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, December 04, 2008
Frank Pastore :: Townhall.com Columnist
Jack Black, Jesus, and Prop 8
by Frank Pastore
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?


This week, the creative minds behind “Hairspray,” composer Marc Shaiman and director Adam Shankman, opened their “Prop 8: The Musical” with an all-star studded cast that includes Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris and John C. Reilly at Sacramento Community College.

You can watch it here.

The point of the production is to shame the voting public for passing Proposition 8 a month ago, which simply defined marriage in California as between a man and a woman. The musical is clearly intended to spark more “public outrage.” No doubt, more protests, more storming of Mormon temples and Catholic churches and more vandalism against churches will follow. Beyond that, it is likely that more church services will be crashed by same-sex activists—all in the name of “tolerance,” “love,” and “mutual understanding.”

The strategy behind this shaming-of-the-public production is simple: lampoon the supporters of the constitutional amendment into embarrassment so that the next time same-sex marriage shows up on the ballot, they’ll do the “loving thing,” and support it rather than reject it, which is the only one true path to social penance, cultural redemption and liberal forgiveness—at least in the mind of the same-sex marriage crowd.

What’s new about all this is their overt play, albeit erroneously, of the Jesus card. Yes, even the “No on 8” crowd can “get religion.”

At the pivotal moment of the musical, Jesus (played by Jack Black) confronts the “Yes on 8” supporters for their belief that homosexuality is an “abomination,” and lifts a shrimp cocktail to them and says that Leviticus also says eating shellfish likewise is an “abomination.”

He then goes on to say the Bible also teaches that you can “stone your wife,” or “sell your daughter into slavery,” as evidence that you really can’t trust everything the Bible teaches. Or, as in the language of that oft-repeated favorite locution from our skeptical friends, “you can’t take the Bible literally.”

So much for the doctrine of inerrancy. I guess the Word made flesh really didn’t mean everything He said in the Word. Maybe we should put our trust in a non-believer to divine the “good” words from the “bad” words, huh?

Before leaving, Jesus even goes on to affirm, of all things, the “separation of church and state.”

Now these are delightful challenges! As a teacher, I wish more students had the courage to ask them.

Here are a few answers:

The whole point of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was to teach Israel how to separate and become distinct from all they had learned while in Egyptian captivity. They are books of contrast and separation, distinctions and differences. For example, Egypt worshipped death, Israel was called to worship life. The Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 are instructions of how to become different. Holy items shall be “sanctified”—literally, “set apart”—that is, distinct from non-holy items.  Jews themselves, and later Christians, are likewise to be “set apart” for God.

Men and women were created different and distinct, therefore their roles, behavior and even dress should not be confused as the Egyptians did (and many pagan cultures still do).

For example, Deuteronomy 22:11 says, “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.” The whole reason being “don’t confuse plant and animal products, they’re different categories, remember that.” There’s painful detail throughout the Bible pounding this meta-theme home.

God created different “kinds” of things, and we must honor His distinctions and not confuse them, for it is an “abomination,” exactly the very thing advocates for same-sex marriage are guilty of.

What about the shellfish? If you read the context of Leviticus 11:9-12, it too is talking about honoring distinctions. God is simply saying, in my paraphrase, “Eat fish, don’t eat bugs. Fish have fins and swim, bugs have legs and crawl. Even if you find things in the water that aren’t crawling, if they have legs, they can crawl—so they’re bugs, don’t eat them. Fish, good; sea-bugs, bad. Honor the distinction.”

The Bible’s statements prohibiting homosexual behavior are rooted in this need to recognize and honor the distinctions—here between men and women.

As far as the eating of shrimp, Jesus permits the eating of shellfish under what he says in Matthew 15:11: “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.” And Paul emphasized in Romans 14:14 that it’s all about personal conscience anyway.

As far as the “stoning your wife” and “selling your daughter into slavery” claims go, they too have a simple answer. In 1400 B.C., before the law was given to Moses by the hand of God at Mt. Sinai, no nation had any moral code that prohibited a man from killing his wife, wives, or children for any reason. Pagans sacrificed their children to Baal and Moloch, Israel would not. Pagans could kill their families, Israel would not. So, the Old Testament improved the extant moral order by requiring men to go before the elders before any child was to be stoned (Deuteronomy 21:19). And, in all of the rabbinic writings to my knowledge there’s not one instance of the elders ever approving of a single stoning of a child.  

Lastly, when you read the full context of Exodus 21:7-11, the “selling your daughter into slavery” slur, it too was an improvement over the ancient moral order. My paraphrase again, “If you sell your daughter off to a man and he becomes unhappy with her, he must give you a chance to redeem her and buy her back, he may not sell her off to foreigners. And if the man bought her for his son, she must not be treated as a slave, but as a daughter.” Like all the other teachings in the Old Testament, this was a big improvement over what was going on among the peoples around Israel.

Come to think of it, it still is—we still have “honor killings” of wayward daughters and wives today throughout the Muslim world.

Like Michelle Malkin, I too am waiting for the “other” Prop 8 musical to come out, as she says, “the one with angry activists storming restaurants and Mormon temples, hectoring elderly people over their signs, and hounding donors large and small until they pay off their tormentors in the name of tolerance. Anyone?”

I’ll bet the “Hairspray” boys won’t be doing that one any time soon.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
The Frank Pastore Show is heard in Los Angeles weekday afternoons on 99.5 KKLA and on the web at kkla.com, and is the winner of the 2006 National Religious Broadcasters Talk Show of the Year. Frank is a former major league pitcher with graduate degrees in both philosophy of religion and political philosophy.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Pastore's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Twisting the Bible
I just love how these atheists, who claim the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of fairy tales, point to the Bible to defend their deviant lifestyle and leftist ideology.

During the campaign, my oldest sister, who is a staunch far-left wing, moveon, socialist atheist, gleefully pointed out that Jesus was a "community organizer" in her feeble attempt to attach the Messiah to her beloved false "messiah."

Of course, she is dead wrong on this issue. But worse, she believes Christianity is nothing more than the belief that there's "a big daddy in the sky." And yet she rushes in to use that very faith and the Good Book in a twisted attempt to justify her beloved BO Hussein.

Good article, Dr. Pastore.

Here is an example- du who posts here
du, one of the homosexual posters here admits that he was at the Mexican food restaurant depicted in several news accounts where homosexuals basically extorted compensation from the manager for contributing to proposition 8.

du gloats on other threads about how the manager was crying and whining.

du claims to be an LAPD employee and a volunteer at the Simon Wisenthal museum.
du claims to be able to access data bases at LAPD no one else can. And has done so on multiple threads.

First, accessing data bases at LAPD for personal information is a crime, and reminiscent of what happened to joe the Plumber in Ohio .

Secondly how would Mr. du like it if church members filed an internal affairs complaint against him for his actions at the restaurant? And how would Mr. du like it if pro 8 voters picketed the musuem where he works calling for his dismissal ???

And extend that to each and every protester who was with du. How would they like it if crowds showed up at their place of employment to picket their vote? Eh?

These people need their own tactics turned on them. Then they can learn what tolerance really means instead of paying it lip service.

Excellent article
Thanks for adding context to the Scripture. I find it amusing when non-believers try to use Biblical passages to promote their agenda. They almost never apply them in context - if they did, they would soon discover their folly. And be forced to confront their dire situation. Pray for their recognition of their need for Him.

Mr. Black isn't sufficiently developed
to have an opinion.

These casual opinions about scripture never address the Old Testament and New Testament distinction.

That's because they don't know anything about it or understand the difference for Christians. The difference that the arrival of Christ announced for all as reflected in the Books of the New Testament.

Good job Sir trying to explain it to them. They don't have a prayer of a chance of understanding it however.

Well, at least they are giving it the old Jr. College try ... a place where Mr. Black may indeed find his standing.

Next, for Mr. Reilly and Mr. Black, and all the gays, it'll be "Boogie Nights II, Revenge of the Virus Breeders."

lively dinner conversation
I wanna go to Recovered Lib's house for Thanksgiving dinner next year.

All that hate from homosexual activists
Another change homosexual activists are bringing to America: making it acceptable to punish and intimidate people who want to take part in the democratic process.

What do you expect from people who have contempt for the word and intent of the Constitution?



Romans Chapter 1
Yep, been there thought that.

My suggestion to the "regressive" liberals is that they begin to learn to read. I would start at the same point that our early American educators started. The Holy Bible.

