

" Oh and Medic since it took eight years for Bush to dig us into this hole we are in I am gracious enough to give Obama more than a mere six months to build a ladder so that we can climb out of it! "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 19, 2009 3:42 PM:

" One more thing for Mr. Gordon, I don't "scour the net" but I do read the sites posted by both sides or as many sides of an issue as I can. That is the one way to educate ones self about issues in order to make responsible and informed decisions. But I forget that you three aren't interested in making responsible, informed decisions. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 19, 2009 4:41 PM:

" Calm down Ms Humphreys. Life is too short to get upset over a blog, Madam. "

Rockin Rotty wrote on Jun 19, 2009 5:18 PM:

" Hi gang! I'm just stopping in real quick to throw another kink into this little debate.

Ms Humphreys & or Crow Woman, just so I'm informed on your position, on this life & choice debate, where does the "woman's significant other" come in?

Do you believe it's "only" the woman's decision? Or do you believe a significant other has a say in the matter?

Thanks in advance,
~Rotty "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 19, 2009 5:38 PM:

" susan says> "But I forget that you three aren't interested in making responsible, informed decisions. "
=======================
Another out and out bare faced lie coming from her yap.
I also would bet the anyone who tells the truth will also tell susan this was a lie. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 19, 2009 11:21 PM:

" Once again Susan is losing her argument about homosexuality, so she quickly changes it to abortion rights. Oh wait losing that argument, I know lets change it to human rights and the Bush administration. After all everything is Bush's fault. I guess when my kids broke the couch by jumping on it they should have blamed Bush. After all the man can create Hurricanes, he blows up buildings, he gets rid of a dictator that killed thousands of his own people. Scratch that last one that hurts Susan's argument about human rights. I am not saying he did not screw up while in office, but show me a President that never made a mistake while in office. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 19, 2009 11:24 PM:

" father bob wrote on Jun 19, 2009 2:15 PM:

i see the bible thumping degenerates are still at it.....carry on susan, you fight a good fight. "

Yep those that believe in the sanctity of life are the degenerates. Just when I thought you could not say anything dumber.
Oh you also forgot to finish your statement, "...carry on susan, you fight a good fight (for us who really have nothing to add)." There I finished it for you. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 20, 2009 7:12 AM:

" WOW I am listed with, as a Bible Thumper. Now that really shows ignorance. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 20, 2009 11:40 AM:

" Rotty, I do not know what the legal rights of the father are. I don't think he has a say, though. I believe, once the baby is born, he does have to give permission for adoption to occur.

As a former Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteer, what I heard most was that girls wanted to have abortions in order to please their significant others--or to keep their boyfriends from leaving them. (Assuming the boyfriend was still around.)

If the boyfriend would step up, assume responsibility, and offer support to the girl, I suspect there would be far fewer abortions.

Of course, it would be better if the girl had not gotten pregnant in the first place. "

JR wrote on Jun 20, 2009 5:06 PM:

" O/T: Wear or display green tomorrow in support of the Iranian protest. Pass it along. Thanks. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:50 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 20, 2009 11:40 AM:
" Rotty, I do not know what the legal rights of the father are. I don't think he has a say, though. I believe, once the baby is born, he does have to give permission for adoption to occur."

CroWoman I have a question for you, maybe you'll answer this time. Should a father, who has taken interest in the pregnancy, have any say when it comes to aborting the child? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:51 AM:

" How did a letter about gay rights, turn into an abortion discussion? "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 21, 2009 9:31 AM:

" Jr the way I understand even if they are married the man has zero input meanings. "

Rohn Gordon wrote on Jun 21, 2009 9:40 AM:

" Crow I think you are right about the after they are born. I think even if they are not married the father does have to be involved with the adoption process, even though he has "no" rights to the said child even with his name on the birth certificate unless ordered in court. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 21, 2009 10:54 AM:

" "How did a letter about gay rights, turn into an abortion discussion?"
-----------

I mentioned abortion in passing, in regards to its relevance to the civil rights issue, Mr Hendren. Ms Humphreys ran with it from there.
--------

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 6, 2009 12:22 PM:

First of all Ms Humphreys, we have an "unalienable right" to life. Including the unborn. And that is a much stronger comparison to the Civil Rights issue than gay marriage. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:05 PM:

