Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Andrew Tallman :: Townhall.com Columnist
To Conservatives in a Pro-Gay Culture
by Andrew Tallman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Two different people recently contacted me for my advice on virtually identical situations that arose in the wake of California’s decision to solemnize same-gender relationships.

One woman was concerned about her job in a pro-gay workplace because a friend and co-worker had been disappointed with her inadequately enthusiastic response to his announcement that he and his lover were driving to California to get married. She wanted help expressing her real love for this man while still standing firm in her beliefs.

Another man’s company had created a pro-gay workplace initiative and then solicited employee feedback on it. He, too, was concerned about his job, but he also felt compelled to say something consistent with his conservative Christian beliefs.

Since I expect such difficulties to become far more common, I’ll share with you the principles I advised them to use.

Principle 1: Apologize in advance.

In confrontation, people mistakenly think that playing the “big fish” role will portray strength, perhaps even intimidating the other. In reality, humility best expresses strength, whereas bluster generally indicates weakness. Insecure people always get this backwards. Only the strong can control themselves enough to take the humble approach, and there is no more humble yet powerful thing to do than apologizing at the outset.

Principle 2: Say it before they do.

Generally, we try to hide anything that makes us or our position look weak. Not only is this dishonest, but such things tend to come out anyhow, and it’s always better to control the release of information than to be caught by it. Besides, it’s very disarming to have someone plainly divulge the worst about themselves. So admit anything you’re tempted to conceal, such as your religion, your personal biases, and especially your worst fears. Admitting feared reactions can often prevent them because people dislike being predictable.

Principle 3: Get permission.

Whenever you anticipate a negative reaction, soliciting permission to proceed means the other person has agreed to share responsibility for whatever difficulties ensue. Luckily, this is the easiest one of all because almost no one declines. Curiosity virtually compels their consent.

Principle 4: Be hurt, not angry.

Our instinct for confrontation is to be angry, sarcastic, and harsh. Such tactics will usually make the situation worse. Whoever is perceived as the victim or most hurt gets the most sympathy, regardless of the legitimacy of their pain. Just consider how much more ground homosexuals have gained by displaying hurt at things they oppose than by displaying fury at them. The paradox is that by trying to be tough (usually through anger) you suffer marginalization, whereas by allowing yourself to look weak (usually through sadness) you get influence.

The best way to show hurt in this case is by referencing a pain your audience already understands: that of being forced to be in the closet. Just as gays are coming out of the closet, moral conservatives feel like we’re being forced into it. The social consequences are exactly parallel, except that for us they are rising whereas for gays they are receding. Though some in the pro-gay culture celebrate this, most who have felt this anxiety will recoil at the idea of imposing what they have suffered on others.

Principle 5: Make relationship your main goal.

Winning is nice, but relationships matter more than winning. Fortunately, the best way to have a chance of winning is by cultivating relationships and the influence that comes with them. Real relationships require honesty, vulnerability, and the sort of respect which realizes that friendship cannot be conditional upon the universal acquiescence of the other person to my values. This principle obviously goes both ways.

Example of applying these principles.

“I have something really important I want to talk about with you, but I’m worried that it’s going to offend you. If that happens, I’m very sorry, but do you want me to be honest with you, even if you might get angry?”

“Of course, what is it?”

“First, I want you to know how much I care about you, and that’s why it makes me really uncomfortable that we have to have a discussion about gay issues at all. But here’s what you don’t realize about me. Honestly, gay sex grosses me out. But it’s more serious than just that. I am a deeply religious person, and my religious tradition strongly disapproves of this behavior. Yet recently I feel like my religious beliefs are being attacked and I’m being pressured to hide them from you.

I feel like I can’t be honest about who I am because of the hostility I feel from others for what I believe. And because I’m worried that saying all of this might jeopardize our friendship or even cost me my job, I’m very reluctant to be honest even with you about who I am. If this fear of being scared to express my real identity is what you’ve experienced for your sexual orientation, then I’m so very sorry you’ve had to suffer such an awful thing.

But I’m telling you this because I hope that you’re willing to respect my beliefs just like you want me to respect yours. The only way for us to have a meaningful relationship is if we can be truly open and honest with each other, especially when we disagree, and I want that more than anything. I hope you’re willing to accept me while knowing what I believe just like I’m willing to accept you while knowing what you do.”

Final Note

This may not always work. But using these principles puts you in the best position to succeed, with one caveat. You must be sincere in your use of them. If you exaggerate for effect, you will be a liar, and it will probably won’t work for you anyway. Remember, only the truly strong can afford to appear weak.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Andrew Tallman is host of The Andrew Tallman Show on AM 1360 KPXQ from 5-7PM weekdays in Phoenix, AZ.

Be the first to read Andrew Tallman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

good column
Although it seems doubtful that I agree with Tallman about much of anything, I have been impressed by the seriousness and thought that goes into first his columns on the death penalty, and now this one.

I think that this kind of disgust at homosexuals living their lives is an anachronism that will soon look embarassing in retrospect. I recognize that noone thinks of themselves as an anachronism at the time. And that people who really feel that their religion demands that they support discrimination against homosexuals think that they are doing something moral, just as the supporters of gay marriage do.

Tallman gives a good account of how such people would do well in increasingly gay friendly workplaces. I suspect his account could be easily modified as to how gay workers could do well in gay-unfriendly workplaces.

The one point in which I think the example may be counter-productive is in trying to make the case of equivalence. If the point is that one is not feeling free to act in ways that make it known one is a Christian, then the comparison to being a gay person in the closet is pretty apt. But if the concern is more specifically with not being able to express ones opposition to how other people live their lives. That is certainly not as central an aspect of their lives as who they can form partnerships with.

Reacting to Gay Marriage
This is a crock. (Pardon me in that I didn't apologize in advance) We have for too long allowed gays to set the agenda. It is now time to take the initiative. Tell the person(s) confronting you that you view the gay lifestyle repellant, and unacceptable. Point out that, the American Psychiatice Association nothwithstanding, gay is abnormal. The pieces don't even fit. You can be friends with gay people, but tell them not to flaunt it (metaphorically speaking). An observant Christian or Jew is as entitled to their opinion as much as any gay. And be sure to ask "What is so gay, about being gay?" If it is so great, why don't we all do it. Simply put, gay sex is dangerous and disgusting.

Example of applying these principles.


“I have something really important I want to talk about with you, but I’m worried that it’s going to offend you. If that happens, I’m very sorry, but do you want me to be honest with you, even if you might get angry?”

“Of course, what is it?”

“First, I want you to know how much I care about you, and that’s why it makes me really uncomfortable that we have to have a discussion about religious issues at all. But here’s what you don’t realize about me. Honestly, acting on faith alone troubles me. But it’s more serious than just that. I am an agnostic atheist, and the scientific tradition strongly disproves your beliefs. Yet recently I feel like the scientific method is being attacked and I’m being pressured to hide this from you.

I feel like I can’t be honest about who I am because of the hostility I feel from others for what I know. And because I’m worried that saying all of this might jeopardize our friendship or even cost me my job, I’m very reluctant to be honest even with you about who I am. If this fear of being scared to express my real identity is what you’ve experienced for your religious orientation, then I’m so very sorry you’ve had to suffer such an awful thing.

But I’m telling you this because I hope that you’re willing to respect my beliefs just like you want me to respect yours. The only way for us to have a meaningful relationship is if we can be truly open and honest with each other, especially when we disagree, and I want that more than anything. I hope you’re willing to accept me while knowing what I believe just like I’m willing to accept you while knowing what you do.

Help, Help, I'm being oppressed
Then I go on to tell them that I think Christianity has no right to express superstitious nonsense in public, that marriage shouldn't be recognized by the state, and how Christians have no right to brainwash children.

America in 2025
"I'm terribly sorry but I just don't fancy you. It's not that you're ugly or anything, it's just that you're the same, er, gender as me, not that there's anything in that, it's only a socially constructed category... Now there's no need to point that thing at me! No, I haven't got a bible hidden on me. What? No, of course I wouldn't want you to feel insecure, or uncomfortable, or anything... OK, OK, just let me have a little time to prepare. Like Tallman says, we gotta compromise in this life."

(later)

"Oooh, that hurt-- now I'm the one feeling uncomfortable. Still, at least I behaved non-judgmentally and appropriately in our age of vibrant tolerance and diversity."

NEXT WEEK: Learning to embrace the pedophile.

How to be a wimp
“I have something really important I want to talk about with you, but I’m worried that it’s going to offend you. If that happens, I’m very sorry, but do you want me to be honest with you, even if you might get angry?”

“Of course, what is it?”

"First, I want you to know how much I care about you, and that’s why it makes me really uncomfortable that we have to have a discussion about religious issues at all."
====
ts:
Because I cannot handle you being angry with me for what I believe in.
Therefore I am prepared to kiss you aze to show you how important your feelings are as the primary value.
So I will bend over and kiss you aze as soon as you drop your pants and allow me to touch my lips to the skin of your butt.

I do this to avoid your righteous anger at me for believing you are a demented little pervert.
A sick minded reprobate is how I actually see you in your demented lust, and knowing you hate my guts if I dare disagree with your perversions, allow me to show you how important your feelings are to me.
Knowing you have absolutely no respect for my feelings and would force your perversions on me too if I allowed you to.
Therefore to avoid all the known differences between us, I will be a wimp and give you lots of room to justify your sick lust, just so we can be friends.

I know you think my views come from my Christian Faith.
But actually long before I became a Christian, I found your sexual perversions disgusting.
Just like all the nations all across the world have since the beginning of time, Christian, Jew or muslim.

So I demand you to respect my Rights to my beliefs and accept the fact there is never going to be an agreement between us on this subject.
The only agreement we can make that is workable, is lets agree to disagree peacefully.

Screw the wimpy butt kissing




Stupid article
Normal people have no obligation to apologize to anyone for their disgust at sexual perversion. It is this wimpy attitude that has allowed the perverts to advance to a point where they can flaunt their disgusting behavior and sick sexual desires.

This article is one more example of how Western culture is going into the toilet, thanks to political correctness.

Wait until we're apologizing to the Muslim conquerors for being Christian, after we've been so "tolerant" and "inclusive" that we've surrendered to them without a fight either.

And then, these for-now jubilant homosexuals will be the first to lose their heads.

Conservatism and Christianity
Are not the same thing.

Conservatives today are classical liberals, less government interference etc...

Christians are more like fascists..using their ideologies to push things they find important...like war, moral purity, war, nationalism, war, oppressing minorities, and more war.