Extremely liberal for a long portion of my life I slowly began to ask myself: "What Really Works?"

Only a fool, and I use that word for a reason, would look at modern liberalism and fantasize that any part of it really works. Modern liberalism has never worked because it is as impossible for it to improve reality as it is for the 1st or 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics to fail. [Hence the foolishness of evolution.]

The New Testament of Romans, I.E. Chapter 1, has the best answer for the liberal agenda. They are at the point of destroying America because of their ignorance.

Almost 2000 years ago, Paul just happened :) to guess that any culture which began to worship the creation instead of The Creator [Gaia, super-environmentalism, etc.] will find itself submitting to the LOWEST debasement of humanity = homosexuality.

Of course Paul didn't guess! That message was inspired by an OFFENDED God.

Almost 20 years ago when I began to connect the dots and ask: "What really works?" the stupidity and self-obsessed denial of reality in homosexuality was one thing that became obvious. Only an IDIOT would think homosexuality works in any form.

Another, lie "our bodies, our choice" is obviously a lie of Satan.

Now I ask;[knowing I used to be that ignorant] why don't liberals see that every part of their agenda only leads to death [abortion & homosexuality] and disintegration [the family, education, the nation] instead of Real Life?

They don't see because they are spiritually blind.

Recovering Liberal

No Don Juan
Your taking Jesus' life and role completely out of context. It's like those bumper stickers that proclaim that Jesus was a liberal.

Obama is NOT a messiah, he is a brilliant con artist who fooled roughly 67 million into voting for him. Jesus failed at nothing.

"Recovering Christians" are simply those who abandoned their faith.

Cheers!

Don Jaun
I don't envy you. wonder why all atheists are so militant in their lack of views? I will believe in the truth, you just go a head and keep on not believing in anything. See where it gets you.

lin - reply #4
Please do!

Thank you, Harold (repy #2)
Like you, I too was a long-time liberal but began take a hard, long look at what I had been taught (namely, hard-core liberalism).

Thanks for telling the truth about liberalism, abortion, homosexuality. It's SO refreshing.

And here come the liberals and usual suspects to come charging after us, calling us homophobes, etc.


And Then Again...
Christian (or any other) mythology is not a basis upon which anyone's rights or the deprevation thereof should be decided.

Christian mythology was also widely used in support of the discrimination against blacks, including in its most aggregious form, slavery.

Interestingly, in addition to its obvious support from voters with religious reasons, in a poll released today it was found: "The poll also showed that the measure got strong backing from voters who did not attend college (69 percent)"

Need I say more?

Well, perhaps one more thing - I personally am unworried about Prop 8, nor am I concerned very much about the discrimination and bigotry involved therein.

Why? Simple - this path has been walked down before, when similar laws prevented other discriminated-against minorities from marrying. I believe that eventually justice will prevail, and, the courts will decide in the favor of equality, as in the landmark decision Loving v. Virginia.

On that issue, as has been pointed out, it is not the business of the courts to legislate from the bench, HOWEVER, as in the Loving case, it certainly IS the business of the judiciary to strike down unjust laws, and to preserve the equality-under-the-law of ALL Americans - whether someone's mythology tells them it is ok to fear and despise their target minority or not.

We, too, shall overcome.

No religion involved
Some of us...believe it or not...do not make our decision based on religion, but rather social mores. For those liberals in California that only know how to hate Christians and blame religious people, that is a Sociological term that means:
mores
The customs and manners of a social group or culture. Mores often serve as moral guidelines for acceptable behavior but are not necessarily religious or ethical.

"mores." The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 04 Dec. 2008.
This is a Democratic Republic. The people have voted. Now go pick on the Mormons again, unless you can figure a way to take Mormons’ votes away from them- better still all Christians, then you might want to change the spelling to Kalifornia in Amerika or maybe feed them to lions in the Coliseum.

Don Juans Reality
1900+ YEARS?

He has been gone less than 2 days! But then you don't realize that you are thinking like a child as do ALL Liberals.

Modern Liberalism is self obsessed childishness and I have a right to say that because I spent the middle 1/3 of my life in the self-obsessed, narcissism of Liberal thought.

Nothing you can say that I haven't thought, and it is all wrong. You need to grow up!

And, Satan knows the Bible backwards and forwards. You only impress your own childish mind.

Calling yourself a believer never made anybody a believer. There are billions who have never really accepted truth but still call themselves believers so you certainly have a lot of company.

I may be saved but only by the skin of my teeth. But I do know that only a real fool looks at the universe and does not see a Great Watchmaker.

Real Christianity is a tough road, not the opiate of the people, [spiritual blindness is the true opiate] why don't you try it?

Recovering Liberal

Pastore's point proves too much
Patore argues that the passages in the Bible that seem to condone "stoning your wife" and "selling your child into slavery" are improvements of the old moral order. Fair enough, but that defense suggests that the morality put forth in the Bible does not lay out the perfect moral society. It suggests the Biblical writers were constrained in some way, trying to move society forward without putting forth ideas so radical (slavery is absolutely wrong, women should not be stoned under any circumstances) that they would have been rejected at the time.

If that's true -- and I'm perfectly happy to agree that it is -- then why can't homosexuality be similarly defended? Defending homosexuality during Jesus' time would have been seen as extraordinarilly radical, and would almost certainly have led to accusations that Jesus was a homosexual himself (as Townhall post after Townhall post shows, those who defend homosexuality face such claims even today). Jesus only preached for a short time, and undoubtedly had more important topics to deal with (Contrary to what many churches prioritize now, sexual morality is hardly the most important of Christian themes). Why can't we simply say that preaching about such a topic would have been a distraction, but that -- just like the slavery and stoning passages -- we can expect that society's morality will continue to progress, keeping an eye on following basic Christian principles?

To VeritasX
Christians were those who ran the underground railroad. Do you think freeing the slaves was secular? Then Obviously you do not know that Lincoln's famous House Divided (Which garnered him the Republican nomination)speech came from Jesus in the bible. His main training to read came from reading the one book that his family owned. The Bible.

Pennsylvania Yankee
If you can claim that God has revealed to anyone who claims to be a prophet of God that homosexuality is now acceptable to his followers, then Christians can put that "revelation" to the test that is in the Bible on how to tell if a Prophet is false or not. If you don’t have a prophet then find a better logic to present.

Rick
Rick it was the more liberal minded Christians that helped with the underground railroads and advocated for the abolition of slavery.

Most of the mainstread Christians believed that the Bible justified slavery and/or that Blacks were the cursed descendents of Cain or Ham.

Many people were afraid of Blacks invading their businesses or churches. Many believed that inter-racial marraige would destroy the sanctity of marriage and was agaisnt God and the Bible.

Now its the more liberal minded Christians that are advocating for the equal rights of gays against the homopobic mainstream Christians.


hmmmmm
I can't really respect the Biblical interpretations of a man who has difficulty with the meaning of simple words in his own language. Such as, say, the verb "storm".

Terrorists STORMED several buildings in Mumbai.

No churches or temples have been STORMED by gay activists, at least as the verb "stormed" is commonly understood in the parlance of our times and defined by current dictionaries.

Coul dit be that he is engaging in a touch of hyperbole? Or, to be more precise, more rabble-rousing, mob enragement tactics designed to make those people who already hate gay people feel justified in their bigotry by hating them for bad acts that they aren't even actually doing.

But, hey, I could be wrong. I anxiously await Mr. Pastore's future column where he details all of the actual hostile church assaults and takeovers that have occurred as he predicted. Or - the one where he admits he was wrong and overreacted and accused good people of future crimes that they never actually got around to committing. I have a feeling I will be waiting quite a while for either.

funny column
I assume Pastore was kidding when he tried to pretend that making a comical musical about prop 8 should be somehow lumped in with civil disobedience and violence. After all, the point of the criticism of the gay response used to be that they should restrict themselves to speaking out. Now their defenders do, and Pastore tries to equate speaking in a humorous way with violence. Funny.

Pastore is probably right that some of the restrictions in the old testament were actually better, or at least no worse than practices current at the time. No doubt at some point we will come to recognize the attitude towards homosexuality in that way. It is interesting to see this picture of God as not so much perfect, as a finite being trying to move society forward without pushing it too hard. That is not the normal conception of God that one sees.