" J.R. and Rotty, what I think doesn't matter; the law is the law. Personally, I would hope the father (assuming he cares one way or the other) would have his voice heard. Were he to step up and offer support, with the involvement of his family (if a minor), I would hope that the young girl and her family would consider it--assuming she is healthy enough to carry a child. Her health comes first, of course. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:36 PM:

" I havent changed the subject Mr. Hendren, the main issue is the same whether the current topic is about the rights of homosexuals, a womans right to choose, universal health care, the rights of enemy non-combatants, the rights of immigrants (legal and illegal), the rights of people with other religious beliefs or non-beliefs, .....it is ALL about how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them, especially those that are different because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, wealth, social status, age, legal status, politics, religious belief or non-belief. AND that Mr. Hendren is the underlying message taught by Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and many of the great thinkers, theologians and individuals throughout our history. Do not do to others what you would not want done to your self, "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 21, 2009 5:00 PM:

" "it is ALL about how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them"
---------

Unless of course, they are the most innocent and defenseless of your fellow man, like the unborn, then you simply kill them. Out of sight out of mind, right Ms Humphreys.

"Do not do to others what you would not want done to your self,"
----------

I don't want to marry anyone of my gender, and I don't want anyone else to marry anyone of their same gender. I am doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.

None of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, ever advocated same-sex marriage, not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment.

Ms Humphreys obviously believes she is wiser than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 21, 2009 6:06 PM:

" "I don't want to marry anyone of my gender, and I don't want anyone else to marry anyone of their same gender."

By all means, do not marry anyone of your own gender; no one is forcing you to do so. If you have children, teach them not to marry anyone of their own gender (and pray like crazy that none of them turn out to be gay). But as for other people, what they do and how they teach their children is none of your business. The United States is not a theocracy, and people are not bound by Christian beliefs. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 21, 2009 6:33 PM:

" "But as for other people, what they do and how they teach their children is none of your business."
------------

Really CrowWoman? Gay marriage is none of my business? The people of this country don't have a say in this issue? States have not voted on this issue?

Why are you forcing your Christian beliefs on the rest of us, Madam? "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 21, 2009 9:20 PM:

" "The United States is not a theocracy, and people are not bound by Christian beliefs."
-----------

I wonder, CrowWoman, is that what you would have told all those fanatical Christians behind the hysterical abolitionist movement? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 22, 2009 12:58 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:05 PM:
" J.R. and Rotty, what I think doesn't matter; the law is the law.

One comment regarding what you said here. If it does not matter what you think because the "law is the law", then why comment about gay marriage? The law in most states state it only between a man and woman.
________________________________________

"Personally, I would hope the father (assuming he cares one way or the other) would have his voice heard. Were he to step up and offer support, with the involvement of his family (if a minor), I would hope that the young girl and her family would consider it--assuming she is healthy enough to carry a child. Her health comes first, of course. "

I could not agree anymore. So you agree if the woman was able to carry without any problems, and the man wanted the child, and the woman didn't he should have a voice? He should be allowed the opportunity to raise his child? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 22, 2009 1:17 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:36 PM:
" I havent changed the subject Mr. Hendren, the main issue is the same whether the current topic is about the rights of homosexuals, a womans right to choose, universal health care, the rights of enemy non-combatants, the rights of immigrants (legal and illegal), the rights of people with other religious beliefs or non-beliefs, .....it is ALL about how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them, especially those that are different because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, wealth, social status, age, legal status, politics, religious belief or non-belief. AND that Mr. Hendren is the underlying message taught by Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and many of the great thinkers, theologians and individuals throughout our history. Do not do to others what you would not want done to your self, "

So then when the letter writers rights, "Denying their rights won't get rid of gays", and speaks of "a womans right to choose, universal health care, the rights of enemy non-combatants, the rights of immigrants (legal and illegal), the rights of people with other religious beliefs or non-beliefs"? Do you really believe the things you say, or do you just make it up for the fun of it? A man writes a letter about what he sees as his rights as a gay being denied, and you turn because you can't win an argument. Also I like the "Golden Rule" also. "Do to others as you would have them do to you." - Luke 6:31.
No you didn't change the subject, and we don't breath air. Oh wait, we do breath air, guess what that means about you. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 22, 2009 1:29 AM:

" CrowWoman, how do you call yourself a Christian, but not believe in Christian beliefs? I guess I am an evolutionist, even though I do not believe their theories. Do you see how much that does not make any sense? You can not call yourself a Christian and not follow Christ, since as you know that is what the names means.