OK
Americans should exercise caution when embracing homosexuality. The nature-nurture conflict is by no means resolved. Genetic/hormonal discrepancies have not proven consistent among homosexuals. Moreover, ancient societies often promoted almost ubiquitous homo and bisexuality.

Most conservatives don't hate genetically predisposed homosexuals. We simply don't wish to abandon the Judeo-Christian monogamy that has served western civilization very well. Even an atheist like me can appreciate its universal value. History tells us that tolerating various alternative lifestyles without conditions leads to moral licentiousness.

If anyone wishes to debate my points, I'd love the exchange. Should anyone prefer to simply sling trash talk, then, by all means, continue to sabotage your own agenda.

Corporate America is Failing
This kind of issue is the reason that Corporate America is failing. Wouldn't it be nice if it focused on business and not on BS issues such as this. In business I do not care what religion, race, sexual orientation, political party or sports team (except the Cowboys) that you root for. I only care that you can produce what is expected, when it is expected. All the rest should be left in the trash can by the front door.

Sexuality
I don't want to hear about anyone else's sexuality nor will I tell them about mine, homosexual or not. Leave it at home. If two guys want to get married, knock yourself out; just don't tell me about it.

Slippery slope? Check out the fact that NAMBLA is becoming bolder, coming out of the closet, so to speak.

Matthew writes
"Christians are more like fascists..using their ideologies to push things they find important...like war, moral purity, war, nationalism, war, oppressing minorities, and more war."

That is the most ridiculous statement I've read in a long time. You must have been frightened by Nuns in your youth.

OBTW. What you mean by war, the Christian means to end tyranny, relieve oppression, and free people. As for the oppressing minorities idiocy, the people that do that are a fringe group that has little to do with Christianity; much like your liberal loonies like Code Pink, People for the (un) American Way, etc.

One discordant note
I feel there's too much good wisdom about life in this overall to be too nitpicky, but still I have to fret that saying to one's colleagues that "gay sex grosses me out" would be a very dissonant note in this otherwise high-minded script!
I think it's terrible that as a society we're thrusting sexuality, both in the generalized sense of all the vulgarity in general, as well as the specific kind of "identity politics" here, into everything. That said, if you're going to confront Identity Politics in the workplace/classroom, etc., I think you have to meet it on its own terms--the kind of politicized ontology that everyone's being expected to fall in line with-- and not meet the expectations of those looking for 'homophobia' by gratifying their fears of having one start confessing their revulsion over gay sex.

What?
First thing I'm supposed to do is apologize because I find someone's perversion to be, ...well perverted?

Are you serious?

Man, little Mr. Tallman needs to take that apron off and grow a pair.

It's satire folks.
From the article: "First, I want you to know how much I care about you, and that’s why it makes me really uncomfortable that we have to have a discussion about gay issues at all. But here’s what you don’t realize about me. Honestly, gay sex grosses me out."
------------
The last sentence shows he wasn't serious about the rest.

Lon, Matthew, Maximillian,
ditto to what sandcrab said in post 13.

Maximillian, first time I've agreed with you on any subject; glad to see your wising up.

Matthew:Your bias against Christians, most of whom believe mostly in the just (defensive, last resort, etc.) theory, makes you laughable and ignorable.

Lon: you write:"...their religion demands they support discrimination against homosexuals..." You must even know that's a crock. Every true Christian i know adopts an Augustinian, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' approach. No one I know is for discrimination against gays, we're just not interested in another's sexuality of whatever stripe. this attitude will not be anachronistic in 2025, because the Bible will not be anachronistic in 2025.

If someone asked me the questions posed to Tallman, I would just say "I wish you well." They may think you are saying 'you, plural,' but you actually mean 'you, singular.' and wishing the other person well doesn't signify approval of their actions or lifestyle.

Remember the context ..
How sad -- if one is in that position: afraid of possibly losing a desperately-needed job over not "enthusiastically" endorsing/cheering on someone else's personal matters which are/should be quite irrelevant in the workplace. I guess a person in such a situation needs to find a better employer than one who puts you in that position. Until you do tho, maybe you need to apply some of the strategies that Mr. Tallman suggests, and just "suck it up", so to speak.

How about we legislate some protection from such oppression in the workplace (ironically suggested) .. since all kinds of things are being legislated that should remain personal and private matters? But in keeping with the principle of private property, the business-owner has the right to choose what kinds of employees he wants working in his company. So if he chooses, he should be free to hire only pro-homosexual employees. But the right to do the opposite seems to have disappeared ...

I like/agree with most of what has been said by various commenters here, especially what Jaybird, sandcrab, and Jack Galt said.

Apologists And Other Wimps
I apologize to no one for what I believe. I don't flaunt my heterosexuality to anyone and I expect the same from homosexuals.

Many of them are the 'in your face' types,enjoying the shocked looks they get. It makes them feel powerful,when they should feel shame.They are an embarassment.
As for same-sex shack-ups...they can have any kind of ceremony they please..it won't make it a marriage.

Maximilian: heathens and monogomy
"Most conservatives don't hate genetically predisposed homosexuals. We simply don't wish to abandon the Judeo-Christian monogamy that has served western civilization very well. Even an atheist like me can appreciate its universal value. History tells us that tolerating various alternative lifestyles without conditions leads to moral licentiousness."

Maximilian, read the bible and history. Far from Judeo-Christian being monogamous, Judaism was very much predicated on polygamy, and Christianity a descendent only was monogamous because Roman heathenism promoted monogamy.

In fact the same "culture," Greco-Roman brought us monogamy and an openness to homosexuality and bisexuality.

The Judeo-Christian traditions were preserved in the traditions of Islam.

Read how Jesus lived and you quickie recognize that he grew up with traditions which are virtually indistinguishable from those of Islam today.

We American on the other hand are lucky to be the intellectual decedents of heathens.

Western bondbeam: satire?
after reading your "its satire" post, I re-read the article, and its either

1. the single worst piece of satire that i've ever read, OR

2. not intentionally satirical. i had never read or heard of Tallman, and this article will make me skip him every time on TH. The only satirical line I can pick out is the one you did, "gay sex grosses me out."

My motto: just don't block the television.

All good points...
Truth is we've all been brainwashed by PC police already, the fact that we call them "homosexuals" instead of sodomites or something more accurate is proof unto itself. I think thats what is being pointed out here, you can resist the rivers flow or redirect it, which is what liberals and perverts learned a long time ago; Don't show public affection or anger (that would turn the public against you by seeing what perverted sex REALLY looks like and how disturbed you REALLY are), play victim roles and latch onto the successes of civil rights, etc. A bit phony perhaps but its working and this article proves it. I don't wonder if its not true though, conservatives need to dispel these falsehoods about merely being arcane or "haters" as it were and perhaps start using the language and methods of the day to get what we KNOW is right, some moral truth for a change.

This is the answer?
So I guess telling these "gay" folks that they destined for eternal punishment in hell unless they repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ is out of the question? It appears we are instead suppose to "build relationships" and "apologize" while seeking "permission" to speak and having beliefs that are moral and upright. Wimp 101.
While I can fully understand the fear of speaking out because of the possible consequences of doing so, I cannot see how these approaches are the answer. Maybe we should be speaking the truth in love and kindness and trust God with whatever comes afterwards. I know, easier said than done, but God never promised us an easy road, did He?
It is unbelievable that we as a "free nation under God" have come to this.

Joseph
Since I've held this belief for quite a while, it hardly qualifies as wising up.

I don't know where we've disagreed in the past but I'm glad we hold similar viewpoints on this matter.

I meant to say
having never read him before, i'm not familiar enough with his oevre to detect satire or not. anyone read or listen to him often enough to know which it is? because as is, it is hogwash (pun not originally intended)

reply to western bondbeam
Of course this is satire! Tallman manages to cram in so much touchy-feely, warm fuzzy mush-talk that I found myself chuckling about 2 paragraphs in.

No real conservative would or should bow and scrape like this. You folks need to nurture and cultivate your hatred of gays and all they do. You need to keep the fire of your hate alive and blazing in you as conservative moralists.

So, some practical advice:

Leave those work situations where you have to interact pleasantly with gays. Get a new job!
Don't make polite chit-chat with gays in social or work settings--let them know that God has damned them for their existence and their deeds, and that you know because the Bible tells you so.

Don't put up with gays whining and complaining about how they are persecuted. Tell them up front that they deserve all the persecution they get, and that you are pleased when they understand just how hated they really are.

Don't miss any opportunity to mock gays and put them down. They deserve nothing less from conservatives.

Know how to expose gays, and do it in situations that provide maximum humiliation for them.

If you've got the stones for it, and can get away with it, don't hesitate to threaten or even attack gays. If you do it smart, maybe you can get away with it.

Now, c'mon, right-wingers. Don't at least some of you want to do what I'm explaining to you here? By all means, be true to yourselves as conservatives; you've got morality and righteousness on your side, and God as well, so go for it.

PPS is it possible
to give a negative # on the "rate the article" line?

uber,

what is your source for saying that Judaism during the time of Christ supported polygamy?

Also, what is your source for saying that Judaism during the time of Christ treated women like animals?


Facts do not matter to people like this
Guy

uber writes:- 2:44 PM EST
heathens and monogomy


Maximilian, read the bible and history. Far from Judeo-Christian being monogamous, Judaism was very much predicated on polygamy, and Christianity a descendent only was monogamous because Roman heathenism promoted monogamy.
====
ts:
Typical agenda driven drivel.
Read the bible
The very first chapter is about monogamy.
Adam and Eve

====

uber writes:-
In fact the same "culture," Greco-Roman brought us monogamy and an openness to homosexuality and bisexuality.
===
ts:
In fact it destroyed the culture of ancient Greece and Rome, forsaking the truth of the Biblical Adam and Eve for Adam and Steve.
Sodomy destroys society.

=====
uber writes:-
The Judeo-Christian traditions were preserved in the traditions of Islam.
====
Americans preserved Judeo/Christian Values for our 1st 200 years, built this Nation in those values.
islam has never had anything to do with America whatsoever.
But be our enemy.
Now among us
=====
uber writes:-
Read how Jesus lived and you quickie recognize that he grew up with traditions which are virtually indistinguishable from those of Islam today.
===
ts:
Everything about the Life, the Words and the Deeds that are about Jesus Christ are the exact opposite of everything the man mohammed promoted in islam.
===
uber writes:-

We American on the other hand are lucky to be the intellectual decedents of heathens.
===
ts:
Speak for yourself
I am happy to say what you call intellect is what I call stupidity

Gestell, Uber
Gestell, at least your satire was mildly amusing, compared to the garbaaaaaaaaage from Tallman.