It is also funny that Pastore takes the fact that the Old Testament was concerned with outdated separations of types which we can recognize now as being silly in their contexts, as supporting the idea of a ban on homosexuality. The more natural conclusion to draw from the analogy would seem to be that prohibitions on homosexuality will go the same way as prohibitions on eating shrimp. (Although it will presumably still be true that no one has to be homosexual just as currently noone has to eat shrimp.)

Liberal Republican Lincoln
It was nice of you to decide that the Republican President Abraham Lincoln was a Liberal.

Let’s see, he started the first draft in American history, insisted in a strong military, he blockaded the coast from (drug?) smugglers and illegal immigrants, and had congress appropriate huge defense spending. Yeah those sound like liberal principles to me. I give up you are right!

Liberal Christians?
Yo Michael (#2)- It was actually your run-of-the-mill old-line Baptists that helped most often with the underground railroad and abolition of slavery. And Allen (#1), there have always been idiots on all sides of an issue, and for you to ignore or explain away the heinous acts of gays that have assaulted people and attacked church services takes you dangerously close to sounding like one of the idiots.

Rick
I'll tell you what prophet told me homosexuality was acceptable when you tell me what prophet told Pastore that stoning women and keeping slaves was unacceptable. The truth is, no one did. Society as a whole -- but Christians in particular -- looked at the practices and realized that, even though they were are least implicly tolerated in Biblical times, they did not comport with the basic moral standards of the present. I think denying legal rights to homosexual couples seems similarly out of touch with current standards of moral conduct, and with basic Christian principles. God gave me a conscience so that I don't have to wait for a prophet to tell me when there is injustice.

Don Juan and Lon
Actually, Pastore is partially right. He forgot to mention that, at the time, much of the dietary laws were also (by God's providence) healthy. That is, they no only separated His people from the others, but they also were useful in avoiding dietary problems that were more prevalent at that time.

As far as the "cafeteria Christian" comment by Don Juan: you are only right insofar as some Protestants or Latins actually do attempt to directly quote from the OT. However, if you actually read Acts 15, you'll see that the First Apostles' Council, through the Holy Spirit, clarified the applicability of the OT law to Gentiles.

Only four things continued to be forbidden as specifically written (as the other laws were subsumed in the greater, more far-reaching commandments of Christ): Christians are not to eat blood, not to eat things strangled, not to eat or take things offered to false gods, and not to engage in any sexual immorality as defined in the OT law. That includes homosexuality.

So, this play, in an attempt to call BS on the Bible only shows the writers' (and audience's) ignorance.

the sinner,

Charles

History is full of Atrocities...
...from all sources. Where are your Christians sending white powder to Gay rights organizations, or Christians making commercials of Gay couples breaking into their homes and destroying their Crucifixes, Or the Christians that are boycotting Gay businesses? These are not things that took place hundreds or more years ago. They are taking place right now and it isn’t the evil Christians that are offending. Nuff said.

michael muddies the waters


As usual; nothing he says makes sense. Michael; who is far from a Christian in truth; says:

". . . the more liberal minded Christians that are advocating for the equal rights of gays against the homopobic mainstream Christians."

There are no "homophobic" or mainstream Christians. Not one of the denominational sects who are considered Christians (in the original sense) is true to all the doctrines of the apostles. Reading the Bible isn't Christian faith in itself. The "mainstream" Michael refers to is protestantism; fallen away from the Catholic faith into a disparate version taught by men.

However, it is true; these sectarians have correctly realized marriage is a man together with a woman, joined for life as one. (Their problem is, unlike Catholics the foregoing of illicit divorce.) Yet, almost all correctly say homosexuality is gravely sinful. Nothing about "liberal" Christians makes a difference. They also know homosexuality is an accursed practice. They've merely confused "gay marriage" with civil rights. In so confusing it, they show how poorly they know their own theological background. We aren't homophobes because there is no such fault.

We mainly want gays to come to their senses and repent of their depravity. And, overall, we do not support the lowering of matrimony into the gutter by selfish people who really know better. Gays are not as ignorant of the marital state as they try to convince us they are. They actually WANT to pollute it, making it all a farce for everybody. That's their dirty little secret.

Penn Yankee
One problem: moral standards of the present? What does that mean? What if our society changed and slavery and stoning of women were accepted again? Would that make them the "moral standards of the present?"

That isn't morality - those are mores. Morality only exists if absolutes exist that are beyond the control of any human intellect or whim. Otherwise, it is ALWAYS a matter of who you are, where you are, and when you are. Thus, no such thing as morality (by definition).

the sinner,

Charles

P.S.
There are no legal rights denied to homosexuals in California that are given to married couples. It is the term "marriage," only, that the voters (the voice of the people, remember?) decided should only apply to heterosexual unions. Which means this "rights being denied" stuff is pure bunk.

Don Juan
Jesus is 1900 years "late" because He's waiting on you so you don't have to go to Hell, so I wouldn't knock His timing if I were you.

Mighty glad He waited for me!

dreadnaught
"Not one of the denominational sects who are considered Christians (in the original sense) is true to all the doctrines of the apostles."

Wrong. There is one that can trace its traditions, and bishops, all the way back to the Apostles. Only one, in fact - the Orthodox Church. You may disagree with its doctrines, but it can, very easily, trace all of Holy Tradition (the true understanding of the whole faith) all the way back. It can also trace its bishops all the way back. No other church or sect can do that.

the sinner,

Charles

Pennsylvania Yankee
That Prophet was a rabbi from Nazareth named Jesus who told the accusers that those who were without sin to cast the first stone; who taught to love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. He was the one who said to love your enemies and to go the extra mile (if you don't know the reference here I will be glad to explain it to you). It was he who said to render unto Caesar that which his Caesars’ and unto God that what is God’s. It was he who said that Marriage was ordained of God too, by the way. Now, who is yours?

Rights for behavioral Lifestyles?

Why did the government become involved in marriage?

Modern Marriage started in 1753 in England and Wales and it was named the Marriage Act of 1753 or Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act and it called for the couple to be at least 21 years old and if they weren't then they needed the consent of the parent.

Before this law the couple could be as young as seven years old and get married.

They also had to get married in a church or the marriage wouldn't be legal.

The original Marriage Act was the result of the many orphans being abandoned and becoming a burden on society.

The Marriage contract made men responsible for their children relieving society from the financial burden of raising those children and placing it where it belonged.

'Collectivists' always want to take the 'Bad Decisions' and actions of individuals and place the results of those bad actions and decisions on othe American Citizens in the name of 'Sacrifice For The Common Good'.

The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition.

Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.

Society by law, decided to extend benefits to the blind.

Analogous to what Homosexuals want by 'Homosexual Marriage' is for a sighted citizen to receive the same rights as someone who is blind.

Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical issues.

Present laws do NOT require a medical exam to prove the ability of a couple to procreate before marriage which of course be a violation of privacy rights.

Behavioral Rights are a myth!

Homosexuals have the same rights and protections of every other Citizen.




Rick
I asked what prophet told Christians that it was wrong to keep slaves and stone women? Jesus never said those things. He did say that those without sin should cast the first stone, but Christians didn't read that the apply to all executions (the Catholic Church now does). And talk about loving your neighbor only bars slavery by extension (again, Christians for centuries certainly didn't think slavery was barred).

You say render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. OK, so why don't conservative Christians allow gay marriage while simply refusing to perform those marriages in their churches? Why did Christian conservatives fight for sodomy laws, which allowed the government to arrest people for wholly private, consensual conduct?

By the same token, why do conservative Christians want abortion banned, rather than simply condemning it as a legal (but immoral) practice? Why did Christians once fight to keep bans on contraception, but have now largely decided that they will still try to convince adherents not to use birth control, but will not seek government intervention?

These questions are complicated, since I would also agree that there are areas in which Christian morality requires us to seek government, and not just private, action. But don't pretend that you find the answers written in bold in the New Testament. Instead, you are doing the same thing I am doing -- struggling to apply Christian principles in analogous, but different, contexts. Your answers, like mine, are informed by the rabbi from Narazeth, but also are informed by your own conscience and mind.

we'll digress for a minute
Dear Charles,

The Catholic Church dates right back to Pentecost, 33 AD; and it started there with Peter the chief of Christ's apostles.

Since there were yet no splits, we can trace the Orthodox (faith) to that first Church as well; and only later did they separate from the Church, becoming independent of the successors of Peter; who was the first bishop of Rome. In fact, that was the main cause of the Schism between east and west; primacy. Not orthodox doctrines. We still share almost exactly the same belief as was first taught by the holy apostles. But those who parted with Rome have their own "metropolitans," a completely independent hierarchy started AFTER they rejected the Pope's authority. Who came first? The Pope.

