The spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans said Monday he has agreed to an urgent request for a meeting with U.S. church leaders as the Anglican fellowship nears a split over the Bible and sexuality.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, visiting Canada for a spiritual retreat with the country’s Anglican bishops, said he would meet with U.S. Episcopal leaders in the fall.
"My aim is to try and keep people around the table for as long as possible on this, to understand one another," Williams said at a news conference at the Anglican Church of Canada headquarters.
And I mean, completely different. Leper colonies for Sodomites anyone…?
You get the distinct impression he is only marginally less offended by Catholics then by sodomites. I think he’d probably fill in the chunnel too if he could. And it sounds like there was at least one other person in there, possibly more, while he was venting for the camera. I wonder if they’d all just been drinking or something.
Oh…and he used to be a policeman. Good thing for British gays that’s in his past isn’t it?
On the March 6 edition of Fox News Live, while discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-NY) March 4 speech and her participation in a commemorative civil rights march in Selma, Alabama, host E.D. Hill accused Clinton of affecting a "Southern drawl" during her speech and asked pollster Scott Rasmussen: "[W]ould it happen elsewhere, if she was attending, say, a GLAAD [Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation] convention, would she speak with a lisp?"
You just know they all think gays have limp wrists and walk with a swish too. Why the hell did Harry Reid agree to have a democratic presidential candidates debate hosted by Fox News? He going to ask Focus On The Family to host the one after that?
There are those who do not believe that the institution of marriage is under assault. There are those who do not believe that same-sex marriage is a knowing attempt to undermine the nature of marriage. There are those who do not believe that many homosexuals bear a particular animus for heterosexual marriage, and have designs beyond mere tolerance.
Then there are those of us who live in the real world.
You need to pay attention to what Shapiro is saying because it’s all there, plain as day. Gay people in his reckoning want the right to marry Specifically in order to destroy marriage. And because we hate it so much we’re willing to throw our very selves at it to destroy it. Dig it. According to Shapiro, our ultimate weapon of choice for destroying marriage is…us. Shapiro isn’t merely saying in his Human Events article that we want to destroy marriage, not merely that we hate the institution of marriage because we know that it represents a spiritual state that only heterosexuals can enter into, he’s saying that we know just how depraved and unfit our relationships are, so we want to have our relationships embraced by it, in order that our depravity will destroy it. If you still have trouble believing how thoroughly the gutter has demonized homosexual people in their own minds, read that article. It says it all. When Ben Shapiro looks at gay people, he simply does not see human beings. He can’t. He sees only monsters. This is how bigots think.
What provokes him is the initiative filed in Washington State recently, in the wake of the supreme court ruling last year that the state had a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite sex couples for the welfare of children. Activists in the state have simply called the heterosexual majority on it, by filing a referendum of their own to make having children mandatory in order to be married. No children, no marriage. Of course no one expects it to pass, but that’s not to say there won’t be a lot of fun to be had watching the religious right argue that the ability to bear children is only a barrier to marriage for same sex couples.
Shapiro sees the weakness here. Basing the arguments against same-sex marriage on children makes no sense if you’re going to let opposite sex couples who will not or can not have children marry anyway. The exception disproves the rule, and makes it clear that the issue isn’t children at all, but homosexuality. The problem for Ben and his kind, is that in defending the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage simply because they are same sex couples, the argument then becomes chillingly honest in its core bigotry.
Shapiro’s article rises to almost Orson Scott Card levels of contempt for the inner lives of homosexual people in its matter-of-fact exaltation of heterosexual coupling as something sacred and divine. But as usual with the right, the rhetoric of the sacred is merely excusing not devotional. A squirt or two of Righteous Men Of God perfume sprayed over the stench of that open sewer they call their conscience, in the hope that it will be a tad less obvious to anyone with a nose…
Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that gender is literally meaningless. It is for that reason that they compare gender to race in legal contexts…
Well I don’t know anyone supporting same-sex marriage who thinks gender is literally meaningless, only that in this particular context, a legal, secular covenant of marriage, it’s irrelevant. There is just no factual basis for asserting otherwise.
It isn’t children…
If gender is meaningless, children do not need both mother and father; a father and a father, two mothers, six fathers and a mother — any or all may suffice. To homosexual marriage proponents, the fact that only the sexual union between men and women produces children is an unfortunate accident of nature.
But, this is exactly what Washington State referendum throws back in the faces of crackpots like Shapiro. In fact, children have no bearing whatsoever on the ability of a couple to marry or not. You are not required to have children, you are not required to be fit to raise children, you are not even required to be Capable of having your own biological children. All you have to be, is an opposite sex couple. And here Ben illustrates perfectly the reason why that’s purely an animus based form of discrimination…
Gender is not meaningless, of course. The radical individualism that denies all distinction between men and women is deeply pernicious. It denies the spiritual in mankind. It denies the obvious physical and spiritual bounty springing from traditional marriage…In one sense, Washington’s same-sex advocates do us a favor: They make clear that in order to deny homosexual marriage, we must uphold the beautiful and natural distinctions between men and women. They also make clear that we must uphold the value of heterosexuality over homosexuality. We must take up the gauntlet and, in doing so, vindicate the possibility of a higher spiritual elevation through the deepest possible human relationship.
(emphasis mine)
And there it is: Homosexuals don’t love…they just have sex…
Shapiro’s position is that marriage is a sacred institution that same sex couples are simply incapable of entering into, not merely because they don’t have the right combination of genitals, but because they do not, Can Not, love one another as deeply, as wholeheartedly, as devotedly as heterosexuals do. Heterosexual love is spiritual. What homosexuals do is merely carnal.
This isn’t exactly the first time I’ve heard this argument. I’ve had people tell me to my face as far back as my teen years that they flat-out didn’t believe that a same sex couple could possibly be capable of loving each other as deeply or as wholeheartedly as a heterosexual couple. And this is the unspoken (sometimes spoken outright) premise behind ever dolled up statistic you’ve ever read about how promiscuous homosexuals are. Homosexuals don’t love…they just have sex… Now…re-read that first part I quoted you…
There are those who do not believe that the institution of marriage is under assault. There are those who do not believe that same-sex marriage is a knowing attempt to undermine the nature of marriage. There are those who do not believe that many homosexuals bear a particular animus for heterosexual marriage, and have designs beyond mere tolerance.
Then there are those of us who live in the real world.
A particular animus for heterosexual marriage… So…follow the thinking here: Homosexuals are depraved. So depraved they cannot possibly enter into the kinds of loving and devoted intimate relationships that heterosexuals do. To even consider putting their dirty, brief, barren sexual assignations on the same plain as heterosexual love amounts to a despicable attack on the very human capacity to love and cherish, body and soul, ’till death do you part. Heterosexual love is spiritual. Homosexuality is just empty lustful rutting, utterly devoid of any deep spiritual meaning for the people involved.