Uber, as I said to you the other day (did you get a lobotomy in the meantime?), have you ever heard of Adam and Eve? The prototype. Has everyone lived up to the prototype? No. As to Jesus and Islam, I don't have time to write a book; your ignorance is mind-boggling. Suffice it to point out that Jesus lived 600 years before Mohammed, so the influence went in the opposite direction, if anything.

Gestell
Your suggestions make sense coming from a liberal. Such techniques are commonly employed among the left. What you fail to realize is that Conservatives prefer to debate the issues honorably without cussing, violence, or shouting down.

Evidently you have failed in your experiment of civilized discourse with you political foes. Otherwise you would have spent your posting time responding to my 1:47 entry.

If you regard Conservatives as unreasonable, then how 'bout a friendly wager. Go ahead and pick a liberal website. Notify me of your choice on this thread. I will post a polite well-reasoned Conservative response to whatever article you like. We'll compare my treatment among the liberals to your reception on Townhall.

Interested?

My Comments
If someone tells me he is gay, generally I'll answer, "Fine. I'm hetro. Now, shall we stop talking about sex and get back to work?"

If someone tells me he's getting married, to a woman or another man, my answer generally is, "Good for you! I'm afraid I never get too excited about marriage. I feel sorry for you but perhaps it will be better than I expect. I hope so. Now shall we get back to work?"

I don't like anyone telling me about their sex life and I have no intention in telling anyone about mine.

Bring it On
I will speak the truth whether the GLB folks like it or not! They will just have to deal! If Im working for a GLB person and they dont like the truth fine, its just another line on the resume!

What the....
Can someone refund me the last few minutes of my life that I'll never get back after wasting it reading this article.
I don't give a rip if someone is gay or not, but if they insist on inflicting me with information about their personal lives, they're going to get my opinion back.

If gays truly want to be accepted, then they should shut their mouths and stop trying to force the rest of us to accept the "legitimacy" or their lifestyle choices. I don't come to work and talk about my sexuality, i certainly don't want them to come to work and force me to hear about it.

edde: monogamy and hedonism
proof

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m72q24p105747755/

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html

Joseph
I am not sure what to make of your response to me. I have certainly heard the "Hate the sin, Love the Sinner" account. In many cases this claim is undercut by arguments that then make clear that there is no love for the sinner. But putting that aside, I have no doubt some people say that and mean it.

Why do you think that shows that people who say that do not support discrimination? All but two states in the union now allow heterosexual couples to marry but not homosexual ones. That suggests there is a lot of support out there for discriminating against homosexuals. I have no doubt that such people think that this discrimination is justified, but I do not understand the point of pretending that it is not discrimination.

If you favor discrimination fine and you can try to justify that discrimination. By why abuse the english language by pretending that is not what you are doing? Outlawing gay marriage has nothing to do with other people not telling you about their relationships. Gay people can tell you who their partner is whether marriage is legal or not. The question is whether the government gives them equal treatment.

Rocketeer, right on,
can we sue townhall for lost wages or infliction of emotional injury or even loss of consortium for publishing this swill?

uber
I hate to break this to you, but your links do not back up your earlier statements.

Lon: 2 words: Original Intent
Lon, do you seriously think that when the Founders used the word "marriage," they intended 'whether homosexual or heterosexual?"

No, of course not. If you don't like what they intended, I have one more word for you:

Amendment (as in those who agree with you propose the change of custom of which the mind does not run to the contrary,) so the burden of proof, the burden of amendment is on your side, not mine.

Please don't even bother to bring up "slavery" in the context of 'original intent." Thank God substantively and procedurally the post civil war folks did it the right way, by amendment, not by court ukase.

Nobody is "outlawing" marriage by same sex partners (except maybe James Madison et al, and then the proper verb tense would be 'outlawed.} Such marriages are already 'outlawed,'except in the 2 lunatic fringe states, MA and CA, where this came about by court usurpation, not by the manifest will of the people in even those 2 radical states.

I have 2 more words for you: civil unions. Define that however you wish; the word "marriage" already has a definition, until the amendment process says otherwise.

Let's talk about "flaunting."
Do you think it's OK to have a picture of your wife on your desk? Is that flaunting?

Then so is me having a picture of my husband/boyfriend on my desk.

Is it's flaunting to say that you and your wife went to the theater last weekend?

Then so is me telling you that my husband/boyfriend went to the theater.

Is wearing a cross flaunting?

Then so is me wearing a pink triangle/lambda/any other sign of being gay.

Is having a gathering that celebrates your faith (World Youth Day, for example) flaunting?

Then so is having a Gay Pride parade.

Is having a near-naked man traipsing through the city and being whipped (Stations of the Cross) flaunting?

Then so is a float of less-than-fully dressed men in a Gay Pride parade.

Is showing this near-naked man on TV where impressionable children might be exposed to this sick spectacle flaunting?

Then so is some of the excesses...

Get a grip, people.

Husker2: Monogomous Hedonism
These are undisputed fact.

Fact one: Jews practiced Polygamy

Fact two: Romons and Greeks did not.

Fact three: Rome ocupied palistine

Fact four: Romen law outlwed Poligomy

Fact five: Jews adopted monogomy

Fact six: Christianity adopts monogomy

That is the order of events.

Mellor, thank you,
because almost every one of your examples contrasted a gay symbol versus a Christian one, which illustrates that the two are incompatible.

That having been said, no one should discriminate against anyone else, and no one should be rude to anyone else.

Joseph
Your response did not address why you want to pretend you are not for discrimination when it seems pretty clear that is what you are for.

Nor for that matter are you defending the discrimination in your response. You engage in name calling towards the states that don't discriminate, but your argument such at is is oddly procedural.

Since neither Massachusetts nor California legalized gay marriage based on the US Constitution, it is not clear what the relevance of Madison et al would be. Even if you believe in original intent, it would presumably be the intent of the people who wrote the doctrine. But then I suspect you recognize the feebleness of this appeal since you include the preemptive strike about slavery, so you at least recognize that there is no reason to trust the country's founders on moral matters.

But this gets at why I think the "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing is so seldom deserving of being taken seriously. You have a clearly felt position. Obviously there is no doubt of that. But you seem to have some need to avoid actually defending it. With great umbrance you reject the label of discrimination for what is clearly discrimination. You make procedural arguments because there is some reason why you don't want to make relevant arguments. And it leaves me wondering what kind of arguments are so resistant to the light of day.

Incompatible?
In what way?

You can do as you please.

joseph
"If someone asked me the questions posed to Tallman, I would just say "I wish you well." They may think you are saying 'you, plural,' but you actually mean 'you, singular.' and wishing the other person well doesn't signify approval of their actions or lifestyle. "

What a perfectly reasonable answer, regardless of your feelings about gay marriage! Thank you. I would go further and wish the couple well but your point is well taken. I don't understand why this would be such an issue in the first place. Speaking as an unmarried but coupled gay man, I have probably had to wish at least 10 co-workers (and contribute money to gifts) well in their marriages and attend celebrations given by my employers for these people. I do this not because I particularly care about weddings but because they are people I interact with daily and I actually do wish them well. Also, if having a work party to celebrate a marriage is an acceptable way of sharing your personal life in a work environment, then I hope TH readers can admit the same should be acceptable for gay people acknowledging their own marriages/partnerships in the same environment.

Ah yes, Lon, the old
ad hominem/innuendo argument. I'm surprised you haven't reached for the nuclear retort, a Hitler comparison.

Believe it or not, in this case the procedural is of more concern to me than the substantive. As far as I'm concerned, 2 consenting adults may do as they please, but don't enshrine it into our law, at least by mere judicial decisions, over the desires of the vast majority. We are still a republic of 3 co-equal branches, are we not?

PS In your last weak response, you tried to shift from the rational argument to what i allegedly "pretend," what I allegedly "clearly felt," and that i allegedly had "some need."

Let's make a pact. You stick to the objective argument, and refrain from comical speculations into the subjective, and I will too.

Shut-up and listen
I lost a damn good cousin who drank himself to death. I was hurt that he did this. Many a good friend caught lung cancer and died slowly in front of me; `lost a few more friends. I cared about them. A pedophile instance ruined a good couple's marriage and my wife and I lost a good card playing couple. If some fudge-packer wants me to be a friend, he'd better be on the mend and not flaunt his risky behavior. I have a right to be concerned about 'anyone'; and God help you if you don't like it.

reply to Maximillian
Do you ever really read TH posts? If you did, you'd know that my suggestions are pretty much coin of the realm for TH. If anything, my contributions are a bit more literate than those of some veteran TH posters. Gays are routinely savaged on TH, and all I'm trying to do is to formulate some standard conservative views and positions in the form of recommendations to improve their clarity. I may abhor the substance of conservative views on gays but I have an aesthetic preference for coherence and thus have attempted to promote it.

Week 10 of TH's Gay Obsession
Here are into Week 10 on Town Hall's obsession with all things gay.

I see they've selected several writers this week to pontificate about gay Americans and how we should be treated, prostyltized, shamed, discriminated against, etc., and how Protestant Christianity's beliefs should take precedent over all people.

I can also see that many people heartily agree. Yet, while recoiling in horror at having to at tolerate the existence of gay Americans, and wailing about how they feel "the evil gay agenda" is being forced on them, they turn about have have absolutely no reservation about forcing their Protestant Christian beliefs on others.

Gestell, stop whimpering...
...just because the rest of us don't want to watch you and your gay boyfriend locking tongues in public does not mean we want you burned at the stake.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself.


reply to MellorSJ2
The proper conservative response to the various questions you have should be: "Yes, and what I'm displaying/talking about/etc. is normal and right, while what you're presenting isn't." The parallels you try to draw won't cut it for a real conservative, who readily stipulates that he is right, so he doesn't have to prove it.

Lies from an uneducated man
uber writes- 4:21 PM EST
Monogomous Hedonism
These are undisputed fact.

Fact one: Jews practiced Polygamy
====
Fact.
Jews also sinned against God by many sexual sins. This was not the way God created Marriage.
One man, one woman, Adam and Eve.

To name a sin does not transfer into it being what God created, moron.
Jews also murdered some, hardly means God is for murder, moron.

