[…] MusicCityBloggers. This picture made my […]

Attaguy! Here’s hoping he gets another 28, at least, in good health all the way.

Awesome!!!!

Brittney must have snapped pic that on her job-acquiring trip to the land of fruits and nuts. She’ll see many more like him/her when she moves to SFO.

For some reason the “Sponsored by Budget Signs” at the bottoms cracks me up!

This is disgusting! Who cares if he’s gay or not?? I don’t WANNA know your “orientation”! Just frakkin’ keep it to yer-self!!

Why, Eric? Afraid you can be turned?

I don’t get why it’s disgusting…

Anybody know what that big orange thing is in the left of the photo? It looks like a float or something..

Oy vey follow the links, people. Eric, the guy was at a PRIDE MARCH. You know, where teh gayz go to display their PRIDE. Instead of being ashamed like Larry Craig. This old guy won’t be tap-tap-tapping in the public men’s room stall.

Get with it, man.

Eric: Do you keep your orientation to yourself? Do you make public reference to your wife, hold hands with her in public, give her a peck on the cheek when others can see, have a picture of the two of you together in view of others? At least on your blog you reference your wife. (http://poundofthoughts.com/2007/09/08/praxis-day-is-half-over/)

Why should you be able to publicly disclose your orientation and not others? Why don’t you keep your orientation to yourself?

I’m cheering on Budget Signs for sponsoring him.

At least he appears to be pro-life.

I’m with Kate O’.
I think this is just awesome.

At least he appears to be pro-life.

I’d be willing to bet he’s had very few abortions.
.

Geez, until others responded, I thought Eric was making a joke.

That’s the problem with the anti-gay crowd. They’re walking parodies of themselves. Sometimes it’s just hard to know.

I’d be willing to bet he’s had very few abortions.

Well, it’s hard to judge by appearances–he could be transgender, but I’m not sure either gender or history of getting abortions is an indicator on the issue.

Let me say one thing: I don’t hate this man because he is gay. If he’s gay, that’s up to him. But let me ask you this - If we heterosexuals were to have a “Straight Pride” parade, you homosexuals would be throwing rocks at us. It has been proven over and over again in places like San Fransisco. You don’t see those things happening to the gay marchers by heterosexuals.

Why, Eric? Afraid you can be turned?

Absolutely not. I am very secure in my heterosexuality. It’s just stomach-turning to me for people to broadcast that they like to have sex with others of their own gender. It’s totally unnatural, and it’s immoral.

Why should you be able to publicly disclose your orientation and not others? Why don’t you keep your orientation to yourself?

Yes, I reference my wife. And let me say this: There is no such thing as “orientation”. It is morally acceptable - and has been for thousands of years - for one man and one woman to be married. It has been socially unacceptable for two men or two woman (or more) to be “married”. Like I said above - It’s totally unnatural for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Even the basest of all animals know this.

If we heterosexuals were to have a “Straight Pride” parade, you homosexuals would be throwing rocks at us.

Do you plan to follow this up with an argument that we should have “Miss White America” and “White History Month”?

I too am heterosexual. I must be a little more secure in it than you, though— I don’t feel like we need to strangle every mention of homosexuality out of existence to maintain our dominance.

Us horrible, oppressed majorities. The righteous anger of the enfranchised!

Like I said above - It’s totally unnatural for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Even the basest of all animals know this.

Forget about what the basest of animals know (A high school friend’s dogs who were at most bisexual might say otherwise). But the wisest of animals know that love knows no boundaries, and it’s not for us to judge.

Oh and Michael, I see on your blog you talk about how Middle Tennessee has “staggering” HIV/AIDS statistics.

While most people who test positive are gay or lesbian, unsafe heterosexual behavior accounts for 25 -27 percent of new cases

This points out the end result of having homosexual relations. According to the statistics, 73 - 75% of the people in MT who have AIDS are gay. Only 1 in 4 are heterosexual. And I would bet my life that if you dug deeper into the heterosexual statistics, the reason they have HIV/AIDS is because one of their partners has performed a homosexual act in the past with someone who has HIV/AIDS. What does this say about the “alternative lifestyle”?

Wow, is this “express hate for anyone who’s different from you” week on MCB or something? Or is that every day and I’m just usually not this sensitive about it?

Eric, your comment is full of the same crap I’ve spent my adult, out-of-the-closet life becoming tired of arguing about, but I will say, in response to this:

If we heterosexuals were to have a “Straight Pride” parade, you homosexuals would be throwing rocks at us.

If you come to me and say that as a straight person, you feel as if people want you to be ashamed of being straight, and that you want to stand up in defense of yourself and your community and proclaim that you will not be shamed, that in spite of whatever cruelty and violence is heaped upon you because of who you are and how you are made, that you wish for just one day out of the year that you could feel “normal” surrounded by people who are like you and people who support you — then believe me, I will support your Straight Pride parade.

Otherwise, every freakin’ day is Straight Pride day from the perspective of a non-heterosexual. Get rocks thrown at you much?

Kate, just to lighten things up a little, I’ll inject something from my other gig. Did you know that one of the storylines in Ugly Betty last year was about a designer who was a “closet straight”? One of the characters, after the Reveal, said, “This is my first ever public ‘in-ing’!”.
-
Your comment reminded me of how funny that was.

Listen: I am very secure in my sexuality. And I don’t “feel like we need to strangle every mention of homosexuality out of existence to maintain our dominance.” I’m just saying that most heterosexuals do not broadcast or force their individual sexuality on those who are not.

Do you plan to follow this up with an argument that we should have “Miss White America” and “White History Month”?

Absolutely not! That is actually a very ignorant thing to say. I believe that everyone is equal under God. The thing is: Homosexuality is wrong. You know it, and I know it.

But the wisest of animals know that love knows no boundaries, and it’s not for us to judge.

I agree with your statement “Love knows no boundaries.” I don’t say that I hate homosexuals, because I don’t. I hate the act of homosexuality. And I don’t have to “judge”:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

- Leviticus 20:13

Now of course the “shall surely be put to death” was under the old Hebrew law, and is not our law of the land. However, I believe (and the Bible teaches) that God deals out punishment for committing abominations, and HIV/AIDS could very well be a punishment.

I want it to be understood that the only reason I’m speaking out about this is because I don’t want to see more people dying from preventable disease by committing immoral and abominable acts. It’s out of love for fellow man- and womankind, not out of hatred.

You can always tell when you’re talking to a lightweight about homosexuality— AIDS becomes part of the conversation.

Ever heard the name Grethe Rask? Probably not. Danish heterosexual nurse that did missionary work in the Congo. She also became the first known AIDS fatality in 1976. I’m almost certain she got it through blood contact while treating a patient, so she was certainly not the first person infected. With its tendency to cause opportunistic infections, there were likely people dying for years before anyone had any idea.

What’s the point of bringing this up? Disease knows no sexual identity and respects no boundaries.

Had it not spread among the homosexual population once it got here, not only would there be no bozos trying to link disease and sexual identity, but we’d be in a far scarier world.

See, had it broken loose among random heterosexuals, the early epidemiological work that led us to the disease would have been near impossible. The early stages of the epidemic were almost exclusively found within a narrow segment of the population. Had we been trying to trace back who had sex with who among 100% of the population rather than 10% (Guessing), it would have been such a setback that, as terrifying as it sounds, we might just have isolated the virus and created an effective test within the last five years.

Tragically, that same isolation also led to a very conservative White House in the early years of the epidemic treating a national health crisis as a calculated game of demographics.

I wouldn’t wish this disease on my worst enemy. I’m not saying you would either. But it was sheer dumb luck that it spread first among the gay population in America. Because that’s not the way it was in the rest of the world. Because of that, our CDC and NIH had a leg up on the guys at the Pasteur Institute, who were forced to sample 100% of the population for their cluster studies.