Our Oh, so proper, Bible Christians date back only to Luther and Henry VIII, founders of sects who now call themselves Christians in the U.S. Let's not despair. All these disparate groups are to be reunited one day with the Catholic Church; as Jesus Himself has promised. We will then be one flock with one shepherd. And no more teachings of men to mislead any good soul.

Retired Geek and Lifestyles...
Retired Geek wrote: "The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition."

Neither can a woman past menopause produce children (at least not without extraordinary intervention such as the transplantation of a fertilized egg into her womb - the same method, or one method, by which a lesbian can conceive.)

Should we therefore limit marriage to those of childbearing age, and prohibit any union of a non-fertile woman and the man of her choice?

The concept that marriage is intended either solely or primarily for the protection of children is outdated, given a divorce rate of over fifty percent, as well as by the marriage of many seniors and those couples who intend to remain childless by choice.

Veritas X, lame argument

There is an indisputable fact:

Homosexuals cannot be married. They are not spouses to one another. One must be a woman; we can't just tap-dance around that.

What gay couples must work for is a stabilized, honored and uncontested right to civil union. The marital act would not have to apply. Nobody would interfere with the crude and perverse activity between a man and his lover.

More government intervention?
The idiocy of allowing yet more governmental intervention is, at best, a self-defeating measure. Government is the last aspect of society that should be involved in the edict of whom can bed who.

Making a straw man of me
Charles, I never argued that current mores are what makes morality, but only that -- just as Christians gradually came to the conclusion that slavery was an absolute wrong in all circumstances -- we may conclude that Christian principles make discriminating against homosexuals immoral. Pastore has basically admitted that the morality presented in the Bible is not complete or final, but was a dramatic step in the right direction and gave us the basic moral principles that we can apply in the future.

Here's another example. I think most Christians today would argue that denying people some form of self-governance or democracy is immoral, and I'd agree. But Jesus never said that expressly. He lived in an age where democracy would have been a foreign concept, and the Christian societies existed for centuries without any sense that denying ordinary people a voice in government had any moral implications at all.

So how do we reach that conclusion? We look at the general principles in the New Testament -- an abiding love for mankind, respect for common people, tolerance of minority groups, etc. -- and find in those general concepts a moral obligation for democracy. But that's what Jack Black is (homorously) calling for us to do with homosexuality, and no one has explained yet to me why we shouldn't do that.

I could handle the humor but the fat man
playing Jesus was hard to stomach. What really got me was the stage entrances at the finale of two large American flags, waving. Too many lines of respect were crossed at once.

I'm LDS, not anti-gay domestic partnerships, but I am pro marriage and would have voted for Prop 8.

Wasn't it in Sacramento where a well-respected theater manager of 25 years was forced to resign because he was pro 8! What happened to fairness and respect for creative talents?

Using the theater to present one's view of the world is free speech and I respect free speech. But I do not respect hate crimes, intimidation, blackmail, vandalism, trespassing, and disruption of peaceful church services or activities.

I don't respect bullies of any sexual preference. As a former Californian, I'm vocal about defending traditional marriage. Domestic partnerships are legal in California. All rights are protected!

I don't intend to be bullied into a different opinion.

Does engaging in same-sex sodomy

necessarily make a person ignorant of all things religious. Based on the news of what the same-sex sodomites are saying (or should I say broadcasting) it would appear to be the case. In fact, even being supportive of same-sex sodomy appears to have the affect of making people ignorant of all things religious.

These same-sex sodomites have more gall than reason trying to tell believers what they are supposed to be believing.

They are such childish people who are in desperate need of prayer. Enslaved to their physical desires they are incapable of finding joy in life. Too sad!!!

Pennsylvania Yankee Part 1
You are confusing the teachings from the people. There was only one person who exemplified Christian teachings. He said if you want to know if his teachings are true, to live them. The fact that Christians did barbaric things (sometimes in the name of Jesus himself) doesn’t make the teachings wrong, only the people who TRY and live them. In the movie “Kingdom of Heaven” They were hanging Templar Knights for attacking Muslims. One Character said that they were hanging them for that which the Pope would want them to do. The answer was the Pope yes; but Jesus, I think no.

Most Christians have no problem with Civil Unions which are a governmental equivalency of marriage which is a religious union between a man and a woman that the government has sanctioned as being legal. It is not equal rights which are in question here, it is the definition of the word Marriage which existed before any government that exists on the earth today. It has ALWAYS been defined as the union of men and a women. A gay couple that enters into a civil union has the exact same rights that a hetro couple has that enter into marriage. There is no denial of rights. It is a different name.

Why do Christians want abortion banned? I cannot speak for all, but I believe that a fetus is a human. Its DNA is human DNA. The fact that it cannot live outside of its incubator (mother) is not an argument to claim it is not a human because a 3 week old baby that is not cared for will die too. It is my belief that God said “Thou shat not kill.” If a fetus has human DNA and therefore is a human; then I see abortion as killing a human being.


Pennsylvania Yankee Part 2
I am not sure I understand your other question but living a Christian is simple. There are two things that encompass all. “Love they God with all they heart, might, mind, and strength. And Love thy neighbor as thyself.” If we would all live by those two principles, it would be a better world than with all the civil laws in the world can make us do.

We don’t agree on this and probably never will, our views are too diverse, and that doesn’t mean that you are not a good person; I am sure you are and you are articulate and educated obviously. I accept your views. I do not accept those who are being vindictive and downright mean and are persecuting the Mormons because they can get away with it. I don’t agree with everything the Mormon’s believe but I respect that they exercise their 1st amendment rights and believe that those rights should be respected by ALL those who believe in our Constitution. I have to go now, I enjoyed discussing this with you. Another time perhaps.

Harold
Excellent posts, nothing like having been there to understand the truth of it.

I just love it, whenever the homosexuals and their fellow travelers think they aren't getting their own way..they trot out the oxymoron, "homophobe"..fear of man?????
I'm not, but I can tell you as the adoptive mother of a homosexual, who was seduced by an older homosexual (himself also seduced at 15),
at the age of 14, we have never accepted his life or condoned it. He's spent over 20 years in this life and after a couple of suicide attempts and alcoholism and drug abuse, he wants out! And is struggling to get out of that
horrible life that's anything but gay in the original context of the word.
He was raised in an evangelical church (contrary to one posters opinion of protestants we are Christians, who believe in the Bible, born again, spirit filled fmrly Episcopalian and Lutheran.) and have taught our kids that extramarital sex is SIN, be it hetero or homosexual, forbidden by God. And if they should fail to live up to God's word on this issue, there is repentence and forgiveness through his only begotten Son Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need to take their case to God, but they'd rather pollute His word with their own
versions of what they WANT scripture to say, not what it actually does say. This prohibition isn't because God doesn't love those
who fall into these sins, but because HE does love them, and wants them to be free of condemnation, guilt and disease and in the case of heterosexual sex, be it fornication or adultery..unexpected little dividends that some regard as "punishment" (Obama) and will kill them. I prayed every day for my son not to die in his sins, I still pray it because I know he's struggling.

Homosexuals & Marriage
As soon as one partner in a homosexual relationship can impregnate without medical or scientific the other homosexual partner, I will be against granting homosexuals marriage licenses. Civil unions will have to suffice until then.

Frank

Stick to the things you know. Postulating on morals should be left to those with them.

Jesus, had the most perfect answer those who ache to pick up rocks!

Tea Party
"...we have never accepted his life or condoned it. He's spent over 20 years in this life and after a couple of suicide attempts and alcoholism and drug abuse..."

You don't see the connection there? May God forgive you.

Refuting
dreadnaught writes: "There is an indisputable fact:

Homosexuals cannot be married. They are not spouses to one another. One must be a woman; we can't just tap-dance around that.

What gay couples must work for is a stabilized, honored and uncontested right to civil union. The marital act would not have to apply. Nobody would interfere with the crude and perverse activity between a man and his lover."

This is an indisputable fact: Prior to the wisdom of the courts in overturning these discriminatory laws, blacks could not be married to whites. One HAD to be of the same race as the other.

Civil unions are, very simply, a case of 'separate but equal', and, as another wise court once ruled in a case involving, again, black Americans and their right to be treated TRULY equally, in this instance, regarding education, separate but equal is by definition INequal.