Adam and Eve.
Two, One man, One women.
Get it?
Nah, you are too twisted in the mind to grasp anything about facts.
====
uber writes-
Fact two: Romons and Greeks did not.
===
ts:
Laws of Nature require nothing but obeying the law that comes naturally.
The Creator of Nature designed this on the 6th day of Creation, and comes naturally.
This is a law of nature.
The gentiles of that period in time were into discovery of natural law.

======

uber writes-
Fact three: Rome ocupied palistine

Fact four: Romen law outlwed Poligomy

Fact five: Jews adopted monogomy

Fact six: Christianity adopts monogomy
====
ts:
3 is right
4 I will take your word for it, for now.
5 Joseph who married Mary was mongamous.
He was a Jew
So was Mary a Jew.
So you are full of bs, period.
Some Jews did, and the lesson from that was Troubles always followed within families.
Always.
Christians have never accepted poligamy.
This not not a Christian teaching from the 1st century until today it is not a part of Christianity.
You do not know what you are talking about is a FACT.
.

Roger
It sounds like you would not have the issue of the person in Tallman's column since you wouldn't be friends with an active "fudge-packer" in the first place.

The issue in the column is how does a Christian or someone else opposed to homosexuality be a real friend to a homosexual that wishes to share that part of his or her life? Is it even truly possible to have a friendship with someone that not only disagrees with a major part of your life (and I hope we can all agree that who you spend your life with is a pretty major thing) but feels the need to voice that disapproval. I know this is an issue for me and my immediate family. There are no easy answers. I would guess that issues like this are similar for someone that is actively opposed to religion or simply not a believer but has close religious friends or family. How do people bridge these gaps? Do you ignore it and act like the differences don't exist? Do you voice disapproval constantly? Or do you voice your concerns in an actual dialogue and then move on to things that you have in common?

I think this column could have been better but I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the author.

Gestell
You neither addressed my non-confrontational 1:47 post not did you accept my challenge.

Pity.

Should you change your mind, invite me to debate on a liberal thread of your choosing. I'll write a reasonable argument on Conservative foundations. We'll soon find out which side is more hospitable to differing viewpoints.

Are we on or not?

Fine work...
Mr. Tallman. A thoughtful and poignant discussion on how to make interpersonal relationships more civil . Bravo!!! Bigotry is wrong, no matter if practiced by the majority of a culture or not. Personal belief systems can, and often do, change over time. Tallman offers constructive techniques for those who are crossing that bridge.

SKorpio, let's see, how much time
do I have? ok
1. You use the word "pontificate" to try to imply on the sly (how about that, 3 rhymed words)that someone is trying to thrust an infallible? message from on high. No one is doing that; we are merely offering human arguments.

2. No one is saying "do not tolerate gays." All that people are saying is "do not impose the gay culture, 'legitimized' by judge-made law, over our dead bodies.

3. No one on the pro-marriage-as-it-has-been-from-creation side is trying to "force" anything on anyone. We are just opposed to judges, and those who agree with them, onto our law books.

4. For the record, I abhor and reject the term "fudge packer."

Gods plan: "Keep it in the family"
If god created Adam and Eve and that is proof of gods preference for monogamy. Is the fact that he only created Adam and eve also proof that god endorsed members of the same familly having sexual realtions with eachother. Or how do you emagion that worked?

What was that plan of god, "be frutfull and multiply, but by the way don't sin, but by the way, there are only two of you and your children so, ha ha, Gotcha."

To Joseph
1. "we are merely offering human arguments." -- not when references are made to the Bible or a system of beliefs and then compaints are made when that reasoning is rejected.

2. No one is saying "do not tolerate gays." All that people are saying is "do not impose the gay culture, 'legitimized' by judge-made law, over our dead bodies.

How do you define "imposition of gay culture" on your bodies? What actions constitute this and what actions do not?

3. No one on the pro-marriage-as-it-has-been-from-creation side is trying to "force" anything on anyone. We are just opposed to judges, and those who agree with them, onto our law books.

Force is used to prevent rather than to compell action in this case. Please don't tell me that you think that anti-gay discrimination is perfectly acceptable?

4. For the record, I abhor and reject the term "fudge packer."

So do I. For the record I believe that the author of this article hit the nail on the head when he said that people don't have a problem with gays until the subject of the sex act arises. Then the "yuck factor" kicks in.

Poliitical Correctness Shall Overrule!!!
As a Conservative Christian Pastor, let me see if I can follow the five "timely" suggestions Mr. Tallman suggests:

1) I apologize for believing the Bible's statements that Homosexuality is incompatible to the lifestyle of a Christian. I apologize that I won't let you use my church building for your marriage ceremony and I apologize that I won't perform you nuptials.

2) I'll say this before you do - I am a traditional values conservative who believes your gay lifestyle is your CHOICE, not because the pineal glands around your right temporal lobe are causing the melatonin to secrete into the cerebrospinal fluid, despite the fact that Melatonin affects reproductive development and daily physiologic cycles and could be the cause for your desire for someone of the same sex.

3) May I please have the right to preach from Romans 1:24-28; I Corinthians 6 and other passages that call living the homosexual life a "sin"?

4) I'm not hurt, in fact I am angry that I have to keep my beliefs in the closet and accommodate your mandates. I'm angry I am forced by law to be politically correct. I'm not going to be quiet about it and I already have an attorney in the family for my defense when you decide to sue me for discrimination.

5) I want to be your friend, but I don't want to accept your lifestyle as a necessity for friendship. Friends don't legislate morality, NOR immorality as defined by either.

If I have these five "suggestions" interpreted correctly, then I either stick by what I say here, or submit to the gay agenda and hide in fear.

To uber
It is not unusual for religions to adopt polygamy when they start out. What better way than to get more members. Remember the Mormans? And, of course Catholics are told not to practice birth control.

to everyone
Has it occured to anyone that Mr. Tallman's article is 100% snark?

The problem is.....................
the majority of social conservatives are not aware of the federal protections afforded to them since March 1998, Oncale vs Sundowndowner Offshore Oil Services, wherein conservatives, in a 9-0 decision were given protection from LGBT hostile work environments, but only because the LGBT community had become so arrogant since the revision of the ALIMPC in 1955, that they believed the sexual assault of a social conservative on the job would have no repercussions. If one understands the basic premise that one's sexual behavior is merely the manifestation of the etiology of abuse specific to one's psychopathology, you will recognize immediately that you do not have to tolerate neurotic behavior from LGBT individuals in the public or private sectors. One caveat, you had better be proficient in your profession and not the typical LGBT slacker or incompetent (going along to get along) and expect to retain your position. I have exercised my rights under Title VII and as a result, sexual harassment training was reimplemented, but of the typical diversity training w/o explanation of the 1998 Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, you always have to watch your back with LGBT staff and management, but do not hesitate to exercise your rights. Learn the personity disorders and character neuroses of the LGBT individual to recognize the particular behaviors. Never forget that it took 43 years before social conservatives were afforded federal protections in the public and private sectors.

Lousy advice
Apologize for truth? Humilty, yes, apologies, no. Mr. Tallman is wide of the mark for a proper Christian response.

'personity'-personality
cursory proof

'Sundowndowner'-Sundowner
fortunately I do not type for a living........

Cowardly Conservatives Getting What They
Deserve!

After spending a couple of decades trying to look like nice, reasonable guys, the conservatives are getting what they deserve, as the activist gay Lefties control the national conversation about homosexuality.

How did the culture become "pro-gay?"

Because we let the Lefties brainwash the younger generations without saying as much as "boo" about it, because we feared that we might be labeled intolerant bigots!

The truth is that homosexuality is not a normal state, that it is caused by developmental issues that happen early in a child's life, and is unfortunate and pitiable, but should not be elevated to the status of an alternative to a normal lifestyle.

Of course, it one stands up and tells the truth, like the little child in The Emperor's New Clothes, the lemmings are shocked, shocked that we would dare to say such a thing.

Well if I tell a guy that he is walking around with his zipper down, I am not being mean, I am telling the truth.

The truth is not hate speech, the truth is the truth, and as in the case of Gore-Bull Warming, it is about time someone had the courage to speak it!

Soon admitting faith in Christ will be
considered hate speech.
Where will the gay agenda stop?
Truly they cannot get inside the human mind and force people to accept their life-style.
How far will they go?
It is not going to stop.
Will public schools force parents to allow the schools to convince their children of the value of homosexuality. The goodness of it. Will children be taken away from parents that are teaching Christian values to their children?

In order to buy and sell am I going to have to bow down? Is this exageration?
Isn't this the same as someone loosing their job or being fined or loosing a license to practice or arrested for hate crimes or churches loosing tax-free status because they do not accept homosexuality to be moral or natural or wise?
How far will homosexual extremists go?
Believers do not apologize for what God has spoken. There are no examples of this in scripture.
We obediently repeat His Words out of love for the homosexual.
In the coming days it will take great courage and possibly great loss to tell the Truth out of love for the homosexual.

Talent Scout
I'm not sure the acceptance of homosexuality destroys a culture. I think perhaps the culture is destroyed and that's why it accepts homosexuality.
We are watching the decay of a once great nation.
Remember in Sodom and Gomorah. The townspeople came to Lot's door and demanded to have sex with his guests.
That's how gross it can get.

This is good advice,
especially for Christians. Jesus advised us to rebuke in love, and I for one tend to lose sight of that in my passion and my desire to "win" an argument.

Outvictim the whining victims?
Outvictim the whining faux victims?

Imitate the weasel tactics of the emotion-over-thought faction?

Are you out of your mind?

Maintaining good relationships with perverts is nowhere near as important as upholding principles of righteousness and truth. Allowing the unwillingness to hurt people's precious, little feelings to keep us from speaking hard truth is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Why is it that only xians...
...use the word "rebuke."

And more to the point, what possible right do they think they have to do it? Such arrogance!

OK Mellors,
Correct, advise, teach. And I've seen you do exactly the same thing from time to time on this board. And doesn't everyone "rebuke" someone or thing at some point in their life? You confuse arrogance with helpful correction.

Chris
Ok, I'll make you the same challenge I just emailed to Tallman.

Name me three Scriptural Examples where a man or woman of God confronted and rebuked a Sin following the Principles Tallman advocates.

Where did Jesus "apologize in advance" or play the victim or hurt card or ask permission?

I can name you a dozen places where he valued Truth over relationship. Everytime he talked to the Pharisees and the Rich Young Ruler, and "get thee behind me Satan" to Peter would make the Total easily.