From a sheerly scientific standpoint (Certainly not a human one), we caught a lucky break when it spread first among a minority population. I cannot imagine where we would be today had it not.

(Rick considered a career in retrovirological research, so is more than a little familiar with the issues at play here)

If we heterosexuals were to have a “Straight Pride” parade, you homosexuals would be throwing rocks at us.

Doubtful. If you want to throw a straight pride parade, I’d be more apt to just sit back and laugh at you. You face no oppression on the basis of your orientation so what exactly (with regards to your sexual orientation) do you have to be proud of. Gay Pride is about being proud of overcoming folks like you to be happy, well-adjusted individuals.

You don’t see those things happening to the gay marchers by heterosexuals.

No, certain heterosexuals prefer baseball bats and beer bottles to rocks. Would you really like to compare stats on how many straights attack gays for being gay rather than how many gays attack straights for being straight? I think you’d see your “point” fizzle and die.

It’s just stomach-turning to me for people to broadcast that they like to have sex with others of their own gender.

Yet you have no problem broadcast that you like to have sex with others of the opposite gender?

Yes, I reference my wife. And let me say this: There is no such thing as “orientation”.

You reference your wife, therefore you reference your own orientation.

It is morally acceptable - and has been for thousands of years - for one man and one woman to be married. It has been socially unacceptable for two men or two woman (or more) to be “married”.

Slavery was morally acceptable for the bulk of human history…

The reality is that societal acceptance of homosexuality has been a rollercoaster if you follow it back through history. It has had its peaks and its valleys.

Further your “or more” comment with regards to marriage is factually wrong. The idea that a man could marry more than one woman was not only morally acceptable for quite a long time, but was actually the norm.

It’s totally unnatural for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Even the basest of all animals know this.

I don’t know what the “basest of all animals know” but I do know that homosexuality has been documented in ALL species of mammals and in nearly every other form of multi-celled animal life.

As for your HIV/AIDS bit, if I started walking around making the claims you’re making, the Red Cross (hardly a pro-gay group) would strip me of my certification to teach HIV/AIDS Awareness. The notion that AIDS is a “gay disease” is precisely what is allowing it to spread so quickly in the straight community.

According to the statistics, 73 - 75% of the people in MT who have AIDS are gay.

Actually according to the statistics, 52-53% of new cases in Middle Tennessee are related to homosexual behavior. This tends to be concentrated in the African-American male community where homosexuality is socially condemned particularly stringently. It’s risky behavior (of any orientational nature) that spreads HIV, and when people feel forced to live their lives in secret, risky behavior increases.

Before you come in here spouting nonsense, do some research.

I’m just saying that most heterosexuals do not broadcast or force their individual sexuality on those who are not.

You don’t hold hands with the Mrs? Did you when you were dating? Walk with your arm around her?

I do every bit of that. And I don’t believe in denying to others what I reserve for myself.

And I don’t have to “judge”

Yet you do. Your words: “Homosexuality is wrong. You know it, and I know it.”

That’s not for us to decide. That decision is made above our pay grade, Eric.

Want to talk about Leviticus? According to that book, I committed a mortal sin when I ate barbecue pork for dinner last night. Are you going to throw rocks at me too?

Homosexuality is wrong. You know it, and I know it.

That decision is above our pay grade. Nice to know you “don’t have to judge” though.

Want to talk about Leviticus? According to Chapter 11, verse 7, I committed a mortal sin last night myself. I touched the skin of a dead pig when I had barbecue for dinner. Try and stone me for it, though. I dare you.

Rick,

Wow. I am impressed, and I don’t mind being taught something new. Thank you for those facts. And I would definitely NOT wish this disease on ANYONE.

Eric: If you had clicked through the link on my blog, you would have seen that 8-10% of HIV/AIDS cases are from injection drug use.

Homosexual behavior has been documented in 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, etc. It seems a lot of God’s base animals missed the memo.

On the judgment front, I’m wondering what diseases God has meted out for all the others in that chapter of Leviticus and those surrounding it who “shall surely be put to death?”

I thought Jesus paid the price for my sins so I didn’t have to? My job is to call upon the name of the Lord and I would be saved. Romans 10:13

Despite saying you only hate “the act of homosexuality” and not homosexuals, your first attack was on a man who merely said he is gay. He is not pictured having homosexual sex.

Does this mean I can’t count on recruiting you so I can meet my monthly quota?

If we heterosexuals were to have a “Straight Pride” parade, you homosexuals would be throwing rocks at us. It has been proven over and over again in places like San Fransisco. You don’t see those things happening to the gay marchers by heterosexuals.

Are you kidding? Do you know how many people are badly hurt each year by gay-bashers? Or is that not the same because they wait until their victim is alone and defenceless, not part of a parade?

Plus, I think you need to do a little research on the death penalty in “old Hebrew law.” Since “a court that pronounces a death sentence more than once a generation is a murderous court” and the standards of proof in criminal matters are (and were) far more stringent in Jewish law than in the U.S. today, good luck at finding any such executions. And since the text you cite is, in fact, a declaration of principles of worship (don’t consider incest holy, as the Egyptians do; don’t have ritual sex in the temple, as Phoenicians do) rather than a list of bad sexual behavior per se, I don’t think it’s all that relevant here anyway.

Thank you, Eric. Glad to be of service.

Are these gay animals in the wild or in captivity?

On the judgment front, I’m wondering what diseases God has meted out for all the others in that chapter of Leviticus and those surrounding it who “shall surely be put to death?”

My mortal sin according to Leviticus, which I committed with last night’s barbecue, did indeed give me indigestion. But it was soooooo good.

Rick, Rick, Rick…

Please do not take scripture out of context. That was directed at the Children of Israel. Please read Leviticus 11:1-6 also.

We as Gentiles do not fall under the Hebrew law, as we have been “adopted” into the Family of God through the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If we heterosexuals were to have a “Straight Pride” parade, you homosexuals would be throwing rocks at us.

Hardly, I’d be more likely to just sit back and laugh at you for having no idea what Pride is about.

You don’t see those things happening to the gay marchers by heterosexuals.

No, those heterosexuals tend to prefer baseball bats and beer bottles to rocks. If you really want to go there, I’ll be happy to dig up some stats on the number of gay people attacked for being gay versus the number of straight people attacked for being straight.

It’s just stomach-turning to me for people to broadcast that they like to have sex with others of their own gender.

Yet you don’t mind broadcasting that you like to have sex with others of the opposite gender??

It is morally acceptable - and has been for thousands of years - for one man and one woman to be married. It has been socially unacceptable for two men or two woman (or more) to be “married”.

Slavery was morally acceptable for the bulk of human existence…

Societal acceptance of homosexuality has been a rollercoaster if track it back through history and various cultures. Sometimes gay people were systematically killed, other times they were honored, the rest of the time it was somewhere in between. None of it demonstrates anything about what is right and wrong today.

On a slight aside, per your “(or more” comment. It was not only socially acceptable but actually more common than not for one man and several women to be married throughout much of history.

It’s totally unnatural for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Even the basest of all animals know this.

I’m not sure what “the basest of all animals” know, but I do know that homosexuality has been documented in ALL mammals and in the vast majority of other multi-celled animal life.

As for your HIV/AIDS comments, I thought those had blown up in the face of the anti-gay bigots enough that you guys had stopped using them. Guess not.

If I went around talking like you, the Red Cross (hardly a pro-gay organization) would strip me of my certification to teach HIV/AIDS Awareness. The notion that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease” is precisely what has allowed it to spread so quickly through the straight community.

According to the statistics, 73 - 75% of the people in MT who have AIDS are gay.