But here’s the problem with all this: if homosexuals are incapable of feeling that kind of tender, cherishing human love, then why are they so damn insistent about having the right to marry? What is all this crap about securing their relationships, providing for one another, hospital visitation and all that? Why would homosexuals even care about all that? Why aren’t they all just laughing it off that they can’t get married? Oh…look at all those silly heterosexuals, going on about that love thing again…how boring and pointless… Why do they fight for their sterile relationships so fiercely? What could their cheap tricks, their empty, barren assignations, possibly mean to them?
It must be envy. It must be envy turned to hate. Homosexuals must be so utterly depraved that they want to drag everyone else down into their gutter too. Because they can’t bear to witness the sight of that higher spiritual elevation, that deepest possible human relationship that they can never enter into themselves.
Next time someone hears this little gutter crawling maggot use the phrase "Love the sinner, hate the sin", or something like it, please laugh in his face. If any side in this fight is incapable of experiencing the emotion of love, it’s the one that keeps insisting that love is something you feel for a gender, not a person. No Ben…lust is what you feel for a gender. It’s how we’re wired as sexual beings. And yes…most people mate to the opposite sex. But some of us mate to the same sex. Love is what transcends all that, and takes it to that higher plain that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about, because you can’t see the person, for the gender.
Advocates of same-sex marriage argue that gender is literally meaningless.
That’s simply ignorant. What the right asserts is that gender is everything. What anyone with half a brain knows is that there is more to a person then their gender. But this kind of thinking past surface appearances has always been hard for right wingers to get their minds wrapped around. Consider the difficulty they’ve always had comprehending that there is more to a person then the color of their skin. Get one of these drooling morons started on The Bell Curve sometime. Go ahead. It’ll be fun.
It’s probably somewhat easier for a gay person to see the confusion here then a straight person. Because heterosexuals mate to the opposite sex, it’s all too easy for them to mistake the intimate and spiritual complementary nature of two lovers for their gender. But the complement isn’t the gender, it’s the person. Otherwise, any two random opposite sex pairs must be equally capable of experiencing that same spiritual intimacy and clearly that just simply isn’t true. Some people are not only incompatible, but explosively so. And most of us know all this from our day to day experience in that real world right wingers can’t bear to look at because their cheapshit conceits wouldn’t survive it. Some people just plain don’t get along. And some people…just can’t live without each other.
If homosexual sex wasn’t rewarding and satisfying to homosexuals then we wouldn’t do that. So much so goddamned obvious…right? Yes you babbling idiot, the parts fit. And I’m here to tell you they work very well in that configuration thank you. The first time I put my hands on a guy I desired, felt the muscle and bone under his skin, something deep down inside of me Just Lit Up. I had no idea what the word ‘passion’ meant before that. I sure as hell knew what it meant afterward. If homosexual sex wasn’t rewarding and satisfying to homosexuals then we wouldn’t do that.
But it takes more then sex to make a marriage. It takes more then a sexually compatible gender. Any couple, gay or straight, whose only common ground between them is sex, isn’t likely to last long. Sex can seal an intimate soul-to-soul bond between two people. It can join a couple together where there is love, and lift them both to that higher spiritual plain. But it cannot put love someplace where it isn’t. You cannot make sex the basis of a marriage, it simply won’t work. What makes it work, is the way two people complement each other deep down inside. It is the people, not their gender, that make a marriage.
It doesn’t take a radical individualist to see how this works, just someone with even a meager regard for the essential beauty and dignity of the human race. We are not ants in an anthill, or bees in a beehive, each of us predestined to live out the measure of our lives according to our biological caste. We are human beings, each of us endowed with our own unique personality and consciousness. That diversity among individuals is what has made us so successful as a species. But it also means that we have somewhat complicated love lives. It’s easy to jump in the sack for a one night stand with a willing date…that’s just an instinct that’s older then the fish, let alone the mammals, let alone the primates. It’s much, Much harder to find a soulmate and make a life together with them. If gender was all there was to it, that wouldn’t be true. The country music singers would have to find something else besides broken hearts and lonely nights to sing about.
But human cultures for generations and even today some cultures still, have tried to behave as if it Were true. Arranged marriages. Strict rules on marrying outside your faith, or your class, or your race. As if the human heart knows these things more then it knows the beloved person within. If anything destroyed marriage the way the Ben Shapiros of the world knew it, it was the Enlightenment, and Democracy. But then religious fanatics and secular totalitarians have long despise both of these human events.
The ironies here are monumental. You have a political movement that ostentatiously stands for individual freedom against big government and the so-called nanny state, that categorically rejects the fact that the most spiritual and intimate of all human relationships is between two individual people, and not a couple of faceless gender stereotypes. You have them arguing in all seriousness that this most intimate and spiritual of human relationships only exists to benefit society, rather then the two people whose lives are at the center of it. You have a political movement that stands squarely against Darwin, and puts on a really swell show of moral outrage at the very idea that human beings are part of the animal kingdom too, arguing that a biological fact we share with nearly every other vertebrate species on this good earth counts for more then the unique humanity of the individuals who make up a couple. And, most amazingly of all, here is a political movement that avails itself of every excuse it can grab to bellyache about the sexualization of America, telling us that it’s the sex a couple has that makes a marriage, not the love they feel for, and give to, each other. How much more of this do people have to see before they finally get it, that the religious right and their American conservative enablers are to marriage, as brothels are to chastity?
They don’t give a good goddamn about marriage. They care about power. They care a Lot about power. Here’s their spirituality: They want to tell us how to worship, what churches we can go to, and when and what God to believe in and how to pray to it. They want to tell us who we can marry, and why, and when we can have sex with them, and when we can’t and why. They want us to understand that how much we may love someone it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether or not we get their permission. Their permission to worship. Their permission of have sex. Their permission to love. And above all else they want us to understand that our fulfillment in life isn’t to be found in the arms of the one we love, but in how well we serve them.
Think I’m being overwrought here? Two Words: Radical. Individualism.
That’s not just how Ben is putting it these days, that’s a catch phrase now all throughout the kook pews. Radical Individualism. And a radical individualist is someone who holds…
…these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is not merely the human rights of gay people that are at stake here. It is not merely the intimate lives of gay people that are on the chopping block if these people get their final way.