And as I told Tallman, note the ground rules.
Godly person, confronting and telling the Truth about Sin committed by the person they are addressing. Abigail placating David on behalf of Nabal and Eshter going to the King would not qualify. Nathan to David "you are the man" would qualify, but Nathan did not follow Tallman's principles did he.

Tallman is wrong for an even more deadly reason, then Biblical Inaccuracy, however.
In this particular and specific case, ANY move toward placation has only the effect of legitmizing the behavior. It is the only thing the yqueers will except (love me love my perversion) and the one thing we dare not, if we retain any Scriptural Integrity, grant.

The best we can say with any Biblical Integrity is: "I think you are a real nice guy, Steve, and I love working with you, respect you, and you are welcome in my home any time, but I also think your sexual perversion is regarded by God as Depraved Idolatry and that ought to scare the Hell out of you--and I ain't going to share your risk by helping you push your agenda, can I buy you lunch?"

The Big Mick

A very Good Message, But ...
Your quote, "only the truly strong can afford to appear weak" is, "Only those who are truly strong can afford to be gentle."

"People do not care what we know until they know how much we care." Caring is a strong and compassionate attitude where we share the pain of another, and rejoice with their victory.

I am among many who recognize that respecting others does not mean that we condone behaviors against our won conscience, nor should we expect other to be any different.

More than anything I fell the good will and sincere Ernest caring express with one whose practices we do not embrace or agree with. That is the spirit of tolerance for the person, without acceptance the behavior.

After you have seen your friends who were homosexual lose their life, from AIDS, drugs or suicide it is easy to be compassionate and without getting caught up in lifestyle choices. Gay friends admitted to me that it was their choice. Now the MSM promotion of a myth gay, is genetic has clearly been acknowledged as incorrect by the same gay researchers MSM had claimed proved Gays were born that way.

It is and will be proven to be an addiction to sex, with a preference to same sex partners in unhealthy extremes. A practice leading to disease, emotional trauma, some times suicide or premature death. Alcoholics have a longer average life expectancy than Homosexuals.

Papers presented to the Eastern Psychological Association , where seven thousand Gays and heterosexuals by obituary notices in a large number of gay and smaller number of large non-gay newspapers. Their find, gay life, excluding AIDS, compared to married men was shorter by more than three decades. AIDS shortened that by 7% more. They do disserve our compassion, and sincere encouragement to beat that rap when the choose to do so

That's another word only xians use
"Correction."

You have no right to correct me, unless I ask for your advice or opinion.

Mellor on rebuke
It's a Biblical term, command even.

To quote Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire: "The arrogance lies, sir, with those who attempt to force a man to act against his beliefs."

All Christianity says is: "God says Homosexuality is a Perversion akin to the worst kind of Idolatry." You don't buy it, your risk, but telling us we can't call Sin Sin is an arrogance greater than or equal to that you accuse us of.

ya pays ya money and ya makes ya choice, there is no more arrogance on one side than the other.

Truth is Truth, arrogance is the standard cry of those to whom Truth is an anathema.

The big mick

mellor on right of correction
tell that to the next cop who stops you for speeding. Or to your wife when you get the story you are telling to the neighbor wrong.
Or to the IRS if you screw up your return.

Hell, tell it to yourself when somebody steals your seat on a bus, or takes the cab you just hailed.

the big mick

Ranger
OK slick, you tell your boss--"I think you are a pervert" and see how your work place "wa" prospers.

Anybody can get along with anybody if you are willing to GO along.

Christianity Teaches yHomosex is a perversion connected to and undergirding IDOLATRY--telling God to kiss your asz.

Getting along with Homos is easy as long as one keeps THAT bit of Reality to one's self.

If you think any yhomo is going to settle for anything other than "go ahead and fudgepack all you want, it's cool with me", you are in denial.

Thus it boils down to, "love me love my perversion or keep your 'bible banging' mouth shut." Note both examples by Tallman of the workplace did not allow Christians this option. One yhomo demanded enthusiasm for yqueer marriage, the other was an initiative to "norm" yhomosex in the workplace. Mere silence was not ALLOWED.

the big mick

Sort of good
Tallman seems sincere, but I have to wonder about this statement:

"Honestly, gay sex grosses me out."

Is something like this really necessary? Who responds to news about a marriage with thoughts of sex and behavior? When a friend tells me they are getting married, I don't think about sex. The fact that this is the first statement that Tallman recommends tells me that there's a hangup issue here and a total misunderstanding.

Besides, that statement is guaranteed to insult. Even though there is no comparison to being in the closet due to one's sexual orientation and feeling one isn't free to express one's religious beliefs, Tallman's recommendation would be as offensive as a non-religious friend stating: "Look, I find your religious beliefs really childish." It isn't necessary at all. Friends don't say unecessary things that are bound to insult.

Perhaps a word about attempting to understand that the gay friend is happy about his/her relationship and only wants to share that happiness with his/her friends. Gay people are no different than everyone else on this point, or on really any point.

This is also not smart: "I hope you’re willing to accept me while knowing what I believe just like I’m willing to accept you while knowing what you do.”

Gay people, being people, don't view their serious relationships as "something they do." Saying this is a clear signal that you just don't get it. Since it isn't natural to assume someone else's serious relationships can be dismissed as "something they do" the person that this is directed toward will probably hear this as a backhanded and possibly even as an intentional insult. Tallman shows that he wants to understand, but I don't think he truly does.

Nothing difficult about working with....
LGBT individuals. It's the LGBT community's narcissistically hostile and borderline confrontational behavior directed toward any social conservative, religious or secular. Please spare us the passive-aggressive reponses. If meritocracy is the goal of ENDA, the LGBT community stands to lose in the public and sector. No slackers or incompetents allowed. The end of affirmative action as we know it.

Berto! That you? Ranger 29
Yup, should have spotted the Ranger 29 as a Bert alias.

Who said anything about anybody forcing me to BECOME anything, Bert? Chapter and verse, boy, chapter and verse--EXACT quote, please.

The Brit olympic Committee wanted Liddell to run on Sunday, the yqueers will ONLY accept the legitmization of their Sexual perversion. What they want from ME is to say "it's cool". I ain't gonna say it, cause it ain't.

the big mick

"I fear the rattlesnake because I fear his bite, I loathe dogsheite because it stinks and carries disease." So much for my fear factor here.


Reason
Honestly, gay sex grosses me out.
Too

I understand all about it, perfectly, I understand it is perverted lust.

What do you not understand?

Bert baby.
And I didn't say, or even imply, anybody was a "sex crazed monster." What I did say was that Christianity Teaches homosexual intercourse is a sexual perversion descending from and undergirding Idolatry, the worship of Creature rather than Creator. Being a pervert does not make one a monster. Hell, I've got my own perversions.
Basing one's entire identify ON one's sexual perversion, however, MIGHT qualify as being a fixation of monsterous proportions.

And I stand by my statement that the whole yqueer agenda thing is ABOUT nothing but LEGITMIZING and NORMING sexual perversion. Everything else is blowing smoke up the gullible's asz, Bert.

Thanks for confirming what I always suspected you were really about, perBert. All smoke.

the big mick

Respect as people

I get along fine with the gay folks I have personally known. I have been lucky enough not to have known any who try to force me to condone it. As long as they respect me as a person, I will surely return the favor.

But I fear that forced acceptance is where all this is headed, and the American church should brace itself for the coming persecution. Don't you believe for one minute they wont be suing churches who refuse to perform their ceremonies. They have already successfully sued a Christian wedding photographer.

On the bright side, maybe this will set a fire under the church, and get her back to her mission.

DHulme:
There are "in your face" and passive-agressive people in any community, including yours. It has been my experience that people who I know to be gay, but who others do not, almost always turn the other cheek in the face of nasty anti-gay comments or behavior. This is not an easy thing to do and it can take an emotional toll, especially if you allow another person's repeated poor behavior to drag you down. Yet, this is by far the more common response to anti-gay behavior. Turn the other cheek. It all depends on where you live and how you feel about yourself.

the big mick
Ya know what my agenda is? Being able to visit my partner in the hospital without his parents permission. To be able to will my money to him without being challenged in court by some family member. To be able to go to my workplace, put his picture on my desk without some confrontational christian yelling out their "disgust". Its as simple as that. Only people like you thinks its about sex - one wonders why you are are obsessed with it. What are you suppressing that you are so disgusted two guys holding hands? What in your past made you lack so much confidence in yourself?


Abhor the practice not the People.
Ranger29 Location: TX
Reply # 83
Date: Jul 24, 2008 - 10:28 PM EST
Subject: hebigmick that makes no sense
whatsoever.

Hi Ranger29 “Roberto”

The activist nature of Homosexual promoters and their appetite for attention as they concentrate their masses where a vote counts is a serious concern, for the life long citizens there.

Homosexuals are a threat first to their own freedom and secondly to the freedom of our children.

We need to help them to realize that that their own activists, the Porn, drug, and condom industries to exploit their excess, sickness and addictions. These industries do not make money without excesses and addictions of homosexuals, so they work to enlarge their market as they promote homosexuality.

I feel the homosexuals are for the most part respectable nice people, and it would be better were it not for the promoters, that I am beginning to realize are not even homosexuals themselves

night all
click on the underlined name and you can get to my blog, if you give a hoot. that's all for me tonight.

Though I will point out that if Whoopi Goldberg thinks the n-word is endearing who am I to contradict her darling little choclate N self?
Though I do wonder if she feels the same way about "Ybitch" and "yho". Can one make the case those are terms being "reclaimed" by the N-culture? Note I have been consistent in using the reclaimed term "yqueer". Call me a sematic recycler and color me green. Can I make a trade and "reclaim" "Gay" back to meaning "happy and carefree" rather than "a sexual pervert"? Just asking.

the big mick

talent scout
Tallman was telling his readers that a good way to keep a gay friend who tells you they are getting married is to boil that friend's serious relationship down to a sex act and then to say that that act is "gross." If the goal is to keep the friend, as Tallman tells us should be the goal, then I think it is clear that Tallman doesn't understand.

Reason..........
the thread was addressing workplace conditions in the public and private sector. The behavior addressed is consistent with LGBT behavior in the public and private sectors, thus my response by excercising my rights under Title VII. I have as yet to see a straight call an LGBT individual a "f*g" or "dy*e" in the workplace, yet commonly hear LGBT individuals conferring amongst themselves as "b*tches", "wh*res", and "s*uts". I've assimilated the behavior so as not to appear as "odd man out".

However, if you are foolish enough to seriously address a straight male as a "b*tch" in front of LGBT women, I will out you.