No, according to the statistics 52-53% of new HIV/AIDS infections are a result of risky homosexual behavior. Those infections are concentrated among the young African-American male community, where hostility towards gay men runs the strongest. AIDS/HIV is caused by risky behavior (regardless of the orientation of the individual), and when societal pressure forces folks in the closet, risky behavior unfortunately increases. The numbers clearly show this to be true.

I’m just saying that most heterosexuals do not broadcast or force their individual sexuality on those who are not.The thing is: Homosexuality is wrong. You know it, and I know it.Leviticus 20:13

Do you yourself strictly follow mosaic law?

HIV/AIDS could very well be a punishment

If HIV/AIDS is God’s way of playing favorites, the stats are clear. God loves lesbians most of all.

I want it to be understood that the only reason I’m speaking out about this is because I don’t want to see more people dying from preventable disease by committing immoral and abominable acts.

The stats bear out that you’re doing the opposite. By bashing gay folks and trying to force folks in the closet you are encouraging the risky behaviors that allow disease to spread.

It’s out of love for fellow man- and womankind, not out of hatred.

If that’s what love looks like to you, I have great sympathy for you for you’ve never actually experienced love.

Rick,

Glad you gave him the true back story on the HIV/AIDS virus so I didn’t have to.

Are these gay animals in the wild or in captivity?

Both

Uh huh. Leviticus is a set of laws aimed at the children of Israel… Third book of the Hebrew Bible.

Is the man in the picture wearing a yarmulke?

And furthermore, was the old covenant not usurped by the new one?

My pleasure, Dolphin.

I would just like to point out to y’all that the Christian version of what Mosaic Law (or old Hebrew law or whatever you feel like calling it) is bears startlingly little relationship to what Jewish Law actually is. And I wish you would leave Jews out of your little spats.

MichaelNotMike said:

Does this mean I can’t count on recruiting you so I can meet my monthly quota?

My, but you do prefer a challenge, don’t you? What is it with people like you who can’t resist the hard-to-get types? I’ve found it’s SO much easier to earn my toasters and such when I bypass the raging fundamentalists as potential recruits. Too much “god hates you; god hates us all!” angst to sort out.

I would just like to point out to y’all that the Christian version of what Mosaic Law (or old Hebrew law or whatever you feel like calling it) is bears startlingly little relationship to what Jewish Law actually is. And I wish you would leave Jews out of your little spats.

I do know that nm, at least with regards to this particular passage (I’ve done extensive and exhaustive research into all of the Bible’s supposed “condemnations” of homosexuality), I just usually don’t bring it up in these conversations because I’ve found most fundamentalist Christians simply aren’t interested in hearing a viewpoint that doesn’t match their own.

Dolphin,

Please do not lump me as a “fundamentalist” Christian. I do not mind hearing other people’s points of view…This conversation has been quite interesting.

And sorry Michael, I’m taken.

That’s still no reason for you to drag us into the middle every time you have a family fight, you know? It’s rude.

Eric, you’ve struck a hornet’s nest, but such discussions can be profitable, I think.

MnM said: Homosexual behavior has been documented in 450 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, etc. It seems a lot of God’s base animals missed the memo.

Whether an activity is practiced in “nature” certainly doesn’t mean it is not immoral, right?

And regarding whether wearing your sexual proclivities on your sleeve is understandable or not . . . weren’t “gay pride” events happening long before homosexuals wanted the privilege of marriage or “hate crime” legislation or protected class status? Frankly, my sexual proclivities are pretty much “closeted.”

nm,
I’d submit that “the Christian version of what Mosaic Law (or old Hebrew law or whatever you feel like calling it)” is pretty straight-forward and is “the Law” in the same way that the Federal Code is “the Law.” I guess you’re quoting the Talmud or scholars of the Talmud to “interpret” or amend the Mosaic law?

Yup, I did…and I believe that these discussions are profitable and healthy.

Frankly, my sexual proclivities are pretty much “closeted.”

So are mine.

Ned:

Whether an activity is practiced in “nature” certainly doesn’t mean it is not immoral, right?

Whatever, Ned. Come in late and try to change the context if you must, but MnM and Dolphin were both responding to the statement that Eric made, which was:

Like I said above - It’s totally unnatural for two men or two women to have sexual relations. Even the basest of all animals know this.

When an activity is practiced in nature, it is not “unnatural.” Argue for or against the morality of acts of nature all you want, but that wasn’t the question in this case.

I’d submit that “the Christian version of what Mosaic Law (or old Hebrew law or whatever you feel like calling it)” is pretty straight-forward and is “the Law” in the same way that the Federal Code is “the Law.”

No, to be more accurate, you would have to compare the Magna Carta to current law. You’ll see the framework that led to current code, but little statutory relevance.

Why on earth do you stick “interpret” in scare quotes? The Federal Code has been amended and revised since its inception and can’t be used without interpreting what any given clause means. Why expect any other code of law to be different? The Written Law included in the Torah is supplemented by the Oral Law (clearly known to and accepted by Jesus, BTW) and by case law (Gemara (chunks quoted by Jesus), Tosafot, responsa). Calling one piece of the whole “the Law” is pretty weird, IMO. Jews don’t; Jesus didn’t. I know that Christians often don’t like to take the word of Jews about what Jews believe, but surely you’d trust Jesus on that matter?

Frankly, my sexual proclivities are pretty much “closeted.”

Again, I’d submit that they are not so “closeted” as you think. Do you wear a wedding ban in a state other than Massachusetts? Do you have a photo of your wife on your desk at work? When you are in public do you introduce her as your wife? Do you *gasp* live in the same house as her? Have you ever ended a phone conversation with her with “I love you” while within earshot of other people? Ever held hands, embraced, shared a small (or not so small) kiss with her in public?

If not you are in the minority. Straight people do this all the time and nobody thinks twice but when gay people do this we are “flaunting” or “shoving it down your throat.” In fact many gay people (for fear of unnecessary conflict) avoid even these simple PDAs and are STILL accused of “flaunting.”

“Whether an activity is practiced in “nature” certainly doesn’t mean it is not immoral, right?”

Morality wasn’t brought up in relation to non-human behavior, only whether it was natural. I’d say animals are amoral. But their behavior is natural.

Gay Pride events have been going on for close to 40 years, ever since the Stonewall riot of 1969.

“Frankly, my sexual proclivities are pretty much “closeted.” I would ask you the same series of questions I asked Eric about your public acknowledgments of your opposite sex partner. I note several references on your blog to your wife. It appears that your sexual proclivity, i.e. inclination, is very much on display.

No “scare quotes” . . . just a way of demonstrating that the term “interpret” is pretty malleable in the hands of some.

nm, (and Rick) I’m very aware that law is in practice typically broader than what is typically written down to start with, but there I’m not sure that traditions such as not moving a chair across the room on the Sabbath (because it is too similar to plowing) or spit on the Sabbath (because it might inadvertently make mud/clay) are as authoritative as the law that says honor the sabbath or don’t sleep with anyone other than your own wife.

And while Jesus certainly quoted or referenced Hebrew law (oral and “case”), he generally seemed to do so as context for the new perspective on said law that He was relaying; wouldn’t you say?

Kate O’: I wasn’t trying to change the subject . . . “right and wrong” was plainly a part of the discussion before I raised it (and glossed over by various commenters). But you gotta admit, you’re much less comfy arguing that point, aren’t you?

Do you wear a wedding ban in a state other than Massachusetts? Do you have a photo of your wife on your desk at work? When you are in public do you introduce her as your wife? Do you *gasp* live in the same house as her? Have you ever ended a phone conversation with her with “I love you” while within earshot of other people? Ever held hands, embraced, shared a small (or not so small) kiss with her in public?

Gee, is that what that gay ol’ fellow was doing in that photo?

Kate O’: I wasn’t trying to change the subject . . . “right and wrong” was plainly a part of the discussion before I raised it (and glossed over by various commenters).