7X6Z9 you have a problem. CrowWoman does not believe the abolitionist were Christians, just those that wanted slavery, as she has told me before. Although I'm sure she will deny it. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:22 AM:

" "7X6Z9 you have a problem. CrowWoman does not believe the abolitionist were Christians, just those that wanted slavery, as she has told me before. Although I'm sure she will deny it."
----------

I see that as her problem, not mine, Mr Hendren.

I'll await her revisionist version of history that excludes the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the unofficial anthem of the Northern cause, that summarized the Civil Wars idealized meaning in this verse:

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on."

Then we can compare further historical notes, I'm sure. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:23 AM:

" I believe as the Holy Spirit leads me to believe, J.R.--based on Scripture, of course. As I said before, I do not buy into your brand of Christianity.

You don't remember what I said about abolitionists, apparently. I said that the majority of them were Quakers and the liberal Christians of their time. The truth of that statement is easy enough to check out. The conservative Christians were the slaveholders and those who supported them. Again, this is not hidden information. Quotes from pastors who supported slavery are abundant.

About abortion, the woman has the final say. How could it be otherwise? One obvious problem is that paternity would have to be established in order for a man to force the woman to carry to term. There are plenty of other problems as well. I am saying I hope the father's voice would be heard, that the woman he impregnated would listen to him. Still, he has no right to force the issue. If it is heartbreaking, and a messy situation, he is partially responsible for that. After all, he could have used protection.

I believe it is rare, though, for the father to want to raise the child. More often, he is trying to dodge his responsibility. That is a major reason for abortion, to please the guy who does not want a child. "

Rockin Rotty wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:55 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 20, 2009 11:40 AM:
"Rotty, I do not know what the legal rights of the father are. I don't think he has a say, though. I believe, once the baby is born, he does have to give permission for adoption to occur."

I'm not real sure, either, but that sounds right on target, there.

.......

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 20, 2009 11:40 AM:
"As a former Crisis Pregnancy Center volunteer, what I heard most was that girls wanted to have abortions in order to please their significant others--or to keep their boyfriends from leaving them. (Assuming the boyfriend was still around.)"

I hear ya. I can only imagine all that you might have encountered, or heard, working there. Kudos for volunteering!

.......

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 20, 2009 11:40 AM:
"If the boyfriend would step up, assume responsibility, and offer support to the girl, I suspect there would be far fewer abortions.

Of course, it would be better if the girl had not gotten pregnant in the first place."

Amen, & well said, CW!

.......

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 21, 2009 12:05 PM:
"J.R. and Rotty, what I think doesn't matter; the law is the law."

Correct. I was only requesting what I did to better understand your & shumphreys ProChoice position.

Thanks for your posts & info, CrowWoman.
Take Care,
~Rotty "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 10:43 AM:

" "I said that the majority of them were Quakers and the liberal Christians of their time."
----------

You would label them uber-Conservative Religious fanatics by your liberal standards, Madam. And you and Ms Humphreys would be playing tag-team shout-down if their views were posted on this site. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:37 AM:

" You would label them uber-Conservative Religious fanatics by your liberal standards, Madam. And you and Ms Humphreys would be playing tag-team shout-down if their views were posted on this site."

Show me, 7X. Provide a quote or two, or even a link for me to look at. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 12:48 PM:

" "Show me, 7X. Provide a quote or two, or even a link for me to look at."
-------------

Who needs mere quotes, CrowWoman?

The fact that they were using their religious views to influence government policies would have revolted you and your kindred spirit Ms Humphreys.

But I will give you a quote, Madam.

I'll give you a quote of your own:

"The United States is not a theocracy, and people are not bound by Christian beliefs." - CrowWoman "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 22, 2009 3:04 PM:

" You made a sweeping statement, 7X. Surely you can provide something--anything--to back it up. Or are you just playing around here?

Do you feel that the United States IS a theocracy, and that people are bound by Christian beliefs? I think not--we have other religions in this country, after all--whose adherents are free to practice as they wish. I personally choose to live out my Christian beliefs, but the beauty of this country is that no one can force me to. Or prevent me from practicing my faith, for that matter. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 3:20 PM:

" You made a sweeping statement, 7X. Surely you can provide something--anything--to back it up. Or are you just playing around here?
----------

I just provided "sweeping" proof, Madam. And you conveniently side-stepped it.