Take one last look again, at how completely certain in his own mind Ben is, that same sex couples are incapable of loving as completely, as wholeheartedly, as opposite sex couples are. There is the unmovable prejudice. But you have to understand, it’s not just about homosexuals. We are not human beings in their regard. But most people who walk this earth aren’t either. Ben and his tribe are the True Humans. The rest of us are the mud people. Only True Humans feel. Only True Humans have needs. The rest of us have our place. That is what they believe. That is the world they inhabit. That is why appeals to basic human decency do not reach them.
Just Not Something You Thought Was Worth Paying Attention To Was It?
They caught a serial rapist who was preying on guys in the Houston area. I’d seen this story some weeks ago while they were still looking for him and found it disturbing enough to be on the lookout for any follow-ups. Today there was…well…first the good news…
BAYTOWN, Texas — A man arrested on suspicion of rape may be a suspect in the rapes of several men in the Houston area over the past year, police said Wednesday.
The man, whose identity was not released, faces charges of kidnapping and sexual assault in a case from May, said Baytown police Capt. Roger Clifford. He said police were withholding the identity until other victims are able to see the suspect in a lineup.
Police for months have been investigating five cases in which young men were surprised at or near their homes by a gunman demanding money. The last reported attack was in November.
One of the victims pointed investigators to the man, Clifford said.
The suspect was arrested late Tuesday after DNA tests linked him to the victim in a May attack, Clifford said.
…and now the bad…
The investigation was complicated, in part because profilers don’t have a basic standard for investigating male-on-male rapes, Clifford said.
No fooling? And why would that be? Let me guess. Because male on male rape is a homo thing and so it’s really not worthy of police attention. And especially not the attention of the Texas police. Am I close?
I can’t find the reference now, but a book I was reading some years back, I think it was a Randy Shilts book, either And The Band Played On or Conduct Unbecoming, contained a brief scene of a young gay man who’d gone to get medical attention after being sexually assualted by gay bashers, and after he confided in the doctor what happened to him, the doctor simply looked up at him and said "Well, you’re a homosexual aren’t you?" The attitude was, and in a lot of places still is, that if you’re gay and you’re violently assaulted, well it’s your fault for being gay in the first place isn’t it. That’s why they don’t have clue one in Texas about how to profile serial male on male rapists. For decades nobody gave a flying fuck. Assuming they do even nowadays.
Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?
Not all of them. The author Mary Renault once said that politics, like sex, is an expression of the person within. If you are mean and selfish and cruel she said, then that will show up in politics and it will show up in your sex life when what really matters is that you aren’t the sort of person who will behave like that. To that I would only add religion. If you are mean and selfish and cruel it will show up in your religious life, when what really matters is that you aren’t the sort of person who will behave like that. I realize this point of view rubs people who believe in the transforming power of faith the wrong way but it’s been my experience. When contemplating the Eternal, it’s pretty damn hard to separate what’s you, from what is trancendant, and that’s if you’re really trying. For most people, religion is a mirror, and you never know that better then when the discussion turns to homosexuality, and all of a sudden God just seems to agree with every cheapshit prejudice of the believer you’re talking to…
In the USA Today Opinion pages last week, Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a Baptist minister and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs the Job), tried to reason with his fellow Christians. He might as well have been talking to the wind.
Christianity is not the problem. Christianity has nothing to do with the problem. Christians, just like any other group of random people anywhere, both do and do not accept the homosexual as their neighbor. For the ones that do their faith clarifies and illuminates and sustains that deeply felt need to love their neighbor, and stand with them when they are persecuted. For the ones that do not, Christianity provides an excuse, a cloth they can wrap the rotting core of their hatreds in, so they won’t have to look at it, won’t have to look at what they are becoming because of it. You try to take that cloth away from them and they’ll grip it with a ferociousness the likes of which you’ll never witness anywhere else. Because once that cloth is gone, they have to take responsibility for what they are, for they’ve done.
Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina’s Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we’re wrong?
Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It’s happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo’s challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones or the child’s brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
This is reason’s case. It’s a good case. But it’s the wrong case to make to about half his audience. For the Christians who don’t hate, the evidence of science, and for that matter the lives of their homosexual neighbors, provides further cause to stand with the gay community, and speak out against persecution. But when you try to reason with the ones who just can’t see the people for the homosexuals, you’re talking right past them. Appeals to reason, appeals to the Christian faith, do not reach down to where the hate is. Mr. Thomas is not even talking to half of his audience. He’s talking past them.
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won’t find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don’t you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God’s. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
This is also reason’s case. The rules of evidence have merely changed from the scientific, to the theological. But it is still an appeal to reason.
Scroll down to the comments below his opinion article, and you can see what reasoning with bigots gets you…
Sodom and Gomorrah??? And you are a Baptist Preacher?? Shame on You. What would Jesus do? He’s already done it (Death, burial and resurrection) "Grace"! God’s Word is the same yesterday, today and forever. Choice is everyone’s decision: Heaven or Hell. This is the reason no one fear’s God, is pastors like you that is suppose to be preaching the Truth, are tickling the ears with what the people want to hear. All of us will stand before the Lord’s judgement; you and me included…….Now do your JOB! Their house is on fire….Tell them to come to the Lord for salvation. Talk about discrimination are you discriminating against GOD??? God won’t let you starve, if He Called you to the ministry? Have a good day.
In spite of what you try to "prove" and your smear tactics against good Christian people, Bible-believing Christians will NEVER accept your lies and propaganda for a sinful lifstyle which God Himself in the Bible condemns. Homosexulality is sin and no one is born with it. Your hatred of the church only reflects your own bias. I you want to promote this perversion you have a right to do so, but don’t condemn others who choose to believe the Bible instead of your lies and distortion!
Oliver Thomas seems to believe that disagreement with gays on matters of sexual beahvior is equivalent to persecution and bigotry. Since when is it a crime or a sin to hold certain standards of behavior, or to disagree with liberalized views of sexual conduct? When did Christianity require indulgence of urges strengthened by genetics? Why must Jesus expressly condemn an activity for churches to be justified in opposing it? (If that were the case, Christians would be compelled to accept substance abuse, pedophelia, pornography, and a whole host of other inborn attractions Jesus didn’t mention by name.)
Yes I am disappointed and I’ll get to that in a moment. What Oliver "Buzz" Thomas has forgotten are scriptures such as; [Romans 1:26-27]…
Ah yes…the Some Of My Best Friends Are defense…
I’m no homophobe or gay basher, I have had good friends that are gay, but I never compromised my standing on the word of God to accommodate their feelings. Believe it or not they actually over time appreciated the fact that I stuck firmly with my convictions and didn’t conform to what society sees as tolerance. I accepted them for who they were as people but not their sexual sin and they knew that from the beginning and know it still to this day. If I were to run into them again at the market we’d joyfully catch up on lost time and laugh at college memories.