But not in relation to the quotes you replied to.

But you gotta admit, you’re much less comfy arguing that point, aren’t you?

Nope, not at all. Simply much less interested.

Gee, is that what that gay ol’ fellow was doing in that photo?

And I supposed you’re not changing the context of the comments there, either, huh?

Dolphin gave you a poignant list of examples of behaviors that are mundane to mixed-sex couples but which same-sex couples can’t do without risking someone accusing them of “flaunting” their “sexual proclivities.” And you don’t have the common decency to listen to him without making a snarky, context-changing remark?

Sheesh.

Let’s see: Jesus said (according to your scriptures) that he had come to fulfill the Law. Again according to your scriptures, he quoted Torah, Mishnah, and Gemara, on various occasions, indicating in each case that they were part of the Law. Yet you say that they’re not really, really part of the Law.

As I mentioned before, it doesn’t surprise me when Christians tell me what my Law is in order to correct what I know it to be. It doesn’t surprise me, but it does piss me off, and it does show that you’re … what’s the word I’m looking for? uh, wrong, that’s it. And I have to admit that a Christian telling me that Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about is a first.

Gee, is that what that gay ol’ fellow was doing in that photo?

That “gay ol’ fellow” is at a Pride event. He doesn’t wear that sign down the street in his daily life. You KNOW that, yet you still try peg it as being an example of the average gay person on the average day.

Have you ever worn a Santa cap to a Christmas party (or something of a similar flavor)?

And I have to admit that a Christian telling me that Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about is a first.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard it. Stick around them long enough, you’ll hear it again. As I’ve said before, “Religion comes from beliefs, not the other way around.”

Whatever, Kate O’. For some animals in nature, homosexual acts are observed–so homosexual activity is not unnatural, if one assumes that we are just another type of animal and that anything we did that was found to occur in “nature” as well qualified as natural, e.g., eating one’s young (aside: come to think of it, in nature it is probably more akin to masturbatory acts using other animals–something that would distinguish humans from other “animals”).

In the process of ganging up on Eric, the question of natural vs. moral was being glossed over. I thought I’d address it more directly. Sorry that you’re not “interested” in the issue, but that certainly isn’t my gauge for what policies I will support or discuss.

nm, good for you that you are a student of Jewish law and religion. Assuming that you believe that Judaism was revealed to (hu)mankind and that the Decalogue is somewhat God-sourced (that may be assuming too much), it is incorrect to say that the Positive, Seminal law represented by the Mosaic law is more authoritative than Jewish traditions or myriad interpretations by rabbis along the centuries. And, like I said, I think he was typically quoting what his audience considered to be “the Law” (things like don’t spit on the Sabbath; stone adulterers) to re-cast the issue of righteousness. And, with all due respect to you and Judaism, there’s a reason that Christ came and challenged the old construct of the Hebrew faith . . . He obviously would and did interpret much of Hebrew law differently than rabbis then and now and differently than nm’s then and now.

Dolphin,
Yes, I’ve occasionally worn fabulous, event-appropriate accessories, but no event I’ve ever attended or shirt I’ve ever worn or blog I’ve ever hosted has been about my sexual proclivities.

I don’t necessarily think that any of the examples you gave are “flaunting” one’s sexuality–though I certainly am not eager to explain it to my children if and when it is raised in polite company by someone living that lifestyle. Along those lines, I’m not eager to have to explain other issues of morality (I know you may not think homosexual acts qualify, but . . .) that are beyond their understanding. I’d say that’s a large part of the push-back y’all feel, frankly. Though some adults plainly think that being anything other than secretive about homosexual activity is “flaunting,” I’m not in that group.

On the other hand, it’s a pretty funny picture.

Yes, I’ve occasionally worn fabulous, event-appropriate accessories, but no event I’ve ever attended or shirt I’ve ever worn or blog I’ve ever hosted has been about my sexual proclivities.

No, I suspect you haven’t. You’d have no reason to, because modern society’s response to your orientation doesn’t present a major obstacle that you have to overcome. If it did, and you still managed to become a healthy well-balanced and happy individual despite receiving frequent messages that you were “insane, inhuman, and satanic” not to mention undeserving of life, then you too would celebrate overcoming those obstacles, and having acknowledged that you have on occasion worn event-appropriate attire that you would not wear on a normal basis, were circumstances slightly different it may well have been a picture of you we were all looking at.

Well said, Dolphin; and though I disagree with your conclusions (and the man pictured) about the sexual attractions you feel, I don’t doubt that it is very difficult to live as someone sexually attracted to persons of the same sex.

So even though he is clearly free to wear that sign and I should (and do) sympathize with him for his plight, I don’t think I’m obligated to treat him as a victim or to change my views so as to provide validation for him or his lifestyle.

An event or organization seeking social approbation of “swinging” would affect me the same way. I’m not interested in celebrating the activity no matter how stigmatized or unaccepted “swingers” may feel. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I really hate every election season, when one political party tries to whip up their base of voters by continually demagoguing on how much they intend to deprive swingers of the same goddamn rights that non-swingers enjoy.
.

So even though he is clearly free to wear that sign and I should (and do) sympathize with him for his plight, I don’t think I’m obligated to treat him as a victim or to change my views so as to provide validation for him or his lifestyle.

While I continue to support your rights and freedoms and continue to hope that one day you too will find me deserving of the same rights and freedoms that you enjoy, my point in this particular instance was not to persuade you on that front but rather simply to debunk the common misconception that straight people do not “display their sexual proclivities” as gay folks do.

The reality is that straight people MORE frequently “display their sexual proclivities” than do gay people, it’s just that certain behaviors when performed by straight folks in public don’t elicit any response whereas if gay folks display identical behavior in public, they are frequently subjected to verbal harassment, physical violence, or even criminal charges (I’m thinking here of the gay couple who shared a peck on the cheek while traveling, only to have their flight rerouted and to be arrested and charged with violating the Patriot Act by making the flight attendant “uncomfortable,” despite assurance by numerous other passengers that the couple were doing nothing inappropriate).

JP,
Granted, advocates of “homosexual rights” are the ones who are having to push for reform, but opponents of same-sex marriage are not the ones forcing the issue. When “swingers” begin to push for marriage-like privileges, you’ll see the same resistance from me. And I don’t appreciate the obscenities.

dolphin,
Thanks for the explanation, but you haven’t debunked any “misconceptions” in my mind. I don’t think it is important to normalize what I and many people think is abnormal, so I can offer little consolation to someone who senses disapproval or discomfort for abnormal behavior. The specific example you gave clearly seems unjust, but social disapproval isn’t something that should be squashed by gov’t in a free society. If I observed a leather-garbed man being led around on a leash by a leather-garbed woman at Centennial Park (or in a frame on the man’s workstation), you can bet that I would have trouble reacting in an encouraging way. Certainly they would be free to engage in related behavior in private (and maybe even if public), but I’m not “cool” with it, so I can hardly celebrate it.

Your side of this issue is making great strides in persuading others that sexual attraction is either immutable or of no social consequence. That’s fine. But inasmuch as “evolving” (devolving?) values threaten more than simply my desire to be insulated from public moral-envelope-pushing, I will advocate from the other side.

The interesting dynamic of the online world is that persons with starkly different worldviews can engage in a “conversation” about an issue where there is almost zero likelihood of reaching a consensus. Nonetheless, I appreciate the tenor in which you carry on such conversations.

When “swingers” begin to push for marriage-like privileges, you’ll see the same resistance from me.

Man, that’s the densest statement yet from you.

If the preponderance of these “swingers” are hetereosexuals (and one can assume they are, as the more common term for them is “wife swappers”), they don’t HAVE to push for “marriage-like privileges,” you idiot — they just get MARRIED, no muss, no fuss. So, you missed the protest boat on that one, skipper.
.