Here it is again:

The fact that the abolitionist were using their religious views to influence government policies would have caused you to accuse them of creating a theocracy, would it not, Madam?

I'm not playing, CrowWoman, but you are certainly dancing. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 22, 2009 3:45 PM:

" No, it would not have.

"You would label them uber-Conservative Religious fanatics by your liberal standards, Madam. And you and Ms Humphreys would be playing tag-team shout-down if their views were posted on this site."

Last try before I give it up--show me a quote, or provide a link representing their views. "

7X6Z9 wrote on Jun 22, 2009 4:23 PM:

" " No, it would not have."
---------

Then why did you insinuate that my position on gay-marriage was tantamount to a "theocracy" or bound exclusively by my Christian beliefs?

"Last try before I give it up--show me a quote, or provide a link representing their views."
---------

Then give it up, CrowWoman.

I was speaking broadly about their *religious* convictions against slavery used to influence a political movement. Not specific doctrines. "

father bob wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:34 PM:

" seems like every thread discussing homosexuality and abortion ends up being a free-for-all about christianity and how the "christians" are abused.

poor christians.... "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:49 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:23 AM:
" I believe as the Holy Spirit leads me to believe, J.R.--based on Scripture, of course. As I said before, I do not buy into your brand of Christianity.

It's not mine, but God's. I have quoted you Scriptures, you quoted old from people who. You need to test the spirits that are guiding you, as Scripture says to do. If the "spirit" is telling you to condone sin, and the death of innocent children, you my friend are not listening to the Holy Spirit.
________________________________________

You don't remember what I said about abolitionists, apparently. I said that the majority of them were Quakers and the liberal Christians of their time. The truth of that statement is easy enough to check out. The conservative Christians were the slaveholders and those who supported them. Again, this is not hidden information. Quotes from pastors who supported slavery are abundant.

Except you once again forget that what you call "conservative" then, would be considered liberal now. Their are just as many quotes from ministers who were against slavery. You also condemned them as not being "true" Christians without ever knowing if they changed from their ways. You judged them in a way you can not, but then say, "we are wrong for saying homosexual acts are a sin", even though the Scriptures are clear on it. That why friend is very hypocritical of you.
________________________________________

About abortion, the woman has the final say. How could it be otherwise? One obvious problem is that paternity would have to be established in order for a man to force the woman to carry to term.

How is this a problem. You can get prenatal DNA tests.
________________________________________

There are plenty of other problems as well. I am saying I hope the father's voice would be heard, that the woman he impregnated would listen to him. Still, he has no right to force the issue.

If he has no right to force the issue then logically he should not have to take care of the child after birth, if he does not want to. Why should the man not have a choice if the baby lives, and no choice if he takes care of the child. DO NOT get me wrong, I think everyman should step up to the plate and take responsibility for his child. The same people who say, "It's the woman's choice only", are the ones saying, "He needs to take care of his kid." Talk about non equal rights.
________________________________________

If it is heartbreaking, and a messy situation, he is partially responsible for that. After all, he could have used protection.

Just as she could have, couldn't she have? Once again when the two decide to have unprotected sex, that was their "choice".
________________________________________

I believe it is rare, though, for the father to want to raise the child. More often, he is trying to dodge his responsibility. That is a major reason for abortion, to please the guy who does not want a child. "

That is pure hog-wash. That is nothing put the spin note you all quote. You have no proof what so ever. Especially since the man gets no voice anyways. The spin used to me, "It is such a burden on a single woman, just trying to get by." Now it's the crap. Now you sound like Susan and when she said, the main reason for divorce was "abusive men". I believe more men would step up if they felt like they were involved in the decision. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 22, 2009 11:52 PM:

" father bob wrote on Jun 22, 2009 5:34 PM:
" seems like every thread discussing homosexuality and abortion ends up being a free-for-all about christianity and how the "christians" are abused.

poor christians.... "

Thank you, but we are not saying we are abused. That would be you and your friends who when shown were your wrong, try and change the argument. Your all's normal tactics. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 24, 2009 8:52 AM:

" Yes you are 7X (you are doing unto others) you want folks to abide by your personal wishes and demands, so that must mean that you want them to force you to abide by their wishes and demands. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 26, 2009 12:14 AM:

" They all ready are trying to Susan. "