The, Shoot Your Bible Verses Back At Them Like A Machine Gun approach…
Sexual immorality is explicitly discouraged in the Bible passages below. The full texts of a few representative verses from Paul’s genuine writings are included…
Old Testament
Exo 22:16,17
Deu 22:13-29
New Testament
1Co 6:15-20; 7:1,2
You know that your bodies are parts of the body of Christ. Shall I take a part of Christ’s body and make it part of the body of a prostitute? Impossible! Or perhaps you don’t know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her? The scripture says quite plainly, “The two will become one body.” But he who joins himself to the Lord becomes spiritually one with him. Avoid immorality. Any other sin a man commits does not affect his body; but the man who is guilty of sexual immorality sins against his own body. Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and who was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourselves but to God; he bought you for a price. So use your bodies for God’s glory. A man does well not to marry. But because there is so much immorality [from the Greek word porneia, Strongs #4202], every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. (TEV)
In the last passage listed above, Paul commends marriage as a means to avoid "fornication" (KJV), "immorality" (NAB, NIV, REB, TEV), "sexual immorality" (NRSV), which is a translation of the Greek word porneia (Strong’s # 4202). That Greek word and its related Greek words porneuo (Strong’s # 4203), pornos (Strong’s # 4205), and ekporneuo (Strong’s #1608) are discouraged throughout the New Testament, as in the following verses:
New Testament
Mat 5:32
Mat 15:19
Mat 19:9
Mar 7:21
Joh 8:41
Act 15:20,29
Act 21:25
Rom 1:29
1Co 5:1,9,10,11
1Co 6:9,13,18
1Co 7:2
1Co 10:8
2Co 12:21
Gal 5:19
Eph 5:3
Col 3:5
1Th 4:3
Heb 12:16
Jude 1:7
Rev 2:14,20,21
Rev 9:21
Rev 14:8
Rev 17:2,4
Rev 18:3,9
Rev 19:2
Homosexual acts are explicitly discouraged in the Bible passages below. The full texts of a few representative verses from Paul’s genuine writings are included.
Old Testament
Lev 18:22-30
Lev 20:13
New Testament
Rom 1:24-27
24 God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. 25 They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself… 26 Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. 27 In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing.
1Co 6:9,10
9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts [from the Greek word apsenokoites, Strong’s #733] 10 or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves—none of these will possess God’s Kingdom.
If you bother to look in the bible you will find problems for these kind of people. In God’s world they were not born this way. If I was a gay male I would start looking at women closer and become a member of God’s Church, and If I was a gay female I would look closer at men and become a member of God’s church.
First, Poppycock! Second, I am sick of the Matthew 7:1 argument…
Third, yes Jesus never mentions homosexuality per se. He does, however, discuss adultery several times.
Just another liberal screed trying to downplay religion and lift up their homosexual agenda. There is a reason that homosexuality has been looked down upon by almost every civilization and religion. It’s is against god’s will and nature. Homosexuals can’t reproduce so they have to coopt your children to advance their agenda and the bible is a major stumbling block in their way, so that is why the attacks on religion and the bible.
There’s this old joke about how protestantism represents the ascendancy of Paul over Peter, and protestant fundamentalism represents the ascendancy of Paul over Christ…
Mr. Thomas you do yourself quite a disservice by showing your complete ignorance of scriptures. First of all, the Old Testament law was given to the Jewish nation and it was never expected that non-Jewish individuals would follow these laws. So for you to say that if I apply the verse in Leviticus 18 and therefore I must therefore keep the whole law shows you incompetence in interpreting and applying scripture. Paul explicitly tells the Gentile converts in New Testament that they were under no obligation to keep the law (see Galatians 2 and 3)of the Old Testament.
Sir, I will never make any apologies for my beliefs because there is no need for me to do so since my beliefs can be backed up by the word of God.
Gay, Homosexuals whatever, you trust in the lord, your way is wrong, but he still loves you, while I find you kind of sickening. Ya see, I am not performing according to God’s plan by my feeling as I do.
And for anyone who thinks religion is a cause of prejudice, and not just another one of its excuses…
What I don’t understand is how homosexuality differs from any other congenital birth defect or condition (ie downs syndrome, spina bifida, or any of the myriad of other birth defects). Something goes wrong in the development of the fetus and alters the funtioning of the brain. So while it’s debatable whether or not their behavior is moral or immoral I don’t think there’s any reason why there shouldn’t be research into preventing whatever changes the brain chemistry in the first place. Homosexuality is a disease… we shouldn’t be embracing it… we should be looking to cure/prevent it.
hate the sin, not the sinner.
to know the LORD is to fear…to fear the LORD is to love…to love the LORD is to obey his comandments.
You may believe there is a God and in Jesus, but this is not enough, you must make a formal commitment to them. Remember Jesus says there is no way to the Father except thru me. There must be a vocal (or prayer) some action by you to make a commitment. Your belief only may leave you in a place you do not want to be. You may say I believed, why am I being denied eternal life. For some belief may be enough, but for others there is eternal death. Some of us who claim to be Christians may not receive eternal life (I may be one I do not know). My wife tells me I am to judgemental. Maybe I should listen closer. Anyway go to a bible study and find out why you should be a Christian.
Take the following steps!
In my belief there are two steps to becoming a member of God’s family. Formally accepting Jesus as savior, (I believe Jesus is the Christ the son of the liveing God, I believe in my heart he is Lord and God raised him from the dead).
Be, Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You have been forgiven at this point and the Holy Spirit now lives within you, to give you strength and help you in your sinful ways which will require much prayer.
As a straight woman, I don’t understand what it’s like to be attracted to the same sex, but I have had conversations with those who have never felt any other way. However, as a Christian, I do believe in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, and fornication, adultery, etc.
Even if I followed your line of logic that some people can’t help it, how far should we extend these "rights"? What’s never addressed is the "gay today, gone tomorrow" crowd, who argue for gay "rights" while only temporarily in gay relationships.
Ann Heche (straight, gay, straight again…Julie Cyphers, married to Lou Diamond Phillips, "married" to Melissa Etheridge, now married to a man again…) the list goes on. If we’re supposed to believe that gay people can’t love anyone of the opposite sex, these actors aren’t very good ambassadors for the cause.
I’m apt to believe that hormones gone awry explain at least some cases of homosexuality. The stereotypically effeminate man or masculine woman, (no bra, short hair, no makeup, etc.) would fall into that category. I have even seen people whose sex is hard to determine at first glance. This of course does not excuse any form of sexual immorality, adultery or fornication, gay or straight.
What those who believe in gay marriage are really asking for is nothing less than acceptance of their behavior. Tolerance already exists. (And please dont bring up Matthew Sheppard – his murderer admitted that he only killed him for money; didn’t even know he was gay!)