Being called “dense” by you is pretty heavy, skippy.

Swingers don’t have any rights as swingers, their “rights” come from their purported qualification for the privilege of marriage.

But marriage should be a right— Not a privilege. I do not believe in denying to others what I reserve for myself. As fate would have it, I happen to be attracted to women. Had the coin bounced the other way, I could well be part of a segment of the population that people constantly find a way to deprive of rights that they reserve for themselves.

I am no more comfortable denying homosexuals the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice than I would be in denying women the vote, or enforcing the old miscegenation laws. Because any way you slice it, you are denying someone their rights because you perceive them to be beneath you, children of a lesser God.

I don’t believe anyone chooses to be homosexual, although frankly, I think most women would find us fairly useless were it not for the biological imperative to continue the species. No pressure there— “Sorry, girls. Pick one of these or it’s lights out for the planet.”

But they too are what God made them, just as you and I are.

But marriage should be a right— Not a privilege.

Not only should it be, but it IS.

Ned likes to talk about marriage as a privilege however US law isn’t determined by Ned (at least not Ned as an individual). US law is determined by the (first and foremost) the Constitution, the actions of the United States Congress, and Federal judicial precedent.

In 1967, the Supreme Court declared, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

In this country, regardless of the term Ned choose to use, marriage IS a right, and any citizen who is denied marriage without a rational basis, is in fact having their 14th Amendment rights violated.

In 1967, the Supreme Court declared, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Dolphin: Gays aren’t “free men” in Ned’s world.

(Pre-empting the inevitable.)

But they too are what God made them, just as you and I are.

Well, obviously we’re not all living like God wants or how God intended us to live, so the fact that God created me (or created my descendants) doesn’t mean that whatever I do or think is “the way God wanted it.”

And who says it should be a right? The gov’t (or we, the people) can choose under what circumstances we want to favor certain relationships. Unless one agrees that sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is an immutable trait, then the privilege of marriage is open to all who meet society’s qualifications.

dolphin,
One sentence from a Supreme Court ruling does not a truth make. Were the parties referenced in the opinion homosexuals? Was marriage’s “rightiness” even an issue in the case? Why don’t we allow siblings (or children or already-married people) to marry?

But it is an immutable trait, Ned. Do you think a homosexual would choose a lifestyle that would guarantee that they are discriminated against? Think they would choose a life that guarantees that they’ll be denied the rights that you and I enjoy?

I find it wondrous that conservatives can believe in the minimization of government, yet believe that government should be in the business of defining family.

Just think about Larry Craig. Were it not for people such as yourself, he could settle down with the man of his choosing, vote a fiscally conservative agenda in the Senate, and lead a personal life that is in every way unremarkable.

Instead, he felt this pressure to live up to the ideals of social conservatives, got hitched to a woman, adopted three kids, and is out hitting public restrooms looking for anonymous gay sex.

Which one is really more of a threat to the family, Ned? Your beliefs or mine?

One sentence from a Supreme Court ruling does not a truth make.

Ned: That was from the majority opinion, written by Justice Warren in Loving v. Virginia, which repealed prohibitions on miscegenation.

The lower court held that…

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Unless one agrees that sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is an immutable trait

But I’d suggest that the vast majority of people understand that sexual orientation is an immutable trait, even those who oppose equal rights for gay people. Most people realize that they themselves (whether gay or straight) simply are attracted to who they are attracted to. That’s why the movement to push gays back in the closet is so vast compared with the relatively small movement to “change” gay people into straight people (or should I say, to recruit gay people into the heterosexual lifestyle?).

The gov’t (or we, the people) can choose under what circumstances we want to favor certain relationships.

No, the gov’t (or we, the people) cannot without first amending the United States Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment. In the absence of a rational basis for discrimination, the state MUST offer equal protection under the law to ALL citizens. If society choses to “favor” the relationships of one group of citizens by granting those citizens special legal rights, then it MUST grant the same rights to every other citizen. To do anything less is inconsistent with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

One sentence from a Supreme Court ruling does not a truth make.

You got that right, but it does the law make. I think the Kelo decision is about as far from truth as you can get but until a new amendment is passed or a future court decision is amde that reverses it, it IS in fact the law.

Were the parties referenced in the opinion homosexuals?

No they were American citizens however, so unless you are arguing that gay people don’t qualify as citizens I fail to see your point.

Was marriage’s “rightiness” even an issue in the case?

Yes, it was central.

Why don’t we allow siblings (or children or already-married people) to marry?

Because there is a rational basis (and compelling state interest) not to. In this case, the idea that only straight people are deserving of marriage rights is simply an arbitrary creation born of prejudice.

Andy,
So?

Rick,
Gosh, now I feel guilty that I wrecked Larry Craig’s home and plum job. And sexual attraction is hardly immutable. Using your logic, almost any choice that resulted in some hardship or another would be evidence of an immutable trait.

They choose their own gender about as consciously as you or I chose the opposite gender. Can you point to a moment where you consciously made a choice to be hetero? I sure can’t. The difference between you and me is that you don’t understand it, so you assume it’s a choice. I don’t understand it, but I know that human nature is what it is.

Views like yours are an absolute menace to the American family. By stating that this small government should be big enough to define it, and by defining it narrowly, you’re denying rights to others based on nothing but your own prejudice.

We don’t choose our gender . . . we’re either male or female. The choice is in the actions, Rick. All kinds of things that “feel natural” (or inherent or normal or hereditary or . . . or . . .) to me (or you) are bad or wrong choices.

And gov’t defines all kinds of things; give me a break. By the way, what is “the American family,” to which you refer? Who are you to think you can define it?

nm, good for you that you are a student of Jewish law and religion.

Why, thank you, but I deserve no particular praise. In the first place, it’s my responsibility as a Jew. In the second place, nothing I’ve mentioned is exactly obscure or difficult to learn.

Assuming that you believe that Judaism was revealed to (hu)mankind and that the Decalogue is somewhat God-sourced (that may be assuming too much), it is incorrect to say that the Positive, Seminal law represented by the Mosaic law is more authoritative than Jewish traditions or myriad interpretations by rabbis along the centuries.

No, it’s not too much to assume, and yes, that’s what I was pointing out. Revelation must be interpreted: even putting it into words is an interpretation. The interpretation/understanding is part of the whole, and not a lesser part. Interpretation also evolves over time, and those changing understandings of the Law are central to its meaning. (I figure from context that you actually meant to put in another negative somewhere in that sentence, since it’s exactly the opposite of what you were arguing until this point, but whatever.)

And, like I said, I think he was typically quoting what his audience considered to be “the Law” (things like don’t spit on the Sabbath; stone adulterers) to re-cast the issue of righteousness.

I have been given to understand that your scriptures quote him as saying that not a jot or a tittle of the Law would be abrogated, but I get it that to you this doesn’t mean what it sounds like to me. All the same, I’m going to assume that he said what he did about the Law with a deeper understanding of what his audience understood by the Law than you have, since you seem to think that it’s composed of equal parts of harshness and trivia and nothing else, and, as I’ve pointed out to you, that’s incorrect now and was incorrect two milennia ago.

And, with all due respect to you and Judaism, there’s a reason that Christ came and challenged the old construct of the Hebrew faith . . .

I know that this is what you are taught. I don’t agree with it (with all due respect), but I try to let you interpret your religion for yourself. All I’m asking is that you show Jews equal restraint.

He obviously would and did interpret much of Hebrew law differently than rabbis then and now and differently than nm’s then and now.

Well, he agrees with Hillel all over the place, so that’s not completely true, but fair enough. So if I understand you correctly, with respect to this thread, Jesus died to release humanity from the burden of not hating homosexuality enough?