I see the Town Hall troll
Has returned

I wish all you people who respond to robert would stop responding to him, you just feed the troll.
"ranger 29"
And 20-30 other screen names, he has been booted that many times

A Time to Shun
I plan to shun homosexuals whenever possible. I do not hate them nor wish them harm, but they leave me no alternative.

We have the right of association and I plan to use it.

Americans need to be strong about shunning homosexual family member by keeping them away from family evients with children.

Homosexuals may fell pretty full of themselves about forcing something on the American people which they do not want, but the American people can get back at them through shunning.

It may be that more will still stay in the closet as a result of this.

RAngers29
I will take that thougt and run to work. I will share where I am comming from.

Thanks
Until later

DHulme
Sounds like we work in a totally different environment. I've never heard a gay man or gay woman use that language amongst themselves at work. Maybe this is a blue collar vs. white collar thing? I don't know.

you go bert boy
Keep on making the case that getting a hot rod shoved up your back door is "intimacy." So that's what it is when my Doc does that part of the physical! I thought it was medicine.

I don't give a damn if it turns you on, Bert, don't give a damn if you DO it. You want to spit in God's eye that's YOUR look out.

But I ain't going to call it ANYTHING but perversion Bert! That is not seeking control over anybody or showing fear of anything, it's simply calling perversion perversion. It's called dealing with reality and telling the Truth, Bert. You ought to try it sometime.

The attempt at control here is in your attempting to redefine the issues, accuse your opponents of things they have never done or said, and to your desire to disallow their dissent from "yqueersex is just all right with me" mantra. Real tolerant of ya there, Bert.
Real Liberal of yah. So much for you "reclaiming" the Repube-lican Party for the moronic mythical middle moderates.

night bert

the big mick

Unfortunately...........
it exists in both environments. Such is life being constrained by child support.

If my opinion makes me the enemy

Of a sodomite, then its because he is the problem and cannot accept my right to be disgusted with degenerate sexual perversions.
====


Reason writes:- 11:12 PM EST
talent scout
Tallman was telling his readers that a good way to keep a gay friend who tells you they are getting married is to boil that friend's serious relationship down to a sex act and then to say that that act is "gross."
=====
ts:
If Tallman feels a friendship with any man is more important than his own liberty and freedom of mind to think as he believes, he has that right.
If my opinion of a matter is force, then so is his on me, if he differs in opinion and speaks his mind.
I am not forcing anything by my speech, just exercising my own right to make up my own mind.
Exercising my Rights to believe as I am free to believe.
If this is a reason for another person to not want my friendship, I can live with it and even do it peacefully.

I will not tolerate any man telling me what I can believe in or have the right to speak.
I think sodomy is disgusting sexual deviancy, period.
If that makes anyone mad at me, I can live with it and move right along minding my own business.
If he wants to make it a problem, i can deal with that too, in whatever method he chooses.

I bow to no man, and will never accept sodomites as normal.
Doesn't matter what any judge or politician says about my rights either.









Ranger29


(CNSNews.com) - The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled on Wednesday that an evangelical Christian photographer discriminated against a lesbian couple by refusing a job to photograph the couple’s same-sex commitment ceremony. Religious rights attorneys plan to appeal.

The commission ordered Elaine and Jon Huenins, owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, N.M., to pay the lesbian couple $6,600 in attorney fees.

“It is just a stunning disregard for the First Amendment,” said Jordan Lorence, a senior legal counsel for the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the photographer couple in court.

“(Willock) had requested via e-mail for Elane Photography to conduct photography for her commitment ceremony, and the owner of Elane Photography responded that she would not perform that photography session because it was a same-sex commitment ceremony,” Moritomo told Cybercast News Service .

Lorence said the Huenins, who are fervent evangelicals, politely declined the request because they did not want to use their art to disparage traditional heterosexual marriage. That should have been the end of the matter, he said.

God, bert, when are you going to wise up
You ought to know better than to go all "Jesus" on ME, ol sod!

Let's see, Jesus forcing himself on someone? Beating the crap out of a bunch of innocent merchants in the temple, showing up in First Nazareth Church on Sunday morning and telling them they were worse that Sodom, telling Zacheus to get his asz down from the tree and get lunch on the table. Showing up in the Cemetary and kicking all those poor innocent demons out of that innocent crazy guy who didn't ask him to come? The pigs didn't ask for the demons either and they ended up dead! And did Jesus make restitution? The High Priest didn't ask him to show up in Jerusalem, the synagog officials didn't ask him to heal on the Sabbath. Naw, Bert, Jesus rammed a whole lot of Truth down a whole bunch of In Denial Throats. You on the short end of that parable.

the big mick

this really is goodnight bert
Bert, it don't get much MORE forceful on somebody then to say to them, as Jesus preached everywhere he went: "The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the good news."

Which could be put accurately: "Get your asz in gear in do what God tells you or suffer the consequences cause here come de Judge."

You can't get Tolerance of Sexual Perversion out of Jesus message. Just ain't there, Bert.

But hey, you don't really give a damn do you?

Jesus did INDEED Force His Messiahship on the Nation--still is. Forgiveness and Forebearance are Christian Virtues, Bert. Tolerance is not.

The Big Mick


Talent Scout
I don't think it is possible to interpret Tallman's column as a statement that places friendship above one's liberty and freedom of thought. At no point does he imply that anyone should have to give up either. He simply attempted to lay out a course of action that he believes would allow him to keep the friend while preserving his freedom of thought. I believe that it is entirely possible to do both, but I think Tallman's lack of understanding of how his words would be received by his friend would prevent him from achieving his goal.

That was my only argument. I don't believe anyone should be forced to adopt a viewpoint that they don't believe in. Having said that, I do believe that anyone who behaves in a way that can reasonably be interpreted as hostile should be warned and then dismissed if that work-place behavior does not change. This principle goes both ways. If a gay person is acting in a hostile way, I believe that person should be warned and then dismissed if the behavior continues.

Suggestion

This advice is not the best I have heard. For one thing, I would leave out the "Honestly gay sex grosses me out" part. Secondly, it goes on way too long. Nobody would be listening by the time the person was done. Actually, this is so poorly done it almost seems like satire.

Really?
Why are we discussing my sexual orientation and your reigion at work anyway? If we both do our jobs well what does any of that matter? We will likely never be friends, because aside from work we probably have very little in common and there is nothing wrong with that.

However nobody should be indulging in childish name calling or belittlement either. For the first time on Town Hall I had to flag a previous post as offensive as it was calling for threatening and attacking gay people which is behavior that should be completely unacceptable in a civilized society--no matter how much you disagree with someone.

For the record, straight sex grosses me out just as much as gay sex grosses you out (not that I enjoy watching anyone go at it) and I'm subjected to obsessive discussions and graphic depictions of it all the time--not just the knowledge that it goes on but actual moving pictures--you straight people have no right to accuse gays of "flaunting" when this constant in-your-face depiction of straight sex continues.

K'ssandra has a point...but
As to Reply #2: that is factually untrue that gay people have determined for too long the agenda.
What?!
Gay people have had to go along to get along under color of threat, compromise of human rights, let alone civil ones! It's only within a very short time has how their lives are AFFECTED by this threat been allowed.

And my question deserves an answer: how is it that when gay people participate in the very things that are considered noble and expected in heterosexuals like marriage, raising children, serving in the military or a community in another way of merit, it's PERCEIVED as destructive?

In fact, it can be no more destructive given the same field of opportunity and practice.
It's one thing to devalue a gay person's life because it's tradition to, and another to be JUSTIFIED in doing it.
And it's the justification that isn't there.

I agree with talent scout
This is simply another example of Christians being trained to compromise their beliefs and accept second class citizenship.

It argues from a position of weakness, not humility. It also is consistent with the Emergent Churches' desire to not have to suffer for the Faith. We can't have it both ways.

What should be said is, "No, I will not come to your wedding because, first, I don't consider it marriage and second, homosexuality is a sin and I will not celebrate it and because I care more about your eternal destiny than your earthly comfort, I am telling you the Truth".

Mr. Tallman seems to think that the Biblical injunction to "be humble" means to "be humble" towards sinful man. Slight mistake.

Society may have many cultures but
Should have only one system of moral values, which we all must adhere too, which no organization outside the people and the churches of every denomination may define and agree by mutual consensus along with the citizens not of any faith concerning conduct or limit of conduce in public places, and those which are understood to ennoble family and marital relations, that are not abusive, degrading or offensive before God.

When a society begins to fail, the children are the ones that are effected most by a departure from the principles of a sound society.

There is no place for duplicity of values; and compromise is out of the question. As I have said, I know some very nice persons who are gay and they think that gay activists create more problems for them than do heterosexuals. In fact they feel less abuse from heterosexuals than from other gays, and more so from the men.

Male Homosexuality is a very risky lifestyle and as research reveals a heterosexual married man will live on average more that 3 decades longer than a homosexual man and if you factor in AIDS it is a grater difference by 7%--if 70 yrs., is the average for a heterosexual married man, then gay men would live on average 35-40 yrs. So some may live only 30 while others may live 45 yrs, or a few could die as young as 22 or a few could live up to 59 years.

Since Americas values were founded upon Jewish and Christian values and that Constitutions upholds that churches have the power or jurisdiction over the moral teachings of its members in spirituals teaching and sound doctrine. Secular or others who do not believe in god, will be subject to the moral protections of the Constitution but...

See My Blog for the full message ...
http://e-spirituality.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/25/ideally_s ociety_may_have_many_cultures_but.thtml

Genes or Brains Not To Blame
du
Location: CA

Reply # 113
Date: Jul 25, 2008 - 2:48 AM EST

"And my question deserves an answer: how is it that when gay people participate in the very things that are considered noble and expected in heterosexuals like marriage, raising children, serving in the military or a community in another way of merit, it's PERCEIVED as destructive?"

By virtue of the fact that we are not borne heterosexual nor are we born of any other sexual orientation, only to the degree that we were born to be doctors or teachers. It is learned. Sexuality is polymorphic and sexual addiction is a problem where national security depends on individuals who feel they can compromise the moral standing of the nation.

You know the answer is because you cannot be trusted to the same degree that the more disciplined can be trusted. So many homosexuals are so much into themselves as in ego, that status is more important than service. That means doing good to others and not advertising, or barging, like is insinuated in your question.

To be tolerated and not promoted my friend. The sincere gay friends I have are not as pretentious as you have been, and do not claim they were born that way, and are progressively exploring and learning the better way. They are very humble and beautiful persons who have real courage and dignity.