If gay "marriages" were allowed, children could be taught in schools that these are perfectly acceptable lifestyles. I don’t claim to know what it’s like to feel "gay", but I also don’t want 6 year olds recruited into the lifestyle.
Mr. Thomas there is NO conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuals are born that way. 60 Minutes did a piece on this very subject a few months ago and these scientific theories were all over the place. (1) Its the mother’s fault — hormonal imbalance or triggers during pregnancy. However, on this program they showed faternal twins (same mother, same hormones) who had different sexual orientations. (2) Its in the DNA: again identical twins who share the same DNA — one is gay the other is heterosexual. (3) And there was the big brother theory which supposedly says the more big brothers a man has the more likely he is to be gay. Again, how do you explain the eldest brother being gay or no brothers being gay?
It was also interesting that NOT ONE of these theories explain lesbianism. According, to the scientist spouting this nonesense, when they viewed the dna of lesbians, looked at the hormonal balance/triggers/whatever of their birth mothers, or the status of their sisters — they could find no genetic reason to explain lesbianism. So where does that leave these scientific theories?
Mr. Thomas you have the absolute right to defend the practices of homosexuality. However, please do not mislead individuals reading your op-ed or other works that this practice can be backed up by science because that IS A LIE.
Finally, if you and others want to embrace homosexuality as a right, privilege, or whatever you see it as — fine, great, bravo, and more power to you. However, please do not lecture to me or tell me that I need to or will need to apologize to anyone because of my belief in God’s word.
The Scripture also says, "Fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Jesus doesn’t address homosexuality, because in the world of the Hebrew, that’s a "no brainer." If God condemned it as an abomination, and if He is not the author of sin or evil, it follows that He stands against it now.
With the author’s convoluted logic, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
We, like the apostle Paul, should determine in our minds to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified [1]; but what does this mean? For Paul, and every preacher, preaching Christ crucified is condemning, among many things, homosexuality. How do I know that?
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul did not only condemn homosexuality in general, but got REALLY SPECIFIC by naming the “effeminate” or catamite (PASSIVE homosexual partner) and “abusers of themselves with mankind” or sodomite (ACTIVE homosexual partner). Who can misunderstand and misapply Paul’s word under inspiration?
Obviously, Mr. Thomas is tickling many ears having turned aside unto fables [2], which is great for crowd seekers because the world hears them [3]. Mr. Thomas, you need to remember, “Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” [4]. Do your homework. Preach the word. Have backbone. Quit tickling ears.
I could easily address your abuse of other points e.g. Leviticus, Jesus & love, Mt. 7:1; but I want to keep this response short to be read by all.
It’s the truth, not fables, that makes men free [5].
[1] 1 Corinthians 2:2
[2] 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[3] 1 John 4:5
[4] James 3:1 NKJV
[5] John 8:32
We find ourselves living in a society, where the moral climate is at it’s lowest point (2 timothy 3:1-5). There are several million people on this plantet, Earth, who still have a love for God and His Word. True lovers of God’s Word are now in the minority but they will be vindicate and so will Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ. The family arrangement will perish if They do not bring an end to the selfish greed and depraved sexual appetite of those, who "claim" that God made them that way!!
How sad that a so called "minister of God" feels justified to support this "lifestyle" that the Word of God clearly condemns. If a heterosexual couple who are not married is condemned, how much more so a homosexual one!! God is not one to be mock, whatever a man sows, he will reap-Galatians 6:7.
Any religion claiming to be christain should have the courage to stand up for Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ and not allow the moral climate to shape their views!!
The following individuals did not allow the world to shape their moral stand or views.
Foremost Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Apostle Paul just to name a few.
If we are ashamed of God, he will be ashamed of us and not acknowledge us. That is a dangerous position to be in. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God-Hebrews 10:31
Another Some Of My Best Friends Are…
A few thoughts for you and others to consider. 1)Your intentional selective Scipture usage is interesting in that this is exactly what you usually accuse the "bible beleivers" of doing. There are much more difficult passages in the Bible for you and others who agree with you to consider. I know you are aware of them, but instead of intelligent, informed dialogue, you chose selective banter that only seduces the uninformed. Jesus certainly didn’t speak on homosexuality, but that is only an argument from silence, which isn’t very convincing. If your reliance on science is so strong, maybe you ought to investigate the false claims of scientist throughout history and the damage they have caused as well. Investigate the claim that five years from now nearly half of what is claimed to be scientific fact will be disproved.
In Romans, Paul writes of the corrupted nature of man from birth. The idea that every one of us is predisposed to sin. The mere discovery of something that the Bible has claimed for centuries doesn’t change what sin is nor does it change our response to it. I do believe that homosexuality is outside of God’s desire for His creation. I also believe that Christ calls us to compassion for those that disagree with me. I am a local pastor with homosexual friends and a fellow staff member who struggles with homosexuality. He is one of my best friends. Can anyone speak the truth on the matter and have compassion without trying to make a political point? You are intentional in what you write and don’t write. To me your silence speaks so loud it is hard to read your words.
I give an "amen" to the person who reminded everyone that just because Christians view homosexuality as a sin, they are not "persecuters." Be reasonable! I am a Christian and do not for a minute think I will be able to understand the difficult trial of same-sex attraction. However, we are all sinners, we all have our individual hardships, temptations, lusts etc. For homosexuals, if they feel this is not a choice, then maybe they should focus not on the cause, but how to live in accordance with God’s law. I am not Catholic, and they certainly are not the moutpiece for all Christian religions, however I applaud them for standing firm with Biblical doctrine and not be swept up in what pop culture wants to feel is ok. The bottom line is if we want to be happy, we must obey God’s commandments. We cannot treat the commandments like a buffet, picking and choosing what is easiest for us to obey, and expect to feel satisfied. Wickedness never was happiness.
Here we go again. Pick out the parts you don’t like, inflate the ones you do and call it scholastic whatever. Agchhh. That’s an expression of disgust combined with frustration. It is because these so called "Men of God" lack the courage to apply the important spirit of the scripture, while amplifying the value of the "spices and mints", so to speak. It is in-obvious to these particular brand of "Pharise opaques", the ones who justify homosexual lust-gratification, that is, that the overall meaning and lesson in the Bible is the negation of the animal, or in more modern terms, carnal, in human nature. While they trumpet restraint in wrath, so long as it is not against their particular "natural-ness". While they limit lust, so long as it is not against children, yet. While they desparge greed, against the lastest poster children for oppression. And while they consult the latest trend, without thinking, of course, as to who or what they should be "against" in any particular month, week, day or hour, they do seem to forget that Christ told them that there is a Ghenna for those who do not seek him. If they believe they can do so while making "love" to the same sex, or children or animals or themselves or money or whatever, what person can argue to change them? If they believe that there is no righteous wrath, no one, not even Christ himself as to His correction of the Pharises, can turn them from their self directedness. They are what they are. Rationalized animals, the carnal self-purified and the makers of their own god and religion. It is the same as it has always been, with the only change being the technical mass media distribution of so polarized a view by so many that have been inculcated into the "sacredness" of our carnal roots. These are the same that would have pronounce "sin" upon Christ for whipping the money changers from the Temple. They never would have guessed they were defining "sin" upon the ultimate definer, of them, and, lest we forget, us.