No. The actions are not a choice. The actions are an expression of who you are. I am attracted to women. I have sex with one whenever possible. I may choose to act on it, but it’s an expression of who I am.

Your belief is predicated on the misguided notion that somehow, everyone is actually heterosexual and they simply choose to be attracted to someone of the same gender anyway. And frankly, it’s absurd.

That’s the only way to reconcile what you’ve been saying. Now that I’ve boiled it down to its most basic element, even you have to be looking at it and thinking “That’s pretty shitall stupid”. But the fact of the matter is, if you disagree with what I’ve said above— That everyone is actually hetero but simply chooses to have sex with someone of the same gender anyway— Then you have absolutely undermined your earlier argument that sexuality isn’t immutable.

As far as defining family— Unlike yourself, I do not think it’s my business, yours, or the government’s business to define it.

Funny how all you small government guys still want it big enough to reach into every home in America.

Rick,
I won’t post my same comment to you again, but I might as well. Actions are chosen (except for reflexes). Whether or not one may choose how to act is proof that it isn’t immutable. A person doesn’t choose to be a male or be caucasian.

Regarding defining things, again, gov’t does it in all kinds of ways. YOU introduced the term “family” to the discussion–what do you mean when you say “family” and what business do you have defining it?

Lastly, regarding your several references to small gov’t (and purported hypocrisy?) What assortment of people sleep under the same roof or in the same bed is different than what assortment of people or what relationships we will favor with tax law or inheritance law, etc.

nm,
No, I wrote exactly what I meant. And regarding revelation requiring interpretation, that sure isn’t true about the 10 Commandments or any of the laws delivered to and recorded by Moses, does it?

I didn’t say and don’t think that “the Law” is “composed of equal parts of harshness and trivia and nothing else” . . . but “the Law” as referenced by Jesus in his recorded teachings OBVIOUSLY (if you assume he was more than an exemplary rabbi–I do; you don’t) was only partially understood or was largely misunderstood by his audience. That’s why his movement/school of thought is more than just a sect of Judaism.

And for someone acting prickly about other people interpreting your religion, you’re doing an awful lot of interpreting mine. But that doesn’t bother me; have at it.

And as I’ve alluded to various times in this thread, traditions or interpretations or teachings about the revealed law have less authority than does the revealed law. Of course, our understanding/application/interpretation is bound to evolve or change, but the stuff about homosexual acts (and particularly extra-marital sexual acts) is pretty explicit (pun sort of intended).

So if I understand you correctly, with respect to this thread, Jesus died to release humanity from the burden of not hating homosexuality enough?Nope. Jesus died to pay the penalty for sins–pride, selfishness, sexual immorality, greed, hating, etc. Hating homosexuals sure would fall under the category of “sin,” but hating sin would not. I won’t go any deeper into the theology because I don’t think you care.

So if I understand you correctly, with respect to this thread, Jesus died to release humanity from the burden of not hating homosexuality enough?

huh? Where did that come from, nm?

I always stay out of these discussions because it’s just another situation that you’re probably not going to be able to change anyone’s opinions–it’s most likely just going to get you (and the other parties) riled up and offended.

I like to sit back and watch everyone tear each other’s beliefs apart.

P.S. I like the old dude’s color coordination in the photo–he’s got a red hat, red polka-dotted shirt and a red cardigan. Nice.

The next time I hear the wife of some conservative talking about how unsatisfying her sex life is, I won’t be able to help but wonder if her husband is one of those guys who can remember “choosing” to be hetero.
.

And I can’t help but wonder why you think I would believe that wives of “conservative[s]” would be talking to you about their sex lives. Not to mention wondering why you (in the numerous threads where you thought you were dropping some big logic bomb) think that whether or not someone chooses a feeling is somehow determinative of something.

Nice point Liz. About the clothes. But the belief-bashing is kind of one sided, frankly.

I had written a long post yesterday, but I guess the spam filter ate it (I don’t know why it had no links or anything), because it never showed up and wouldn’t let me repost so I thought I’d hold off to see if it managed to find it’s way up over time. It hasn’t. I won’t retype the whole thing because it’s rather long, but I’ll just hit a few points.

One sentence from a Supreme Court ruling does not a truth make.

You’re right, but it does the law make. I don’t agree the Supreme Court made the right decision in the Kelo case, however regardless of my personal views, their interpretation is the law until either the Constitution is amended or a future court case overturns Kelo.

Whether or not one may choose how to act is proof that it isn’t immutable.

Utterly ridiculous. You could choose to act like a dog. Is that proof your species isn’t immutable?

What assortment of people sleep under the same roof or in the same bed is different than what assortment of people or what relationships we will favor with tax law or inheritance law, etc.

Regarding the first half of the idea, please explain the Republican outrage when sodomy laws were repealed.

Regarding the second half of the idea, THANK YOU! That was the most honest thing I’ve ever heard a bigot say in one of these discussions. Finally somebody admits that it’s not about “protecting marriage” or “traditional families,” but rather it’s about making sure the the state legally favors straight people over gay people and ensuring that gay people remain second-class citizens. I don’t agree with your point of view, but it’s so much easier to have a discussion when your honest about your position.

And regarding revelation requiring interpretation, that sure isn’t true about the 10 Commandments or any of the laws delivered to and recorded by Moses, does it?

How can it not be true? How does one extract meaning without interpretation? Words that are uninterpreted are just squiggly lines on a page.

but the stuff about homosexual acts is pretty explicit.

Except that with just a hint of study into the original languages and historical context, it really isn’t so explicit.

But the belief-bashing is kind of one sided, frankly.

Well it’s good to know that you don’t feel that I’m bashing your beliefs.

I had written a long post yesterday, but I guess the spam filter ate it (I don’t know why it had no links or anything)

I checked and sure enough there were actually two comments from you in the ol’ Akismet trap. Maybe it’s the number of HTML tags used at all. Sorry ’bout that; I freed both.

Well, you did just call me a bigot.

Didn’t know you’d consider that “bashing.” You fit the definition. You are strongly partial to straight people to the point of wanting to legally favor them over gay people in civil rights matters. It wasn’t an “insult”, just an observation.

The next time I hear the wife of some conservative talking about how unsatisfying her sex life is, I won’t be able to help but wonder if her husband is one of those guys who can remember “choosing” to be hetero.

LOL…you have no idea how common that just might be. I would know…I lived it.

dolphin,
Regarding your other comments (sorry, the thread is getting kind of active). My comment(s) to nm about “interpretation” of Jewish law (which she and I have agreed is “revealed”) is not necessarily applicable to interpreting the Constitution.

But I think you’re picking and choosing your case law holdings to submit to. Even the sodomy case you referred to is an example of people challenging a prior holding of the Sup. Ct. And the fact that a sentence is included in a written opinion does not make it “the law.” The questions I asked in that comment bear on whether an assertion or sentence is controlling or whether it is considered “dicta.”

Re. “choosing to act” and immutability . . . the fact that someone chose to act like a dog wouldn’t entitle them to Constitutional protections afforded dogs. And that’s probably the biggest problem with giving protected-class status to characteristics such as sexual attraction which, for some at least, are incredibly malleable. And that is the flaw (and crucial presupposition) for all (?) of your Constitutional assertions.

Everyone knows that there’s nobody better in bed than a heterosexual conservative male.

Oh no, I ain’t touching that one with a 10 ft. pole.

ALthough I have no personal experience to call upon, Ginger, I don’t think conservatives (ok, [sigh] or liberals) are that well endowed.

*SNORK*

er, um…1 foot would frighten me, so it’s safe to say that neither side needs to worry…

um…not that I’m planning on…

Oh, never mind…

My comment(s) to nm about “interpretation” of Jewish law (which she and I have agreed is “revealed”) is not necessarily applicable to interpreting the Constitution

I didn’t realize I was suggesting that.