Simply because you find something perverse does not make it so - you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you are not entitled to impose that opinion upon others. As the saying goes, one man's right to swing his fist ends where the other man's nose begins.

Rick
Thank you for your civility. The question I was asking when I was talking about abortion is not "Why do you think abortion is wrong?" but "Why do you think abortion should be illegal?" I asked this because you mentioned the admonition to "Render unto Caesar."

Clearly there are some things that are immoral and should be illegal (rape springs to mind as something we can get agreement on) and some things that -- while immoral -- people would be uncomfortable making illegal (yelling at one's loved ones, for example). Likewise, Catholics generally seem to have accepted that contraception, which they believe to be immoral, should nonetheless be legal. Catholics will just have to try to use persuasion, rather than the force of law, to get people to comply with that moral belief.

My point is that the quote "Render unto Caesar" -- like many of the quotes in the New Testament -- can only be applied by analogy, and that the process is complicated. Some would say "Render unto Caesar" means we should allow more things we find immoral to nonetheless be legal, and some less.

In the same way, people who say that their view of the Bible does not condemn homosexuality reason by analogy that the principles of tolerance expressed by Jesus carry over to allowing homosexuals to marry.

I also have to disagree with your comments about Mormonism. No one is denying that the Mormon Church is free to express its opposition to gay marriage, but the First Amendment also allows others to express their disagreement with the church's behavior. Protests and boycotts are all part of the democractic process, and everyone is entitled to their First Amendment rights. The Mormon Church cannot expect to enter politics and then flee back behind church doors when people object.

Veritas X post #29
Your post summarizes a comparison of Christians imposing their morals on society, and your comparative anlogy to Nazis who you claim did the same. That analogy is a total comparative failure.

But to humor you, look at some historical facts:

The ONE individual personally credited by Hitler for placing him into power was Ernst Rohm, head of the SA. Ernst Rohm was brutal, ruthless, and so were all of his top henchmen. They set the stage for everything that followed.

Ernst Rohm and his henchmen were all confirmed homosexuals. All, or nearly all were murdered in the night of the long knives in 1935.

Christians do not impose morals on anyone. Never have, never will. What you and other like you do is attempt to establish a link you feel suggests wrongful behavior attributed to Christians. Name one moral imposed on you, go ahead, just one.

You cant.

Morality is a compilation of many things. Religion or Christianity is just a small part. You should learn to undrstand the distinction.

Veritas X You refuted nothing
Courts did indeed rule on interracial marriage, they were empowered to do so under Amendment #13.

That amendment was voted on by the majority. Forget about that?

Tying sin (homosexuality) to the color of skin is a concept that was just rejected. courts rule on law, not social justice issues.

Fiscal conservatives
One point that so far has been overlooked, but which the Prop 8 musical makes fairly well, is that gay marriage is good for the economy. This isn't only because the weddings themselves cost money, as Neil Patrick Harris notes in the song. It is because married couples protect each other economically, and that makes married people less likely to rely on the government for services.

A married couple often has two health plans (or at least one), which means they are more likely to be covered when one of the spouses gets sick. Similarly, a married person is less likely to have to go on welfare, because when he loses his jobs there's a good chance his spouse still has one. Those two incomes also come in handy at retirement, especially after one of the spouses has passed away.

This obviously doesn't prove gay marriage is a good idea. But since it's hard to see why heterosexual people should care about gay marriage at all, the fact that it also might help with their taxes certainly means something.

X Veritas


You don't seem to understand.

"Prior to the wisdom of the courts in overturning these discriminatory laws, blacks could not be married to whites."

Do not expect "wisdom" from the Left, ordinarily. In miscenegation laws, Americans weren't faced with an unnatural union of two same-sex human beings. Those overturned laws were purely racial injustice legislated by racist white men. There never was any referendum, as we have in Proposition 8.

It required some courage but not much wisdom to see that black and white people indeed have a right to intermarry, even if society dislikes it. MAN, marrying a WOMAN.

Gays have a right to pretend to marry. They do that already; without anyone's permission. But are we, the really married Americans now compelled by a court to acknowledge the farce of gay marriage? To believe a lie?

You protest: "Simply because you find something perverse does not make it so."

True; I could be mistaken.
just as you're mistaken calling it homophobia. God is never mistaken.
god destroyed whole cities for sinning in the same way homosexuals sin now. We conceded to Him the final decree that homosexuals live perverted lives; we believe HIM,

Yet, we don't push for the extinction of gays. We think they have rights as citizens. I have no wish to see gay enclaves anywhere eradicated or discriminated against. The plain truth is; we believe marriage is sacred and ipso facto the conjugal union of a man with a woman. This isn't confusing; why do you protest at such truth?


Dreadnaught
I'm sure homosexuals would be grateful that you aren't pushing for their extinction, and that you don't want to have gay enclaves eradicated. I assume, then, that you disapproved of sodomy laws, and would approve of civil unions?

If it makes you feel better, I won't be pushing for your extinction either. I'll just count on the same thing that liberals have always counted on when faced with a bigoted, cruel, and reactionary conservative agenda -- time.

Again... Oh, and bravo :)
Pennsylvania Yankee - Excellent points! I wish I'd made these points myself, and am rather downtrodden for the moment not to have thought of them, being as I am a fiscal conservative, myself. Bravo!

As far as why certain heterosexual people oppose gay marriage, I believe that is bigotry, plain and simple, which is itself the fear or hatred of those not like oneself for no real logical reason.

dreadnaught - This is simply the prejudicial assumption that one's religious beliefs should be imposed upon others, whether or not that results in their rights as American citizens being infringed upon.

Gay Americans are entitled to the same protections under the law as any other American, and your belief that something is a sin is simply that, a belief, an opinion, not a provable fact.

Your religious beliefs entitle you to precisely nothing EXCEPT the right to practice your religion without enfringement so long as that does not interfere with the rights of others.

I would certainly never suggest that any religion be compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for any individuals whom they did not wish to perform such rites for.

The Catholic church, for example, is entirely within its rights not to marry a previously divorced couple. The STATE, however, has no right to deny that same couple the legal and civil status of marriage.

Marriage is, after all, BOTH a religious ceremony and a legal status.

I do not believe any one wishes to demand a religious ceremony from any church other than one which wishes to grant such a ceremony - that, after all, would be a denial of other's religious rights.

All that is desired is the LEGAL status, granted by the government, seperate from any religious framework.

why, yankee !
Dear Yankee--

There are so many realistic faces you could put on this driven refusal to accept Prop 8; why risk yourself an ulcer looking for a conservative "agenda"--?

This article deals with the morbid reactions of a number of so-called stars from Hollywood, arguing against the Religious Right. They failed to show there has been any law broken or circumvented by California voters. All the gay marriage front showed was utter contempt for God.

It would only be fair for me to show contempt for them, because they ARE contemptible. Of course you don't think so.

We agree that they're free to fantasize about getting hitched. You think I have to join in that fantasy. But I won't-- why? It's a free country; that's why!

Rick
Rick says that Most Christians are not against civil unions for gay couples but I believe that is untrue as 19 states have banned civil unions with state amendments as well (and all were pushed by churches and Christian groups like Family Research Council, Focus on the Family etc).

States that ban civil unions for gay couples: Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Lousiana, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Minnisota, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Virgina, Florida, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.

Fc from Texas posted below that gays will have to settle for Civil Unions, ignoring the fact that Texas has banned Civil Unions.

Gay adoption is banned in Utah, Coloroda, Oklahoma, Missisippi, Arkansas, and until just recently Florida.




Don Jew-an a la Lord Byron
reply to #50 3:14 I suppose one could argue it might have "polemic value" if the polemicist knew his asz from a hole in the ground or had an ounce of cogency. Since the reality is, however, that "the unspiritual man...is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" Jesus' dis on the pharisees fits nicely here: "You err, Juannie, because you know neither the Scriptures or the power of God.”

Far as cafeteria exegesis is concerned, the burden of proof is on the Prhomos to show why their argument for homosex is not extendable to Incest, Polygamy and Bestiality. We ain't talking appetizers, though, I suppose, in your case, one could claim the category of "things one puts in one's mouth and swallows."
The point being that it ain’t the dietary or fashion restrictions of the Holiness Code that matters, the NT makes it clear in a bunch of places that Jesus declares ALL foods “clean”. Rather it is the SEXUAL acts the Holiness Code proscribes that apply. There the NT specifically links homosex with a rather terrible Debased and Debauched Idolatry in the worst possible way and the most condemnatory of terms.
You just plain she-ite outa luck, Biblically, Juannie.