I hear it all the time: "Wishful thinking" presented as fact – that homosexuals cannot help themselves; that they are born that way and that their is "scientific" evidence indicating a genetic basis. On the contrary, there is NO solid scientific evidence and what little there is has been effectively refuted. Why also doesn’t the liberal community want us to know what EX-GAYs have to say and how they fell into the lifestyle? Most will tell you that they were subjected to some form of dramatic emotional trauma (ie., parental or peer rejection and sometimes molestation) that caused them to go into a kind of self-defense withdrawal. One man said his dad always put incredible pressure on him as a youth to excel in sports…but he had no interest. Eventually his dad (and other boys) essentially rejected him, calling him a wimp. He withdrew and found relative safety in the company of his mother, sister and other girls that seemed to understand his emotions. He longed for the love and acceptance of his father and eventually tried to substitute other men for it. He also stated that the gay lifestyle means hundreds of gay partners but ultimately the lifestyle is empty, lonely and unfullfilling. His journey out was not easy because its emotional and mental…but there is a way out. He and many others are living proof.
The idea that got Galileo in trouble with the Roman church, that the earth is the center of the Universe, was from Aristotle and not the Bible. Such human philosophy invaded the church and was partly responsible for the Reformation. This makes the author’s main premise that science is superior to the Bible in this case null and void. After this absurdity he then tries replace biblical teachings again with human philosophy. This would recreate the same error he was trying to condemn. Anyone who thinks this article has any merit needs to take a logic course.
Now the bottom line is this? Should we change every law that exists to accomodate a group of people who are living outside what is considered the legal bonds of marriage. NO. We wouldn’t do if for other special interest groups. If they want to live together as companions and partners, then finding a way to make it work for them is part of the burden of choosing that lifestyle. Because whether they like it or not, homosexuality may not be a choice; maybe it is something that happens at birth, but deciding to live a gay lifestyle is a choice. If being gay wasn’t a bad thing, then why do so many homosexuals say that they tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle; made every attempt to live straight? Why did they not tell anyone when they were very young and first had those strange attractions to the wrong sex? Because something within their own PERSONAL moral structure let them know it was wrong. The apostle Paul said in Romans that "nature itself lets us know there is a God." Nature also lets us know the lifestyle that God ordained for man to live. You rarely see two male dogs trying to mate…they would kill each other.
Anyway. I love you. Whether you are gay, lesbian, straight, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Church of God, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic: I love you because I love HIM, and he has allowed me the capacity to love you all.
Now one last word for "Buzz." SHUT UP!
If I am travelling South on I-75 and I approach an exit from the flowing highway I must choose to leave it. But my journey has begun with me travelling south on I-75.
If I am alive I am on a heterosexual journey. I do not need to choose to be heterosexual, I am. I must however choose to exit that journey.
Homosexuality is a choice, and a sin. And the fact that I don’t choose to be hetrosxual does not disprove homosexuality’s status as a choice.
I believe in compassion and acceptance, but not absolution. Those who are debating the scripture are demonstrating their lack of understanding of a very complex issue regarding God’s law as reveled across time. The Bible does teach against homosexuality from a variety of perspectives, and does not contradict itself in doing so.
The scientific community says that alcoholism is in the genes and murderers have a gene that makes them predisposed to kill. Let’s just say that everything is OK. It sure makes it hard to figure out what a morally pure life is. I guess you have all the answers and we have had it wrong for years.
When it comes to tolerance, where is yours?
The problem with this very old tactic is that Mr. Thomas discredits the Bible in order to discredit Leviticus, then appeals to that very same Bible (presumably Matthew, Mark etc.) in order to support his position on homosexuality. This "Cafeteria" approach to Scripture supposes that some Scripture is wrong while other scripture is right. Thus Scripture is only inspired in spots, a so-called "Dalmatian theology". The problem with this faulty approach is the question of who decides what parts of scripture are inspired or right and what parts are wrong. In his article, Mr. Thomas has appointed himself the supreme determiner of Biblical rightness. Thank you, but I will let Scripture determine that for itself.
Mr. Thomas if you want to condone homosexuality that is your God given right but don‘t “try“ to change “The Word of God“ to fit your beliefs? The Bible says we were all born sinners.
It is irrelevant that a person is born gay. Your sin may have included homosexuality etc.., mine included lying, fornication etc… Thank God I had parents and “The Word of God” to give me standards to live by or I would still be a liar today. The problem is, who is teaching someone who is born gay, that it is wrong. Someone needs to teach a pedophile, yes, you may be attracted to little children, but it is wrong. I don’t believe that a person wakes up one morning and yawns and says “I think I will be attracted to little children today”. No, they were born that way. Does that make it alright? Are there any studies being conducted on that subject?
There is good news for the homosexual, the pedophile, and the liar you don’t have to be.
To every person who has made up their minds to live life their own way and not according to “Godly Principles”. There is no need to argue. It is your God given choice.
Ironically, homosexuality is one area where religion and science agree. Contrary to what the author states, a close reading of scientific literature shows there is NO scientific PROOF that homosexuality is innate, genetic, inborn or biologically pre-determined (scientists are backing off from the gay gene theory). There is ample "common sense" evidence that homosexuality is, however, very harmful to people involved, witness the AIDS crisis and numerous diseases such as anal cancer for which homosexual men are at greater risk.
No one is born homosexual. With that being said, no one chooses to be homosexual either. It is like other psychologcial issues, a matter of development, beginning with childhood. But no one has to be homosexual. I know this because I am a man who left homosexuality. I am not just talking about behavior here, but patterns of sexual response and fantasy. I can’t say it was easy but it can be done. A truly liberal and tolerant approach would make people aware of this alternative. This is the message that needs to get out to people yet is rarely, if ever, heard.