But I think you’re picking and choosing your case law holdings to submit to.

If you know of case law that has repealed Lovings v VA, I’d be interested in hearing it.

Even the sodomy case you referred to is an example of people challenging a prior holding of the Sup. Ct.

Correct. I explicitly stated that previous court holding can be overturned. My point is that until they ARE, they are the law.

The questions I asked in that comment bear on whether an assertion or sentence is controlling or whether it is considered “dicta.”

And I answered them in my comment that got spam-filter eaten. It’s up now, so you can back read if you wish.

the fact that someone chose to act like a dog wouldn’t entitle them to Constitutional protections afforded dogs

Uh, you’re spinning this in the wrong direction (in fact I’m not even sure what your point here means with regards to the conversation). First of all, my statement had nothing to do with Constitutional rights. It was a response to your assertion that sexual orientation is not immutable because someone can act like they are of a different orientation. A human acting like a dog is still a human. A gay person acting like a straight person is still a gay person.

Secondly, if I WERE referring to Constitutional rights with that analogy, then your analogy would be FALSE with regards to this discussion. A gay person who acts like a straight person actually IS entitled to the same Constitutional protections afford straight people. What is at question is whether or not a gay person should have to act like a straight person to be afforded such rights. To put it into the context of the Lovings v Virginia case, it’d be like this: If Richard Loving’s betrothed had donned enough cosmetic material to trick folks into thinking she was a white person, she could have married Richard with no problem (without the court case). The question is whether she should have had to. It sounds like you’re suggesting that she should have.

You’d be surprised at what your body can adapt to, Ginger.

dolphin,
I already read your delayed comment.

-The premise of your view on this matter is that homosexuality is a state of being that is innate, involuntary and moral. That’s a presumption. “Race” is in a different class than “sexual proclivities.” It’s fine for you to believe different premises than me, but I’m not illogical because I reach a different conclusion based on different premises.

-your argument about “the Law” on marriage (vis a vis Loring) is flawed unless one accepts your premise about homosexuality. The holding was that a person’s race cannot be used to disqualify s/he who otherwise qualifies for the “right” to marry. We define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman–same-sex marriage doesn’t fit in that definition.

-is it news to you that Conservatives believe that marriage is a favored institution? and that we believe there are few compelling reasons to include same-sex relationships in the definition of marriage?

Actions are chosen (except for reflexes). Whether or not one may choose how to act is proof that it isn’t immutable. A person doesn’t choose to be a male or be caucasian.

Nor does one choose to be gay. But for reality to be consistent with the world according to Ned Williams, inside every gay person, there’s a heterosexual waiting to get out. And that just ain’t the case. That’s the only way there is choice in the matter at all. To form Ned Williams’ Perfect World, a gay person would have to pretend to be straight. After all, it’s not the attraction that is bad, but acting on it. Every homosexual should find someone of the opposite sex that they can be unhappy with.

YOU introduced the term “family” to the discussion–what do you mean when you say “family” and what business do you have defining it?

I’m going to type this s-l-o-w-l-y so that you can keep up this time. I. Said. It’s. Not. Up. To. Me. The. Government. You. Or. Anyone. Else. To. Define. Do try and grasp that this time. If the marriage is between consenting adults, it is none of our business.

Lastly, regarding your several references to small gov’t (and purported hypocrisy?) What assortment of people sleep under the same roof or in the same bed is different than what assortment of people or what relationships we will favor with tax law or inheritance law, etc.

Yes, because The World According To Ned crumbles at the very seam if two homosexuals get to file jointly, inherit from one another, or are allowed hospital visitation. Quel horror!

And I can’t help but wonder why you think I would believe that wives of “conservative[s]” would be talking to you about their sex lives.

It’s called “pillow talk”, Ned.

But the belief-bashing is kind of one sided, frankly.

So… The gay-basher feels bashed? Cool. The irony detector is going crazy.

And that’s probably the biggest problem with giving protected-class status to characteristics such as sexual attraction which, for some at least, are incredibly malleable.

Oh goody. “Protected class status”. Political historians will recall that phrase or something along those lines rears its empty wooden head every time someone has tried to raise the status of women, blacks, or in this case, homosexuals to the point that they have the same rights as the heterosexual white male. By granting them the same rights we reserve for ourselves (i.e. marrying the person you’re attracted to and want to spend a lifetime with), we are giving them “special rights”. It happens every time. My fiancee, when we get married, has the right to inherit from me. We’ll be able to file joint taxes. If I’m incapacitated, she’ll be able to make my medical decisions for me. The gay couple that I grew up around the corner from, who have been together for nearly 40 years now, have no such rights. Yet it’s a “special right” if we grant them the same status.

the fact that someone chose to act like a dog wouldn’t entitle them to Constitutional protections afforded dogs.

In honor of that comment, tonight I shall sniff the fiancee’s ass, hump her leg, then pee on the bedpost before going to sleep in the floor.

Rick,
You pith me off.

Yes, in the World According to God there are temptations/feelings/natural drives that I should resist, (though based on several of your references, I’m not sure you would concede that). There are no “special rights” involved and I never claimed there were. But we as a society choose to favor certain types of relationships–you don’t qualify and neither do your two gay buddies around the corner . . . how’s that unequal?

REGARDING “FAMILY” and gov’t definition thereof. You obviously have something in mind when you use the term. What is “family”? Why do they have to be consenting? adults? people? recognized at all? mentioned in the tax code? referenced on a deed? counted in a census? the subject of discussion? You can wave around some type of Libertarian-sounding badge all you want, but I think you’re disingenuous in asserting that gov’t has no business defining or regulating things.

By the way, why are you buying into the patriarchal, biggovernmenty, intrusive, taxloophole-y “institution” of marriage?

Rick wrote:

In honor of that comment, tonight I shall sniff the fiancee’s ass, hump her leg, then pee on the bedpost before going to sleep in the floor.

You’ll probably have to sleep on the floor after you do all that.

‘Tis a distinct possibility, Kate.

your argument about “the Law” on marriage (vis a vis Loring) is flawed unless one accepts your premise about homosexuality.

I disagree. Let’s suppose for the moment, that homosexuality is a choice and those of us who are gay are just part of some vast conspiracy trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes about our hidden heterosexuality. It STILL doesn’t follow that our rights as citizens should be taken away.

If the government is going to deny certain rights to certain citizens it needs a strong reason to do so. “We just don’t like” or even “we think it’s wrong” just doesn’t cut it. There needs to be some tangible physical state interest in preventing those citizens from enjoying those rights.

So if I understand you correctly, with respect to this thread, Jesus died to release humanity from the burden of not hating homosexuality enough?

huh? Where did that come from, nm?

As I see it, that’s the logical consequence of Ned’s argument. Several people were saying that Jewish scripture makes a blanket claim that homosexuality is an abomination deserving of death. Ned agreed with this position, or at least with the abominaton part. Now, I hear a lot of “Jewish scripture says X” when I, as a Jew, am aware that it actually says Z, and when I notce that happening I like to correct it. So I pointed out that in Jewish scripture, the verse being quoted says that ritual sex in the Temple is an abomination deserving of death; I also pointed out that (again in Jewish Law) while execution is an admitted penalty it is intended to be an extremely rare one.

That’s where Ned jumped in, IIRC. First, he claimed that my explanation described not law, but interpretation. When I pointed out that all law, by its nature, includes interpretation, he agreed that that was so, but claimed that Jewish interpretation of law is totally messed up, leading to things like laws about not spitting on the Sabbath, and that that’s why Jesus had to come to give a better interpretation.

So, Jewish Law does not consider homosexuality to be an abomination worthy of death, but, according to Ned, Christianity does. So I’m just checking to see whether Ned considers this one of the great improvements Jesus introduced.