You could do just the same, and be more satisfied with no need to justify.

Du, could you tell me why you do not do what you should do?

http://e-spirituality.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/25/ideally_s ociety_may_have_many_cultures_but.thtml

not born heterosexual? give me a break
The Lord God made them male and female. Adam was made for Eve and likewise Eve made for Adam. Christianity does not speak of any other ordained relationships (marriage wise) other than one man and one woman in a committed union. All other relationships are bogus.


A LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION


"Honoured Sir,"

"Since you are pleased to inquire what are my thoughts about the mutual toleration of Christians in their different professions of religion, I must needs answer you freely that I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church. For whatsoever some people boast of the antiquity of places and names, or of the pomp of their outward worship; others, of the reformation of their discipline; all, of the orthodoxy of their faith—for everyone is orthodox to himself—these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself. "The kings of the Gentiles exercise leadership over them," said our Saviour to his disciples, "but ye shall not be so." The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising of compulsive force, but to the regulating of men's lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices."
--John Lock “A LETTER CONCERNING TOLERATION”
“Locke wrote a constitution for the Carolina Colony in North America, but it was never put into effect.”

We are Not Born Heterosexual
scottlds
Location: GA

Reply # 117
Date: Jul 25, 2008 - 9:04 AM EST
"Subject: not born heterosexual? give me a break"

We are born to be heterosexual, it is a choice and neither are homosexuals born homosexual.

It is learned behavior.

God made us male and female yes, and if we were born with only the heterosexual attraction, why did God give commandments against Sodomy and other perversions?

Thank you for you comment.

Principle 0:
Everyone declares themselves gay.

It is a simple issue.

If everyone in the world refused to engage in sodomy, the world would be a better place.

If everyone in the world refused to engage in coitus, the world would cease to exist.

The differences between sodomy and coitus is infinite. Only an idiot could argue the government should treat the two acts as equal.

Monogamy and polygyny in Greece and Rome
"The true historical significance of Greco-Roman SIUM may well lie in its impact on the Christian tradition. The current (Catholic but generally representative) position that polygamy “is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive” betrays modern sensibilities and does not appear to be directly derived from earliest Christian doctrine.71 In the early fifth century CE Augustine called monogamy a “Roman custom.”72 Pauline Christianity may well have been monogamous because it evolved in a Greco-Roman context and not because of anything that was specific to this movement, let alone its latently polygamous Jewish background.73 If the Christian church(es) preserved SIUM as a Greco-Roman norm and if the more autonomous medieval ecclesiastical leadership was indeed a driving force behind the gradual reinforcement of SIUM and cognate practices, Greco-Roman emphasis on SIUM would deserve a prominent place in a comprehensive history of monogamy that has yet to be written.74"

71 Catholic Catechism 2387.
72 De bono coniugali (“On the Good of Marriage”) 7.
73 Paul, 1 Timothy 3.2 envisions an episkopos who was the “husband of one wife.” Satlow 2001: 189-92 discusses the evidence for Jewish polygyny in the New Testament period and the Rabbinic tradition.
74 The neglect of this phenomenon by historians is astounding in its pervasiveness: there are now more recent book-length studies of incest in various historical societies (e.g., Archibald 2001; Héritier 2002; Moreau 2002; van Gelder 2005) than of monogamy and polygamy prior to the onset of Mormonism. I hope to address this deficit in a future monograph.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf

Ahh I see it's time again...
To repeat the Top 10 Gay Myths believed by the anti-gay (aka "pro-family") activists:

1. Homosexuality is not genetic but is learned or contracted like a disease.
2. You can get gay by being in close proximity to gay people or by touch.
3. Gay people cannot create themselves but do so by recruiting others to join the cause (see #2).
4. All gay men are pedophiles (see #3) and lust after children everywhere.
5. Gay people are unhappy because they don't share Prostestant Christian beliefs.
6. It is the duty of Protestant Christians to use their Bible as a weapon to browbeat gay people (and everyone else) into submitting to the will of God, by force if needed (just like Muslims do).
7. Gay people are sex-crazed infiltrators into American society. Thus, their removal and supression is of almost a national security issue. Also, sex is bad and is only allowable to create children (just like the Puritans said).
8. Gay people are part of a secret conspiracy (aka "agenda) to transform the USA into a Left Wing paradise. This conspiracy is vast and deep, and includes the media, Hollywood, TV networks, and many more operating from the shadows.
9. God will smite all of us if anyone even extends the smallest gesture of civility or indifference to gay people. It is that fear that keeps us in line; nay, it is that fear that commands all Protestant Christians to oppose anything gay wherever it exists. Leviticus, et al, says so.
10. Gay people's mere existence should be classified as "flaunting". Being in public, holding hands, flying a flag, displaying the equality sign are all examples of "flaunting". Displays of the crucifix, heterosexuals holdings hands, flying the American flag, etc., is not considered "flaunting".

For eddie too
Nothing is simple, eddie.

You have not explained why if everybody stopped having anal sex (or oral sex) the world would be a better place. You may say that YOU do not like doing it, but the rest of us like a little bit of change, once in a while, and there is no harm between consenting adults.

If it is your cult beliefs that dictate this to you, thank you for sharing, but not all of us are members of your cult.


Talking with Gays
I thought this was an excellent column. People of all orientations would enhance their communications if these principals were followed. Humility is a virtue, not a weakness. False humility used as a tactic, however, will backfire.

Andrew
Great column, very loving and concerned for the individual. I showed the column to my son who is going to be interning on your show starting August..

BJ too
What?

ModMark
I'm quite afraid bestiality is society's business. One needn't ally with PETA to abhore such gratuitous animal cruelty. Claiming the act consentual is not a valid defense. Being a neocon, I'd prefer to execute such freaks but will settle for imprisoning them.

I'm amused to learn that libertarians support bestiality rights. Please encourage Barr to make this a central campaign issue.

BESTIALITORS FOR BOB BARR!!!

uber - Re: Reply #108 (Part 1 of 3)


In reply #108 (Jul 25, 2008 - 9:21 AM), uber referenced an article published in the New York Times, in 1881 (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E07 E6D8153BE033A25756C2A96F9C94609FD7CF&oref=slogin)



uber’s referenced article says: “Monogamy and Christianity - The theory that monogamy is peculiarly a Christian institution, that home and all the sentiments that pertain to it grow distinctly out of Christian teachings, is very common.”


It is a common belief, and for good reason. Teachings from the Christian era, back to the Mosaic era before it (i.e., Law of Moses, beginning about Exodus 20), back to the Patriarchal era before it (i.e., Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), all the way back to the beginning when the first Woman was created and given to Adam (Genesis 2:21-24), all came from the same God.

There is no human history that pre-dates Adam and Eve.


~~~


uber’s referenced article says: “But it is a sentiment only, and will not bear the test of historic evidence.”


Yes, it will bear the test of historic evidence; the problem is, the author of the article referenced by Uber appears to have considered only the so-called “evidence” (without citation or substantiation) that supported his preconceived notions, and apparently ignored that which did not support his position.

All that uber’s referenced article demonstrates is that the NY Times has exhibited questionable journalistic standards at least as far back as the date of this article’s publication in 1881, at a time when God’s Word in the Bible was certainly much more widely known in this country than it is today.


uber - Re: Reply #108 (Part 2 of 3)


uber’s referenced article says: “Monogamy does not come distinctly from the teachings of Christ nor of his apostles; nor does the sacredness and integrity of home directly arise therefrom.”


“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3, KJV)

The Word in the passage above is Jesus Christ: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made, from the beginning. So let’s go back to the beginning, to Genesis, long before the Greeks or the Romans:

“And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; [22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. [23] And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. [24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:21-24)

Jesus Christ (i.e., the Word, John 1:1) cited (and affirmed) the Word of God in Genesis 2:24 -

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? [6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

So monogamy does indeed come distinctly from Christ, since Genesis, and all things were made by Him.


uber - Re: Reply #108 (Part 3 of 3)


uber’s referenced article says: “Monogamy and polygamy have always been divided by race and section, one being an Occidental and the other an Oriental institution. Monogamy is pagan in its foundation rather than Christian. It existed in Greece and Rome long before long before Christianity was known, and it was firmly fixed among the Germanic tribes from the earliest period.”


Monogamy in marriage was instituted by God (see previous post), beginning with Adam and Eve, in Genesis. This was long before Occidental or Oriental, long before Greece and Rome, long before any Germanic tribes.

It was also long before Christianity of course, even before Judah, before Jacob, before Isaac, before Abraham, and before Noah, who was before the Flood.

It was before Lamech (Noah’s father)
before Methuselah
before Enoch (Noah’s great great grandfather)
before Jared
before Mahalalel
before Cainan
before Enos (Noah’s great great great great great great grandfather)
and before Seth, who was the father of Enos and the son of Adam, whose wife was Eve.

It was through this lineage that the Messiah, the Son of God would come (“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”, John 1:14a), as prophesied in the beginning, when God addressed the serpent after Adam and Eve had sinned, revealing the beginning of His plan of salvation:

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15, KJV)

Monogamy in marriage was instituted by God before all these things, since the second human was created: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

Wife.

Not wives.

But monogamy was NOT before Christ, the Creator of all things, including the institution of marriage:

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:3)


pink hand strikes again
can anyone give me 1 positive healthy aspect for a homosexual relationship or homosexual marriage.


a.b. normal
lancaster, mexifornia
dial 1 for english

AlphaOmega, Re: Reply #115 (Part 1 of 3)


Hi AO,

AlphaOmega writes: “For bigmick and other members of the cult of the Jew who walks on water.”


I believe you are referring to followers of Jesus Christ, who died and then rose again on the third day, and who paid the price for our sins, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. " (John 3:15, KJV)

People who believe that Christ was the only begotten Son of God have been called Christians since the first century AD:

“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26)


~~~


AlphaOmega writes: “I can see that you think it is your god-given right, if a gay co-worker talks about his marriage, to tell him "You are a sinner before god, gay sex disgusts me and you are all burning in hell". Not the most friendly talk, but sincere.”


I would not call it a “right”, but it is a kind of obligation (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2, Jude 1:3, Mark 16:15, et. al) that a Christian ought to try to fulfill honestly and directly, in a spirit of love and genuine concern for our fellow man.

Whether “gay sex disgusts me” or not is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what does or doesn’t “disgust” me, what matters is what God’s Word says, and God’s Word says that homosexual conduct is sin (cf. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:7-8, et al).