With all due respect, I believe you’ve been "bonging the yahe"( When religion loses its crdibility 11/20/06). Comparing Galileo with gay rights is an absurd straw man argument. You want to talk persecution?… try being a devoted follower of Jesus in secularized American society today. As for Christianity’s moral authority, try admonishing anyone by quoting from the Bible…you might get a blank stare and a laugh. I don’t know where you are getting your "fact" and "truth", but I am not aware of a "gay gene" being discovered…scientists who have spent years studying this issue, simply do not know. Sure there may be a predetermination at an early age, but an argument from nature is flawed, because as everyone (not just Christians, Jews and Muslims) knows, nature is flawed. As for your quoting from Scripture, the Law ( for followers of the Christ) is fulfilled in Jesus…so we are not under the law, but not free of moral living (Acts 15), including sexual morals in the context of Hebrew Biblical morality. Of course,if you are not a follower of Christ, this doesn’t apply to you and you can ignore it like you ignore the letters of St. Paul, etc. Unfortunately your article, to me, supports what the " Religious Right" has been saying about a " Homosexual Agenda"…biased judgemental statements without hard scientific proof used to attack the demonized " narrow-minded, Bible thumping Christians", etc. I don’t think this email has much of a chance of being published in USA Today, but I thought I would try and check your open mind.
If Mr. Thomas has proved anything from his essay, it is his complete ignorance of the Bible. There is no text in scripture stating that the Earth is the center of the solar system; the Bible makes no mention of a solar system, and never states that planets go around anything. Venus, Mars, and Jupiter are never discussed. Galileo was persecuted by the mediaeval Roman Catholic Church, an organization dominated by tradition, not scripture; an organization that burned many people alive for reading the Bible or translating it into the language of the common people. Going on, eating catfish might have been forbidden by Leviticus, but there was no death penalty stated for this offence, or for many others. Premarital sex might have been forbidden, but if the two were single, the penalty was not death, but rather marriage forthwith to the partner in question. Mr Thomas totally fails to catch the basic distinction made by the New Testament regarding ceremonial laws specially applicable to the Jewish nation at that time (cf Acts 15), and moral laws which applied to all humans for all time (see Jesus’ statements, Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount). Jumping with Mr Thomas to Genesis, it is stated that everything that God made was good. This statement was made at Creation, and not after the Fall or the entrance of sin into the world. Mr Thomas and his logic would imply that rapists and child molesters are good, since God made them. Traveling to Romans 1 or any other references by Paul to homosexuality, there is absolutely no hint that minors are being discussed by Paul; it is another wishful dream by the august reverend to try to prove his desired conclusion. Homosexuality, with no special qualifications, bells, or whistles, is held forth as a prime example of the moral depravity of the Gentile world, and all who engaged in that sin or many other sins listed there, at the conclusion of the chapter are declared to be worthy of death. Mr Thomas begs to argue that Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Nor does he mention rape. Guess Jesus thought that rape was a very trivial thing. Get a brain. Garbage in, garbage out.
I have no doubt homosexual desire is genetic. I also have no doubt that if medical science bothered to look, it would find genetic links to all of mankind’s evil desires. God created a perfect man and woman, but their own choice to sin condemned their offspring to be imperfect. The obvious way that this imperfection is passed down is through the now-imperfect genetic code.
A complete reading of the Bible leaves no doubt that God is Love, but He is also Perfectly Just. Jesus was compasionate to sinners, but He left no doubt that sin keeps man separated from God, and that only by believing in His Perfect Sacrifice could man be saved from God’s Judgement. To quote (completely) from the Gospel when the adulerous woman was accused: "…neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
There is much more…Thomas’ opinion piece really opened up the sewers…but in a way it was all worth it, for this one response, from a reader named David. Here’s the bedrock of pain, right here. Here’s what this piss ignorant worthless useless sickening prejudice does to people, to families, to the bond between parent and child. Here is why I am not a Christian. I simply cannot follow Jesus where I’m pretty sure he would want me to go. He would say I need to forgive, and I cannot. This is why:
I thought some might be interested in what happened when I sent this article to my Christian family. First, the response from my older sister. Second, the response from my dad.
David,
Do you not realize how painful it is to receive something like this from you? Your lifestyle choice is your choice; I don’t agree with it, but it is your choice. In fact, I am very sad for you. You will never experience the joy of marriage, or the joy of becoming a father. The family name, Peery, has ended with our generation. You have lost your excitement for living the Christian life. Need I remind you that you were the head of the Christian club in high school; started the Christian group, the Core, at Santa Clara; worked at Hume Lake Christian Camp; and worked at a Baptist Church. Were all these Christian activities a cover-up for your true soul?! I’m not sure what turned you away from living the Christian lifestyle. If I recall correctly, you even were considering becoming a youth pastor. When I listen to my Christian music on my way to work many days I nearly come to tears when I think about you when listening to many of the words in the songs. I wonder how the evil one took hold of you, but I will never lose the faith that you will return and come to your senses. I only hope it is not too late. I think of our very own Uncle Jim and how he lost his life over making the decisions he did. I don’t know how, knowing that, you could repeat the cycle of this.
It’s not me who has to live your life; it is you and you alone. I don’t send you articles on how morally correct it is to be heterosexual; therefore, I don’t appreicate you sending me articles on how morally correct it is to be homosexual.
I will continue to pray for you in hopes that you might change. Until then, I am very sad for you.
Sarah
Hi David,
For yourself, don’t you think that homosexuality was a choice you made?
I’ve read up on a lot of scientific claims about homosexuality. The arguments I’ve read are weak at best. This article doesn’t cite specific scientific claims. If you want to, we can discuss the various studies.
Environment and family life are big factors too. Relationships with fathers are a huge factor. Were there people who influenced you?
Sodomy is discouraged all over the Bible; but the Corinthian church had some who came out of that lifestyle:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." I Cor 6:9-11
Homosexual sin is like heterosexual sin is just like a lot of other sins. Jesus can forgive it all if you ask for forgiveness. Let Jesus do the changing.
You are my son. I am proud of many things you do. I love you. God has used you in the past and wants to do great things through you in the future. The homosexual thing is not the real you. The scars will be there for a long time but it doesn’t have to define you. I hope we can talk more about it in the future.
Jesus said, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." Rev. 3:19-21. Jesus won’t barge in; he waits outside until the guy inside opens the door.
I won’t put you on the spot this Thanksgiving. You’re welcome here anytime. If you want to discuss more then or at another time, let me know.