The Big Mick

veritas X
"All that is desired is the LEGAL status, granted by the government, separate from any religious framework."

You name yourself veritas, truth; then give us a whopper like that ??? You don't fool anybody. We both share right NOW, equal rights. Neither you nor I have a "right" to marry anybody of our same sex. THAT is equality!

If I could do so you could demand the same. We have the same LEGAL status; the right to marry normally. Homosexuals wish to change the law, forcing an unnatural union and calling it the same as marriage.

It simply isn't.



.



Anderson
"Christians do not impose morals on anyone. Never have, never will."

Really? What about all the blood spilled -- on both sides -- during the Reformation? How about the Inquisition? Have you researched the plight of the conversos in Spain? How about the fight by churches to make and keep birth control illegal during the 20th century?

Do you just make things up as you type? You've already said on another thread (today!) that the issue of what you know and what you don't is "trivial" when it comes to evaluating your statements. I'm starting to think you're right.

Juannie 57 3:16
yeah, the Bible does get a hoot out of morons who say "where is the promise of his coming."

Why are you in a hurry to die and burn in Hell, Juannie?

When the Big Guy hits town again "he will slay the wicked with the breath of his mouth" and ain't no mouthwash gonna help ya!

Geesh, the guy gives ya a couple dozen extra centuries to straighten up and you dis him for it.

Well, we already knew smart you weren't.

the big mick

If
If conservative Christians aren't trying to impose their morality on everyone then why are they trying to ban women's reproductive rights and gay rights?

We are they trying to ban the teaching of homosexuality and evolution in public schools?



Dreadnaught
I never argued that anything California voters did was illegal. I simply thought it was cruel, reactionary, and deserving of my contempt.

I'm not sure I agree with VeritasX that there's an Equal Protection problem to banning gay marriage. However, I think you'll see a pretty convincing Full Faith and Credit suit in the next few years. The Clause states:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

It's hard to see how that lets conservative states not recognize gay marriages from MA, or civil unions from CA, ME, NH, VT, CT, and NJ. That doesn't mean states would have to perform gay marriages themselves. But just as a person can't flee to Utah to avoid paying for a prostitute in Nevada, even though Utah voters disapprove of Nevada's legalized prostitution, states probably cannot constitutionally deny that a couple married in Massachusetts is married, even if they disapprove of the contract.

This one goes out to Dreadnaught
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui1te79iEEw

Dreadnaught
Sorry this comes so far down the list, but your response was very interesting. However, it was incorrect - the pop didn't come first. In fact, St. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome. In addition, the Latin church has changed numerous dogmatic positions over the years, not the least of which was papal supremacy. St. Gregory Dialogist (the Great), himself, said that any bishop who held himself up as the "bishop of bishops" was the forerunner to the antiChrist. (Though, I don't buy into the whole "the Latin church is the whore of Babylon in Revelations" nonsense). Pope Honorious, bishop of Rome, was anathematized for his heresy of monothelitism (or was it monergism? Can't remember). Even the acts of the Council of Chalcedon show that though the whole Church always gave Rome the position of first in honor, the bishop of Rome was never seen as infallible in theology or dogma, nor as having primacy. The other additions, such as purgatory, indulgences, etc., simply flowed from that. In any event, the Church, including several popes (as cited above) never recognized ANY one patriarch as above any of the others or as infallible in any way, shape, or form. In fact, patriarchs from *every* see have been anathematized. It isn't the position, it is the Faith, itself, embodied in the Body of Christ, the Church, that is infallible, not any one part of the Body.

the sinner,

Charles

...............
Gayhadists should realize that many reject gay marriage not because it violates religious laws but because it violates laws of nature. And many of those who oppose gay marriage are not opposed to civil unions.

You leftist malcontents are just like the rabid paleostinians. In 1947 the paleostinians were offered a partition of Israel where they could have their own state. They rejected it and preferred to wage war for all of Israel. And here the gayhadists reject a civil union virtually identical to marriage preferring to wage war on marriage.

ONCE again...
dreadnought - Your argument that rights to marry are equal for gays and straights might have validity if, for example, marriage was simply a religious convention.. but, it isn't.

Marriage conveys legal rights unavailable outside of marriage, such as the right to not testify against one's spouse, the right to make legal decisions in case of a spouse's incapacity, automatic inheritance unless a will declares otherwise, and many others.

THIS is, yes, believe it or not, what gays in America want: no one wants to enfringe upon YOUR religious rights, we simply want OUR legal rights.

Your argument also might make more sense if modern, American, marriage were conducted other than for the reason it is - i.e., in the past, marriage was usually entered into for purely economic considerations, to appease one's family, to prevent the bastardy of a soon-to-be-born child, and so forth - today, however, the occassional gold-digger aside, marriage is undertaken for the reason of validating symbolically an emotional state, commonly known as 'being in love'.

Since we do not have the right to impose personal values upon others, it should be plain that one's opinions do not entitle them to dictate the worthiness of another's emotional state. That seems like basic common sense to me.

And, congratulations on 'Googling' my nickname. ;)

Matthew
Homosexuals have every civil right, and protections as heterosexuals do. And then some.To say different is false. The marriage issue is not a right, marriage is a privilege and has been defined as between one man and one woman.

Reproductive rights? More baloney. Women have the choice to get pregnant, that is their right. They also have the choice not to get pregnant, that is also their right.

Sice when Matthew does the death of another human being devolve into a reproductive right ?

Evolution is a theory, why not teach creationism. It is as scientific as evolution, both are theories, so how would teaching that be wrong?

Juannie 55 3:21 rebuttal part1
Juannie, you're such a clown, you rate a line by line deconstruction.
Only way to appreciate the comic depths of your inanity.
“Jesus was a socialist”
How ya figure? Socialism is government redistribution of wealth. Not only did Jesus say on several occasions he didn’t have a dam thing to do with Gov’mnt, he specifically makes wealth redistribution a PERSONAL, not Governmental or Societal task.

“ who lived in a commune (it's called a kibbutz)”

No he didn’t, he specifically says he has “no place to lay his head” and was run out of his hometown. He was a itinerant rabbi, and at least one of his financial backers was Inside the Belt Way Big Money.

“And as for Obama as a messiah, the idea is not completely without foundation, if you adhere to the Jewish view of what a messiah is.”

So who anointed Beloved Dear Leader Village Organizer Chairman HO? Somehow the MSM as Elijah doesn’t work for me.

cont. tbm

Christianphobic Homosexuals
The very fact that the people of California had to put in the ballot proposition 8 is an indication of the moral degradation and the absence of moral clarity in American society.
Homosexuals feel that they can impose by force and intimidation their unhealthy and unnatural life style on the American people.

The intolerance and hatred displayed by these sex-obsessed individuals against Christians is outrageous. It is time that the American people awake and stop believing in the lies perpetrated by these hateful people. Homosexuals do not need special rights, the very concept of “gays rights” is a myth. The Constitution protects the rights of all Americans, including homosexuals. So it is a lie that their “rights” are being denied.
What is actually behind of the so called “gay’ rights” is just pure hatred toward Christianity, the bible, God, Jesus Christ, the church, family and American heritage. These individuals have an extreme phobia to everything that is Christian and Bible. They cannot accept the truth that homosexuality is a twisted anomaly of the human nature and a sin against the creation of God.
Homosexuals claim that this is not a religious issue but a civil issue, therefore, arguments coming out of the bible must be rejected. The problem with this fallacy is that our culture is founded in the values of the Bible. The Ten Commandments have had a deep influence in the psychology of our culture.
Our greatness in the world is because of the application of the Christian ethics in our daily lives.
Our political and individual freedoms exist because of the principles that our rights are given by God, the God of the bible. And this God created man and woman to procreate and filled the earth. What is so difficult for homosexuals to understand this basic and fundamental true?
The only answer is hatred toward God and their desire to practice their unhealthy and disgusting life style and call it “marriage.”

Erk..
Dear Mr. Great Satan: I tend not to pick too much on other's use of language, but this one.. really, really bugged me. What in heck is a 'paleostinian' - I can't imagine, other than possibly a prehistoric man from the paleolithic era.. (well, come to think of it, that IS apt, to certain posters on this thread, but I digress..)