God’s Word also says that it is sin which separates us from Him, that all men are sinners (Romans 3:23), and in order to be saved we must be born again (cf. John 3:3-7). We must obey the Gospel of Christ.

So if we care about others, we will try to teach and share God’s Word with others, so that they might be saved. And if we care about obeying God’s commandments, we will do the same.

“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46)


AlphaOmega, Re: Reply #115 (Part 2 of 3)


AlphaOmega writes: “I wanted to ask: when you hear that a co-worker is getting a divorse, do you tell him that god disapproves, and he is a sinner?”


We are all sinners. We are all in the same boat, in that regard, and so we are all in need of salvation.

If we find out that a co-worker is considering divorce, and the co-worker is either not a Christian or otherwise doesn’t understand the possible ramifications of such a decision, we should try to find a way to talk with them, if we can. It might not be easy, and if the marriage is truly irreconcilable or if divorce proceedings have already begun, he or she may not be in a state of mind to give God’s Word a fair hearing.

But we should try, just the same. It is not our place to decide for someone else whether they might be interested in hearing God’s Word, or whether we think they might obey or not; we should share what God’s Word says with people, hope that they will hear us out and see what the Bible says with us, and then let them decide for themselves. At that point, at least they can make an informed decision. It is easier said than done, but if we don’t try, we won’t get any better at it. Like anything else, with practice, our ability to talk with people about God’s Word or difficult subjects (or both) should improve.

According to God’s Word, whether a divorce (or potential re-marriage) is sinful or not depends on the circumstances of the divorce. Fornication by one spouse is an acceptable cause for divorce (if divorce is chosen and initiated by the faithful spouse), unless the faithful spouse chooses instead to reconcile.

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)


AlphaOmega, Re: Reply #115 (Part 3 of 3)


AlphaOmega writes: “If you find out that he is getting a divorce because he had an affair (Like Newt Gingrich, let's say), will you tell him that he and his $lut deserve to be killed? Enlighten me.”


According to God’s Word, if a married man or woman has extramarital sexual relations (i.e., commits fornication), the faithful spouse is the only one who can lawfully choose to divorce, or choose to forgive and reconcile the marriage.

Adultery was punishable by death under the OT Law of Moses, given by God to the Jews. Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and ended it, nailing it to His cross (cf. Colossians 2:14, Galatians 3:24-25, Hebrews 8:6-7, 8:13, 2 Corinthians 3:14, et al)


Both Jew and Gentile are now together under one law, the New Testament law of Christ:

“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; [15] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; [16] And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” (Ephesians 2:14-16, KJV)


So in your example, the man (and the woman with whom he committed fornication) are not commanded “to be killed” under the New Testament law of Christ.

According to God’s Word, the faithful spouse has the right to seek a lawful divorce, if he (or she) chooses. If a divorce is obtained for just cause (i.e., fornication, Matthew 19:9), then the faithful spouse can re-marry.

If the unfaithful spouse is divorced and remarries, that person commits adultery, and so does the person to whom he or she marries:


“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9)


Is this not what the Word of God says?


Spiceman, you think
that's an answer? What you have displayed is an opinion marked by stereotype and prejudice. And opinion also that does not consider the mitigating circumstances of living in a hostile environment.

Sexual orientation heterosexual or homosexual IS an inborn, inherent trait that is morally neutral.
However, if instructed and SUPPORTED both, in the guidelines of monogamy, marriage and early fair treatment, the results would and usually ARE the same.
But perception and expectations are distorted regarding gay lives and treatment in the main are unpredictable for the gay person.
And despite all this, gay people respond by utilizing due process of law, integration into the main and peaceful challenge to grievances.

The perceptions are distorted to the level of farce sometimes, as are the complaints against gay people.
Your answer STILL doesn't explain justifying gay people NOT participating in what's noble for heterosexuals.
You only rationalized it.

Let Us Ponder In All Honesty The Truth
Let Us Ponder In All Honesty The Truth

du
Location: CA

Reply # 131
Date: Jul 26, 2008 - 1:44 PM EST Subject: Spiceman, you think
that's an answer? What you have displayed is an opinion marked by stereotype and prejudice. And opinion also that does not consider the mitigating circumstances of living in a hostile environment.

Sexual orientation heterosexual or homosexual IS an inborn, inherent trait that is morally neutral.
---
Nothing is morally neutral, It is moral or it is immoral.
mor·al
adj
1. “involving right and wrong: relating to issues of right and wrong and to how individuals should behave.”

Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health admitted, "The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed..."

Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego
refuted what was falsely claimed when he admitted, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

As you suggested that I was stating an opinion of prejudice, but forgive me, I am stating the facts that gay researchers acknowledged to clear there names, and to correct the record.

We are born with biological characteristics, color of hair, race, etc., but we are not born to lifestyles or cultural disciplines, these are learned. You do not agree, but I assure you that we can not redefine a virtue or vice to our liking. Moral principle and law ...
Continued ...
http://e-spirituality.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/27/let_us_po nder_in_all_honesty_the_truth_4.thtml

God's Ancient Promise to America
Jaredites were lead to America away from Bable

(Book of Mormon | Ether 2:6 - 12)
6 And it came to pass that they did travel in the wilderness, and did build barges, in which they did cross many waters, being directed continually by the hand of the Lord.
7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.
8 AND HE HAD SWORN IN HIS WRATH UNTO THE BROTHER OF JARED, THAT WHOSO SHOULD POSSESS THIS LAND OF PROMISE, FROM THAT TIME HENCEFORTH AND FOREVER, SHOULD SERVE HIM, THE TRUE AND ONLY GOD, OR THEY SHOULD BE SWEPT OFF WHEN THE FULNESS OF HIS WRATH SHOULD COME UPON THEM.
9 And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity.
10 For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off.
11 AND THIS COMETH UNTO YOU, O YE GENTILES, THAT YE MAY KNOW THE DECREES OF GOD—THAT YE MAY REPENT, AND NOT CONTINUE IN YOUR INIQUITIES UNTIL THE FULNESS COME, THAT YE MAY NOT BRING DOWN THE FULNESS OF THE WRATH OF GOD UPON YOU AS THE INHABITANTS OF THE LAND HAVE HITHERTO DONE.
12 Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

so spiceman
I haven't reiterated that homosexuality was genetic. Heterosexuality isn't genetic either.

The inherency of SEXUAL orientation is the same, hetero or homosexual.
Neither has a genetic component, and culture, family structure or religion does not affect the incidence of homosexuality. Only how gay people are treated, and how the gay person responds to it.

Heterosexuality is not a lifestyle, it's not referred to as such and although there is a predominance of it, it's not something that imbues a person with morality or virtues. The same is true for homosexuals.
The closest analogy, that homosexuality has, is heterosexuality. Much of the natural world is in opposition and less common than some counterparts, but that's no indication of incompetence, mental, physical or intellectual or moral retardation.

Which also is what the reports you cited usually say, but that the anti gay don't report fully.

if and when
given the same support, opportunity and tasks, there is virtually no difference between a gay and straight person. But gay children, from and early age are given contradictory messages that are difficult to process the way their hetero counterparts do not have to.

A positive response to a gay young person, has positive outcomes. Negative ones put them at risk for difficulty later.
THIS is a proven, not subjective result that would occur in any young person, gay or not.

Morality is about CIVILITY, about cooperative and collaborative behavior to a greater good. Gay people can participate and DO in such and shouldn't be excluded.
Inclusion in institutions that are AFFIRMING, such as marriage and child care or simply remaining close to the family of origin does no harm, but affirms as it would a person who is straight.

Why anyone would think negative behavior, inculcation of gay young people and the threat of exclusion is good for gay people, when it isn't for anyone is an indication of irrational priciples that have NO justification.
A tradition of bad treatment towards a distinct minority within all humanity, still doesn't mean it's the right and moral thing to do.

oh and spiceman
you're not the kind of person a gay person can be confident and trust. No gay person WOULD say anything or discuss with YOU what means the most to them.
You don't have any gay friends. You have acquaintances who put up with YOU. I'm not pretentious at all. In fact, I'm someone who has, over a lifetime, had to put up with similar reactions that gay people have to. I empathize, and I listen and don't contradict a gay person's experience.

In certain environments, it's difficult to even have experience respected. This is perplexing. This is proof trying to inform opinions, which is what gay people are confronted with all the time. And sermons inevitably follow. As if a barbaric and reactionary culture, especially regarding the role of GENDER in sexuality, has the last word and should be the gold standard for ALL of us.
That imposition of artificial gender ideals has murdered many and compromised human rights the world over. It's dominant, but not necessarily right. And that dominance wasn't even won by being right or moral.

It's not about feelings..
I know how it feels to justify an existence that's something of a mystery...but the dominant culture gives no opportunity to speak for yourself, prove yourself or engage realistically and respectfully what you know about yourself.

The dominant heterosexual culture has no lock on morality, just numbers. With obviously so much more to learn about gay people, excluding gay people and then making up how a gay person would react or affect our society is stupendous arrogance.
It's dangerous. Nothing positive has come from such treatment. But, positive outcomes have where a pro gay culture has germinated.
Given time, things do settle into a reasonable and mutually supportive situation.
But such things come when the field is level, gay people are still confronted and confounded with contradictions in terms and impossible, moving standards NO ONE could overcome or has to.

Starting with the inconsiderate line of calling homosexuality a choice and a lifestyle, when it isn't. Insisting on it, to the face of someone gay is rude and insulting.

YOU wouldn't like it, so don't YOU do it. A truly moral person would be mindful to treat a person the way they'd want to be treated. And that word, 'lifestyle' is already a violation of that simple and forthright directive.

set asides
Many other minorities and women have had to endure changing standards and set asides for inferior status.
This is what this is really about. Rationalizing that status, without having the justification for it.

A moral person would also be mindful of this legacy against other groups, and not engage in it. Gay people deal with this because of what they ARE, not just actually engaging in sex. Myths, misinformation inform the prejudice, not what gay people actually do or feel.
No one cares to listen to what gay people know and care about.
Denial of a gay person's orientation is just the first salvo. Hyperbole is the next, contradiction the next and improbables the next.
To have a life free of such confrontations would be refreshing.
What heterosexuals tell THEMSELVES and tell gay people ABOUT gay people boggles the mind to the point of farce.
But it's not funny. Eight grade gay children get murdered for it.
So gay people are not a problem to you, as you've been taught. But you have been taught to make problems for gay people...and to what end?
Forcing an inferior status on someone is very different from them actually being inferior.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.