Love,
Dad
Love. There is no knife that cuts like the one families wield upon each other. Strangers can beat the living crap out of you, can take your life away from you. But only family can chew your heart up, and spit it back out again in shreds. Love. Look at it. And if you are brave, consider that this is Exactly what the gutter means by it. If you’re not bleeding, then we’re not loving you enough…
Picture Minister Thomas trying to patiently reason with David’s father…a man who is slowly twisting the knife in his son’s gut out of…oh not hate surely, but Love. The problem is that you even think you can reason with a man who would do that to his own son, after having absolutely convinced himself of his own compassion in doing it. The more the kid hurts, the more Dad is loving him. And it is especially useless to reason with such as him from religious faith. All this man’s religion ever did for him, was take away his brakes. That was probably all he needed it for. Otherwise, how else could he put the knife in his son’s heart and still look at himself in the bathroom mirror every morning? In the end, Blaise Pascal said it best when he remarked that "men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." But the religious conviction did not put the evil there. It was merely waiting for something to come along, and give it purpose.
To appeal to someone’s better nature, they first have to have one. And now you know why you can’t bring reason to a knife fight.
An interesting postscript on the Maryland Senate race: Exit polls suggest that the "white lie" phenomenon, in which more white voters tell pollsters that they’ll vote for the black candidate than actually go through with it in the end, may have helped doom black Senate candidate Michael Steele. This is a phenomenon more often noted against Dems, of course, since African-American candidates are Democrats much more often than they’re Republican, but in this case, it may have harmed GOPer Steele as well.
Steele lost by 10 points — a higher spread than some pre-election polls suggested. Exit polls show that white voters split their vote evenly between Cardin and Steele, well short of the percentage of whites that ordinarily back the GOP candidate in seriously contested races in Maryland. In pre-election polls, meanwhile, respondents were promising to vote for Steele at a higher rate: a Baltimore Sun poll from five days before the election had Steele leading Cardin among whites by seven points. So the Republican candidate may have been victimized by the "white lie" after all.
You know who else suffers from this phenomenon? Right…
…most of the measures on the Nov. 7 ballot in eight other states already have strong voter support. In fact, they may be even farther ahead than they appear, because polling on the issue has been consistently and inexplicably inaccurate.
Same-sex marriage ban supporters and opponents agree that pre-election polls often undercount support for the measures.
…
Polls that underestimated support for the bans were off by as much as 19 percentage points in North Dakota and 7 to 16 percentage points in six other states.
"What it means is that if history is any guide, which I think it is, you have to subtract at least four percentage points from pre-election polls to get a more accurate reading of what the results are going to be on election day," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a gay rights group working in opposition to the amendments.
Bans are expected to pass Nov. 7 in Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee. The races still appear close in Colorado, Arizona and Wisconsin.
…
Ban supporters also account for the consistent polling error in their strategies.
"We’ve seen it, I think, in every single case, that it is underpolled every single time," said Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs at the conservative Family Research Council. "I’ve seen higher, but normally we would add 5 to 10 percentage points to any polling."
Gay rights supporters blame people’s unwillingness to express an anti-gay opinion to a pollster for the discrepancy between polls and the ballot box…
This is why we lost in Wisconsin and South Dakota, even though the polls said we could probably win. Arizona actually surprised me. I guess people are more honest about their opinion of gay people there. But this is something I’ve seen time after time, and not just regarding same sex marriage. When Anita Bryant went on her anti-gay crusade to repeal Dade County’s anti-discrimination law, the polls showed the race was close. It wasn’t even. The vote went against gay people by about four to one.
Call it, the Guilty Conscience effect. People know discrimination is wrong. Why else would you see so many cheap rationalizations for it? Gay people aren’t being discriminated against by the marriage laws…they have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex anyone else does… And it’s surprisingly uncynical. In years of arguing online with bigots, I keep running into this dogged insistence that as long as someone has an excuse to discriminate, no matter how pathetically lame it is, they’re not really discriminating. I am not a bigot…I’m very sorry you feel you’re being treated unfairly…but my flimsy rationalizations serve to excuse me from any and all blame for the unfairness of your situation…not that I am admitting that it’s unfair…not that I would ever admit to being a bigot…I am a Good Person… And so on… It isn’t prejudice, if you say you don’t mean it.
Some years ago, shortly after I started working up here in Baltimore, I was talking to a group of co-workers about the upcoming elections. It was 1992, and Alan Keyes was running against Barbra Mikulski. It was his second try at becoming a senator from Maryland, and that year and in that workplace of mine, sentiment was running high against democrats. These were mostly all blue collar folks where I was working then. Though I worked mostly with the managers, most of them had worked up the ranks from the field technicians they now managed. Baltimore blue collar folks through and through. And all of them white males.
This particular group of them were ranting that day, on and on about how much they didn’t like Mikulski. Mikulski was too liberal. Mikulski was too democrat. On and on it went. I was amazed and appalled at how thoroughly the republican Mighty Wurlitzer had turned what had to have been at one point a bunch of solid blue collar union democrats into republican voters. After several minutes of Mikulski bashing one of them asked me what I thought of her. By then Alan Keyes had his own reputation in the state for being a pure to the bone nutcase. So I shrugged my shoulders and said, Well…there’s always Keyes." They looked at me…a group of about a half dozen or so white middle aged, blue collar guys, and one of them finally said, "You really play dirty don’t you?" But he was grinning. The rest of them were all shaking their heads and grinning ruefully. Then I realized. What I thought I was asking them was, "Okay…but would you vote for a nutcase?" What they heard was "Okay, but would you vote for a black man?" Keyes never had a chance with them, no matter how much Limbaugh managed to make them hate liberals and democrats.
I thought about that all during this campaign here in Maryland, whenever the polls said that Steele was either winning, or close to it. All I had to do was stroll around my neighborhood and look at all the GOVERNOR EHRLICH signs in the yards, and not a single STEELE sign among them. But if it was racism that killed Steele’s chances among the Limbaugh republicans here, let it be said that he wasn’t above playing the race card himself. During the 2002 campaign, as Ehrlich’s running mate, Steele was asked if he supported adding sexual orientation to Maryland’s anti-discrimination laws. He instantly responded that there were already plenty of laws on the books protecting gay white men from discrimination.
Dig it. He took a question about gay rights, and turned it into a matter of race; of privileged white faggots riding on the coattails of the black civil rights movement. That’s straight out of the republican play book. I’d figured that Steele held the same cheapshit prejudices toward gay people Ehrlich did, or else Ehrlich wouldn’t have brought him onto the ticket. What I saw then was that he was just as big a race baiting thug as any other republican in the state.
And it came back to bite him in the ass. Welcome back to the world of the suspect classes Michael. You might have thought that being accepted into the republican machine was your ticket out of all that. It wasn’t.
This blog is powered by WordPress and is hosted at Winters Web Works, who also did some custom design work (Thanks!). Some embedded content was created with the help of The Gimp. I proof with Google Chrome on either Windows, Linux or MacOS depending on which machine I happen to be running at the time.