Did you mean a Palestinian, a person of Arabic descent living in Palestine?

The Palestinians tend to be a bit 'irked', by the way, not because of some lack of ability to compromise but because of the perception that their homeland was stolen by the British, and then handed over to the Israelis, thus displacing them... Not that that has anything to do with the gay rights topic...

Juannie 3:21 part 2
“As for Christianity, Jesus failed in rather Ba'alesque fashion,”—Tell that one to the Roman Empire, Juannie.
“thereby proving himself to be a false god “ Really? And how many congregations has Ba’al got these days? How’s his offerings been lately?
“(if he ever said what has been attributed to him, which is doubtful)”
Juannie, Juan, Juannie, it is absolutely amazing how you unfailing zero in on the biggest hoots in the post-modern hermeneutic. I’ve had experts with Doctorates, Published Works, and 30 years experience teaching NT in the foremost Seminaries in the Land, fail to make a cogent case for “authentic Jesus sayings”, Juannie. If you don’t believe he said: “I and the Father are one”, then you have absolutely no reason to believe he said: “Love your enemies.” Same identical source material. Hell, they even knew better back in Schweitzer’s day, where you been? Albert said of the German Biblical Scholars of the generation previous to his (and of himself, and you, though he, like you, didn’t have the wit to see it) “They looked down the long well of history and saw their own faces reflected in the bottom.”

If you claim to be one of those heathen who know the Word of God better than I do, Juannie, you've shown precious little evidence of it.

The Big Mick

Sex obsessed???
Earlier, Eddie Too commented that homosexuals are "enslaved to their physical desires" and now Manuel has called gays "sex obsessed." What does that mean?

Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender. They are "enslaved to their physical desires" in the same way Eddie Too presumably is -- he is straight, and only desires to be with people of the opposite sex. Like all of us, homosexuals want to be with people who fulfill both their mental and physical desires, but I don't see how that makes them any more "enslaved" than anyone else.

And I don't see on what basis you say homosexuals are any more "sex obsessed" than anyone else. They are human, and like sex. For a long time, they risked imprisonment for having sex. That kind of thing makes sex something you value.

No truth in "veritas" the XXX factor
"Marriage conveys legal rights unavailable outside of marriage, such as the right to not testify against one's spouse, the right to make legal decisions in case of a spouse's incapacity, automatic inheritance unless a will declares otherwise, and many others."

Every last one of which could be MADE accessible by adjustments of inheritance, medical, and other laws, n'est ce pas?

There is absolutely NO REASON why you couldn’t get these “rights” by legal adjustments totally outside of Marriage, is there now, vertie? Nothing whatsoever standing in the way of you obtaining legal redress through laws other than Marriage.
Except one little thing which you forgot to mention.
Marriage “norms” the SEX! Legitimates and Warrants it.
THAT’s what are REALLY after!
All this whining about “rights” is nothing but a red herring.
It’s never been about anything butt (I made a funny) the sex.
The Big Mick

Ranger Robber! Hola ol sod!
How'd that "Master and Commander" thing work out for ya, PerB?

I can always count on you to show your true Prhomo commieqr colors on a homosex thread, even if I miss you on Ann's.

The Big Mick

About the Sex... or, NOT HARDLY
Big Mick - Sure, these rights could be made available through a series of laws or legal adjustments other than marriage, but it seems illogical to pursue MANY laws instead of only ONE, when only one is necessary to grant all of the rest.

As far as your statement that marriage 'norms' the sex, there's simply no validity. The Supreme Court has already ruled that laws cannot be made criminalizing gay SEX, therefore, the sex is already legally 'normalized'.

Many of us care about the symbolic recognition of our emotion, yes, but we really are not the ones obsessed with sex, as can be seen in the fact that it is not the supporters of gay marriage who bring up the carnal aspect, but the opponents.

Ranger Robber aka PerBert
“Who cares what the Bible teaches on homosexuality...?”
Oh, I don’t know, maybe the vast majority of Americans who call themselves Christians, or maybe the vast majority that, exercising their SOVEREIGNTY under the Constitution VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY to KEEP the BIBLICAL definition of Marriage as THE LEGAL one?

“We are a Republic under The Constitution”, why YES, PerB, as I was just studying tonight with my son in his Civics homework. Which means POWER resides with THE PEOPLE who EXERCISE that power through the Ballot Box and ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES (NOT appointed Judges) and who CONSTITUTIONALLY have said IN THEIR SOVEREIGNTY “go to hell” to homomarriage.
So, Mr. Constitutionalist “Long live the Republic” what’s your problem with your Sovereign fellow citizens exercising their Sovereignty on this issue?
Turns out their were more of THEM then your Moronic Mythical Middle “Moderate” commieqrs, n’ est ce pas? I guess your reports of their demise were premature, huh, PerB?
Reaganism is alive in well, on THIS issue, the only one you REALLY care about, anyway.
The Big Mick

Homosexual Marriage is about a license
Homosexual Marriage is about a license

There are restrictions on acquiring licenses.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Medical' license because there are restrictions.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Drivers' license because there are restrictions.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Pilot' license because there are restrictions.

Not everyone can acquire a 'Marriage' license because there are restrictions.

This is NOT about 'Civil Rights' it is about restrictions on acquiring a license.

Homosexuals have exactly the same rights and protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights as every other American Citizen.

This whole controversy is about a group of people who have chosen to be deviants and want everyone else to call them normal - it has NOTHING to do with Civil Rights.

Big Mick
I also think homosexuals are worried that -- if they only have civil unions and not marriage -- their rights are essentially contingent on what the public wants to give them. They want to know that their rights with regard to their partner are secure, and won't be taken away when the direction of the wind changes.

Still, since so many people here are giving lip service to being fine with civil unions, I urge you to call your local GOP politician and tell him or her that you support it. But after conservatives pushed successfully for marriage amendments in many states that also prohibited civil unions, gay Americans can be forgiven for withholding their trust.

Homosexuality is about Lust

Homosexuals want respect of both themselves and their lifestyle - yet most homosexuals and certainly their leaders, show NO respect for anyone else and their lifestyle.

The goal of most Homosexuals is a complete and utter vulgarization of society.

Ever watch a Homosexual parade? The only goal is to shock and degrade any semblance of normality.

This is NOT about 'Civil Rights', but about 'Vulgar Rights'.

There are no orderly quests for Civil Unions which most Americans would agree to - rather it is a vicious attack on anything 'Sacred' - anything 'Traditional'.

Most Homosexuals hate themselves and anyone who does not agree with their vulgar lifestyle.

Regardless of what Homosexuals gain, it will never be enough to satisfy or sate their unnatural lusts.

Homosexuals want to deny others freedom of religion, freedom of speech and even freedom of thought - unless all others praise them and their deviance from normality.

The concept of live and let live is 'Anathema' to militant Homosexuals.

Homosexuals and False Self Esteem

We live in a society in 2008 that has an educational system that is more interested in 'Self-Esteem' than survival.

Our educational system is NO longer focused on the survivability of the student in a world of Information and High Tech, but rather how the student 'Feels' about themselves.

Homosexuals want the educational system to change the curricula to teach they are 'Normal' so they can have 'Self Esteem'.

Homosexuals want to feel 'Good' about their deviant lifestyle and think ANY criticism is intolerance.

Homosexuals have 'Pride' parades and wear badges about 'Gay Pride' and yet seemingly hate their lifestyle or they wouldn't constantly try to show the world 'How Proud They Are'.

Homosexuals are intolerant of anyone who disagrees and attack them personally and viciously, all in the name of 'Tolerance' and 'Diversity'.

Homosexuals declare all they want are the same rights of every other American Citizen - yet Homosexuals have the same rights as any other American Citizen.

Homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like every other American Citizen. Homosexuals have the right to have sex with another consenting adult just like any other American Citizen.

There is a 'Cure' for hunger 'Eat', there is a 'Cure' for sleepiness go to 'Sleep', there is a 'Cure' for loneliness 'Make Friends' etc.

There is a 'Cure' for sexual deviancy, choose non-deviant sex.

Homosexuals who want to feel 'Normal' and have self-esteem, change your lifestyle or accept yourself and leave the rest of us out of the equation.

Homosexuals 'Life is a Hill' get over it.




OK, so it's about a license
But just because it's about a license doesn't mean that the government can justifiably use any criteria it wants to deny that license.