If I may:

When we are asked to “hate sin” in the gospels, it is always in the context of OUR OWN BEHAVIOUR.

Jesus several times tells us that we are not to make any evaluations on the sins of others because whether or not they sin is not our business.

Hence:

“Let the dead bury their own dead” (Matt. 8:22)

“”You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
(Matt. 7:5) [note: “your brother” means another believer in Christ.]

“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12)

—

Frankly, my plate is more than full dealing with my own sins, my own frailty. I don’t think I need to sit around and figure out whether this or that other thing is a sin and what I should do about it.

Seriously, Kat, people like you give Christians a good name all over the place. I apologize for my pissiness.

Kat,
I’m glad you brought this up, because it made me go and dig a little, review a little, which is always worthwhile. However, I can’t agree with your conclusion.

Sure I sin–I make no bones about that. And sure we are to be loving toward others. But that doesn’t mean that we can or should never make judgments, and it certainly wasn’t Christ’s teaching. In that same passage (Matt. 7) and elsewhere (John 7) Jesus gives parameters for making judgments. And context is crucial . . . in both of these sections Jesus is addressing the religious teachers known (sorry nm) for their judgmentalism and their burdensome interpretations of “the law.”

But I don’t want to seem as if I’m pooh-poohing the importance of Christians not being judgmental. But murder, theft, adultery are PLAINly condemned in Scripture (can I assume that you believe more than just the words in red in the Bible?) and I’d submit that pointing out or acknowledging that such actions are condemned as “sin” in the Bible is not a violation of Christ’s teaching. Heck, even saying someone is judgmental is a judgment.

nm,
I’m not sure you’re understanding my point. American law is not the same as Jewish law. The fact that people came along after the Ten Commandments were delivered on tablets (”Revealed,” in Hebrew, hence no translation or interpretation required) and “interpreted” them doesn’t mean that their interpretations or applications have the same authority as the Ten Commandments (btw, I know that Hebrew law involves more than the Ten Commandments, but it has all been revealed not agreed to by a group of legislators or founders).

I don’t want to repeat all that I said about how Jesus quoted “the Law” (in sum, He repeatedly said, “You say . . . well, I say . . . what do you think about that?”) In fact, His whole earthly ministry was centered upon “the old/existing interpretation of Jewish law is wrong.”

But I don’t think that homosexual acts warrant stoning and never said that I did. They’re an abomination just as any other sin, I’d say. But homosexual acts are inherently extra-marital and are “sinful” according to the Bible. Accordingly, I, as a citizen in a Republic, conclude that homosexuality is a sinful act (rather than an immutable, innate “orientation”) and therefore do not believe that it should be treated as an immutable, innate orientation.

Lastly, I’m disappointed that you either won’t acknowledge or simply fail to understand what Christians believe was the reason Christ came–not to model the perfect life (though that is certainly helpful), not to start a new religion (though that is what happened, more or less) but to be the once-for-all sacrificial lamb to save all who accept that forgiveness. Following Jesus is certainly bigger than politics, but I don’t think that my religious convictions are irrelevant to how I should vote.

dolphin,
I’m not sure if I can say it any differently, but we as a society are not convinced that it is worthwhile to expand the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex.

Beyond the issue of marriage, we as a society are not convinced that same-sex attraction is a trait like gender or race that qualifies as a class of persons that should be protected any more than members of other, non-suspect classes.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13

Ned is right that, bibically speaking, Christians are called to judge one another through a strict set of parameters involving a sort of “church court” in order to prevent us heathens from seeing a bad example from a supposed Christian. Of course, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (among other places), it’s not the business of the Christian to judge a non-Christian. God will judge those on the outside. I’m therefore curious where Ned sees the cross hanging from the neck of the man in the picture or where he recalls me offering my spiritual path as being Christian (at least in the sense of the word he’s familiar with).

But homosexual acts are inherently extra-marital and are “sinful” according to the Bible.

There’s some circular logic for you. Because homosexual acts are extra-marital, they are sinful. Because homosexual acts are sinful, we must keep them out of marriage.

we as a society are not convinced that it is worthwhile to expand the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex.

Then “we as a society” should amend the Constitution to say as much. Regardless of how “we as a society” feel, we can’t allow ourselves to arbitrarily ignore the laws that “we as a society” have put into place. If you want to lead the crusade to repeal the 14th Amendment, I’ll oppose you but at least respect you for being consistent. However until such point as the 14th Amendment is repealed, the government is required by the laws that “we as a society” created to treat all it’s citizen’s equally under the law.

we as a society are not convinced that same-sex attraction is a trait like gender or race

Well,. no amount of scientific data will convince everyone, but according to the latest polls over half the country does in fact believe such so if “we as a society” can be defined as a simple majority, then you are wrong with this assertion. If you define “we as a society” as some higher percentage then your point is irrelevant as we don’t withhold rights from “non-suspect classes” either.

[…] controversy highlights 2 questions. The first was touched on in the comments over at MCB to this post. What is a family? For a grouping to be a family, do the individuals have to be related by blood or […]

Ned, I know very well a large number of the reasons (definiely plural) Christians give for (the necessity of) Jesus’s mission. I do not accept or agree with them, for reasons completely beyond the scope of this discussion. I also know what you personally, in the course of this argument, claimed was the reason for Jesus’s mission: there’s a reason that Christ came and challenged the old construct of the Hebrew faith . . . He obviously would and did interpret much of Hebrew law differently than rabbis then and now and differently than nm’s then and now. That is a statement that his mission was to give a proper interpretation of the Law, which you had spent a couple of earlier comments mischarcterizing. I have apologized to Kat for being pissy in response to you, and, if you truly didn’t mean to be as offensive to me as you were, I apologize to you as well.

Now, in the interests of putting myself in the proper frame of mind and soul to recieve the forgiveness which my religion promises to all who accept it, I’m getting out of this discussion.

No, I wasn’t trying to be offensive, but I was definitely disagreeing with your assertions . . . I trust you would agree that disagreement shouldn’t amount to offense. And though you–as a Jew, are certainly entitled to respect for presumed expertise about Jewish law, that doesn’t make your views beyond challenge. I’ve posted a pseudo-response but more of a broad explanation of my views of the subject over at my blog.

dolphin,
Nothing circular. “Marriage” in the Bible presumes males and females.

Sorry, but the Bible is replete with examples of calling a sin a sin and reminding or informing Christians and non-Christians that we are sinners.

Why should we amend the Constitution? Unless we think that it is in our interest to encourage or foster homosexual relationships, there is no reason to expand the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships. But dolphin, there is no “right” to have a given relational configuration treated favorably in the law. If a majority of voters are convinced that shacking up or long-term roommate arrangements, for example, should be encouraged (aka treated as marriage), then we can make that judgment. I’d assert that from a gov’t policy perspective, “Marriage” isn’t about encouraging “love” or affection as it is about encouraging commitment and stable families. Sure, that includes the issue of “child rearing,” but that isn’t the extent of it (past sentiments of Kat Coble–who laments not being viewed as a family because she and her husband don’t have any children, come to mind).

Why should we amend the Constitution?

Oh, don’t get me wrong I don’t think you should. I’m just saying that if you wish to treat citizens differently under the law, you CANNOT do so while the 14th Amendment stands.

But dolphin, there is no “right” to have a given relational configuration treated favorably in the law.

Actually the GOA found over 1000 legal rights granted by marriage, and they acknowledge that the list is almost certainly incomplete. That’s well over 1000 rights that are currently being denied a group of citizens based sheerly on rank prejudice, in a society that supposedly grants equal protection under the law. It boggles the mind.

I’d assert that from a gov’t policy perspective, “Marriage” isn’t about encouraging “love” or affection as it is about encouraging commitment and stable families.

I’d agree. I just feel that my family deserves the same legal protections that yours does.