I don't think you'd argue that the government should be able to deny a driver's license to someone because he is gay.

ne pravda v'isvestia vertie
Glad you admit it.
So where’s the logic in letting you screw over the whole concept of marriage just to save your lawyers a bit of work?

So if it ain't about the LAW and THE LAW ain't about the Sex, why the hell do you need Marriage, Vertie? Don't make a dam bit of sense a'tall, do it?

All you accomplished was to deconstruct your own argument, ol sod.

Again, what you want is to Legitimate, Warrant, and NORM the perversion--that's the ONLY thing Marriage does--MORALLY, SOCIALLY, RELIGIOUSLY, THEOLOGICALLY, ETHICALLY--so who gives a dam, LEGALLY, IF what you say is true, which I doubt.

Unless your objective is the norming of the perversion, vertie, you don't NEED marriage, your last post admits it. Go read your own stuff.
the big Mick

Why do Homosexuals attack Tradition?

"One of the world’s most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage.

In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish.

“We’re not married,” he told the press, “Let’s get that straight. We have a civil partnership…I don’t want to be married!

I’m very happy with a civil partnership. The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married.

We can have civil partnerships”. If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution."

Michael Medved

Why conservatives do this stuff
I'm afraid some non-conservative readers of TH may not understand why conservatives are so focused on gays and gay issues. The reason is that conservatism is the political counterpart of Biblical Christianity. Conservatism is Biblical Christianity enacted into law and policy. Conservatives, of course, have the lock on the Bible and on true religion. That's why they regard disagreement with any of their policy positions as rejection of the Law, Will, and Word of God. That's why there can, for them, be no such thing as a genuinely Christian liberal. This may not be theocracy, but it will do until the real things comes along.

not surprising PerB
since you ain't payin attention.

It's about NORMING the SEX, PerB.

The object is to trash the idea that some sex "ain't right"!
It's the Theological Proscriptions against Homosex that are to be weakened, indeed eradicated. Marriage is simply the Trojan Horse Means.

Course you know that.

mick

Pennsylvania Yankee et al

Is Homosexuality a 'Birth Defect'?

'OR'

Is Homosexuality a 'Chosen Behavior'?

Big Mick
Did you really help your kid with Civics homework tonight? I sure hope not. He'll apparently never realize that we have three branches of government, which are to check and balance each other. The judiciary does and should have its share of power.

But putting that aside, in all your complaining about "appointed judges" are you aware that the California Supreme Court justices have to stand for election in the first general election after their appointment. So they too are elected by the people.

In Romans 1:18

It appears that the act is a result of the rejection of God. It involves the worship of what He has made instead. There is always a link.

Pennsylvania Yankee et al

Pennsylvania Yankee wrote: "But just because it's about a license doesn't mean that the government can justifiably use any criteria it wants to deny that license."

What planet are you from?

Interior decorators have to have a license in some states to match carpet to a rug.

Cosmetologists have to have a license to braid hair.

The "Government" can and does, make all types of decisions limiting licenses.

What is your point?

Once more
As I stated previously, the sex aspect you are so obsessed with has already been normalized by the highest court in the land. When the Supreme Court of this great nation says I am not doing anything illegal, what YOU might happen to think of it really is an immense irrelevance to me.

So, yes, it really IS about the LEGAL rights.

As far as the civil union arguments, that is fine if, like Sir Elton John one lives in a nation or state in which such union conveys full legal, civil rights - otherwise, it is not worth the paper on which it is printed.

Not to mention, if someone has the wealth and prominent visibility of a superstar, it is rather easy to be blase, for who is going to attempt (least of all, successfully,) to violate HIS rights?

I am rather more concerned about the rights of the AVERAGE gay citizen.

Jack Black
We will no longer support films by any of these people in our family. If they are not intelligent enough to read the Bible, even children can understand it, they are not intelligent enough to make a decent movie.

you full of it Gestie
Reagan Conservatisms Main Pillars direct from the Framers are 1. Radically Restricted and Smaller Government 2. Radically Lower taxes. 3. A U.S. Armed Force that keeps us the World's only Super Power. 4. Free Markets 5. Personal Sovereignty AND Responsibility 6. Moral Principle

That some Christians happen to be Conservative, and Some Conservatives happen to be Christians cannot, in any cogent sense, be said to make the two coterminus.

I'd be interested in hearing you name even 1 (one) Theocratic Law ever put into place by any Conservative Legislature or Executive in the W.F. Buckley era.

By the way, Gessie, I'm the World's only known Theistic Anarchist. I regard your "Liberal-Conservative" linear political spectrum as disingenuous debunked nonsense over 3 decades out of date.
Commieqr is as Commiqr does.

The Big Mick

Retired Greek
First of all, I'll avoid your description as a birth defect.

The best research I've seen on the question involves identical and fraternal twins. Identical twins are genetically identical, and any gene one has the other has too. Fraternal twins only have half the same genes (as do any siblings). However, fraternal twins, like identical twins, are raised at the same time by the same people. So it's a good way to test how much something is nature and how much nurture.

If homosexuality was entirely genetic, you would that 100 percent of identical twins with a gay sibling would also be gay. You don't see that. However, twice as many gay identical twins had a gay sibling as fraternal twins. That suggests that genetics certainly plays some role (since identical twins proves to be twice as alike as fraternal twins in this regard) but is not entirely determinative.

Just as "birth defect" is inaccuate, saying that a gay person makes a "choice" would also be inaccurate, even if homosexuality had no genetic component. You preferences are developed over time, and partially controlled by your upbringing. There is likely no genetic component that leads to liking peanut butter, for example, but you would hardly say that someone "chooses" to like peanut butter, nor would most people say that someone who didn't like peanut butter could decide to like it.

I figured I'd answer your question, though I don't know what your point is. I don't really care whether nature or nurture makes someone gay, and don't think it's particularly relevant to the quesiton of whether we should recognize their unions.

Robbie of Kalifornicatn
Sure do, and the Judiciary is CHECKED by THE PEOPLE, where, IN a REPUBLIC and by the Doctrine of POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY (BUILT IN to both the Declaration AND the Constitution) THE POWER resides, n'est ce pas?

Glad to here the Kalifornicatn Judges have to stand election. It makes them properly vunerable to the people's wrath should they attempt to thwart the people's will.

mick

Retired Greek
My point is the same one I made before. The fact that government puts all types of restrictions limiting licenses does not mean they should be able to use any criteria they want for giving the licenses. You wrote, for example:

"Interior decorators have to have a license in some states to match carpet to a rug."

That's true, but I imagine you don't think that the government should deny someone a license to be an interior decorator because they're black, or have blue eyes, or because they're gay (this last one, as a side note, would be an crippling
restriction on the interior decorating industry).

VeritasX et al

Is Homosexuality a 'Birth Defect'?

'OR'

Is Homosexuality a 'Chosen Behavior'?

Homosexuality certainly defies 'Natural Law', survival and pro-creation.

Ranger Robber aka PerBert
Yeah, and your Master and Commander was going to sweep all before him into the WH.
What happened, PerB?
If Conservatism was all that dead, how come you Prhomo's were overwhealmingly REJECTED!

mick

pastore
is very glib in trying to interpret the bible but lets look at some other statements in the bible.

so children who curse their parents should die.

Exodus 21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

if someone is a drunkard they should be stoned.

Deuteronomy 21:20-21 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


if you eat meat of a pig, you are unclean.


7 'and the swine, (Pig) though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, [is] unclean to you.

now i am a devout Christian and believe in the bible but it does seem that some things in the bible we have either ignored or found to be not literally taken as commands.





retired geek
do you honestly think it is a choice.

have you ever seen a young boy at 6 or 7 that is clearly effeminate and grows up to be gay.

i surely have.

why would someone choose to live a lifestyle that would bring them hate and discrimination?

there are even gay animals.

in recent studies, they have discovered different brain configurations between gay and straight men.

Pennsylvania Yankee et al

Homosexuals are NOT denied a marriage license because they are Homosexuals.

The marriage license is restricted to a man and a woman - regardless of their sexual preferences - you are comparing apples to oranges.

Civil unions are NOT by definition, restricted to a man and a woman.

I and I believe most Americans would have voted for Civil Unions before the attacks on old ladies and worship services (notably NO black churches or Islamic Mosques).

Things may not have gone to far to accomplish that yet, but if these insane attacks keep up I doubt if any headway will be made for Homosexuals.

Sexual b