QUICK LINKS
A Prediction of the Future
Patrick Henry once said, “The only way to know the future is to know the past.” If this is true, and I believe it is, the next two years will be an all-out political assault on conservative, Christian voters.
The press will, in unprecedented ways, seek to create an atmosphere of Nirvana around the actions that our newly elected secular progressives will take. From federal government to local government, these warriors of progressive secularism will be hailed as near messianic.
Let’s look at the media’s recent past – the last four weeks.
Keith Olbermann, host on MSNBC, used his program to demand that President bush apologize to the troops in Iraq, while blaming him for inspiring acts of “domestic terrorism” against his critics. He equated the President to King Henry and Archbishop Thomas Becket and then injected the race card by making a comparison between Bush supporters attacking the President’s opponents and the 1856 caning of anti-slavery Senator Charles Sumner by pro-slavery Congressman Preston Brooks.
As Olbermann concluded his attack, he addressed President Bush, who of course was not present, and said, “You instructed no one to mail the fake anthrax [received by Olbermann], nor undermine the FBI’s case, nor call for the execution of the editors of The New York Times, nor threaten to assassinate Stephanie Miller, nor beat up a man yelling at Senator George Allen, nor have the First Lady knife Michael J. Fox, nor tell John McCain to lie about John Kerry. No, you did not, Sir. And the genius of the thing is the same as in King Henry’s rhetorical question about Archbishop Thomas Becket; ‘Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ All you had to do, Sir, is hand out enough new canes.”
That was MSBNC.
Suzanne Malveaux, a reporter on CNN said, “We hope John Kerry’s gaffe goes away.” Charles Gibson, ABC’s news anchor while appearing on The View, denied media bias when Elizabeth Hasselbeck asked him about a “perceived liberal bias in the media.” Gibson assured them that he strives for balance, yet at the same time ABC news political director Mark Halperin was telling Hugh Hewitt on his radio show that, “Well over 70% of the people working on his network’s political coverage are liberal and will vote Democratic.”
And it continues this week: ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked Barak Obama, “Is the US more racist or more sexist?” Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, hailed Hillary Clinton’s “ability to bring us all together.” And Time Magazine is declaring, “The Reagan Era now over.” Interesting, TIME said the same thing in 1993.
The networks gave extensive coverage to anti-Iraq War Congressman John Murtha. Monday night CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric gave him additional coverage, painting him as a “victim of conservatives” wrath who is now “vindicated” by last Tuesday’s elections.
ABC’s Sam Donaldson said the Democratic win was “a good thing.”
And it isn’t just on the national media. Look at the Seattle PI Friday, November 10, 2006. “A Memo to Dino Rossi: Take note of the trouncing your party took in the state on Election Day. Not only did voters shift dramatically the balance of power in both houses of the Legislature, but the ballot initiative you came out to promote – I-933 – was roundly defeated – a lot has changed in two years, and there’s nothing to make things look rosy for Republicans two years out, either. There is no longer any rational questioning of Gov. Chris Gregoire’s legitimacy. Democratic majorities have swelled.”
They continue, “Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick’s 39 percent share of the vote against a vulnerable Maria Cantwell fell short of George Nethercutt’s 43 percent share against Sen. Patty Murry in 2004, and Ellen Craswell’s 41 percent out against Gary Locke in the 1996 Governor’s race and even John Carlson’s 40 percent against Locke in 2000.”
“So, carefully temper any dreams of comeback in ’08 with the realities of ’06.” Seattle PI Editorial Board.
This drumbeat will continue and increase in both intensity and frequency during the next 24 months.
We must use discernment as we receive the news. This is an attempt to not only build up the Democratic Party, but more importantly, advance the secularist agenda of their platform. Equally , it is an all-out attempt to suppress the activities of the conservatives and Christian activities and voters by discouraging them.
Our activities must be, not so much toward recessitating the Republican Party, but rather toward advancing the Biblical principles upon which this great country was built and electing those who hold those convictions.
These are challenging times for those who care about our culture. These are critical times for those who are committed to the cause of righteousness in our culture.
Our causes are both Biblical and noble, therefore: “Let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.” (Galatians 6:9).
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
** New Faith & Freedom Poll. Click here.
71 Comments:
Gary, you are so right. The media seizes every oppurtunity to advance their own agenda and it's almost always left to extreme left.
Keep up the good work. Please don't get discouraged by the constant attack of those few who consistantly come on our site and attack you because they have no creditable case to support their beleifs.
As I read some of their posts it has occured to me that it's all about them, how they feel,etc., etc.
Why would they spend so much time on a openly Christian, conservative web site? Are they employed by someone to work sites like this.
We were talking about this at church last Sunday. It's really quite amazing.
God blessyou Gary and all that work with you at FFN.
Once again Mr. Randall knows how to "cherry pick" the anecdotes he needs to push his worldview. But once again he ignores the fact that the American media played right along with this presidency until there were doubts about the ever deepening quagmire in Iraq.
Even now the media totally ignores that fact that this administration started an illegal war of aggression, and has undertaken serious efforts to allow and protect torture. This must be the assault on Christian values and "righteousness in our culture" that Mr. Randall speaks of.
No?
Oh that's right, all that is code for homophobia and anti-choice rhetoric.
Mr. Randall fails to mention that even now the new leadership of the Democratic Congress is under increasing scrutiny from the media (say hello to corrupt Dem #1 John Murtha), and as the new Congress gets underway will be under pressure to perform.
He fails yet again to take into account that the media neither serves "liberal" or "conservative" camps. They serve economic elites who demand a political mythology wholly separate from left or right.
For Andrew
Twenty questions to get honest with ourselves.
This quiz is for those who care about current issues. Please pass it on to anyone you think should ponder these questions.
1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?
2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality -- names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?
3. Do you believe ‘gays’ have been deprived of the right to marry? Doesn’t pretty much everyone have the right to marry now -- to a person of the opposite sex?
4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?
5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there’s a set percentage of the population that will always be ‘gay’, and that this won’t increase, even if a culture embraces ‘gay’ sex? Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become ‘chic’ and popular? Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?
6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening? Do you believe you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?
7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives? Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?
8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundreds of groups started by ex-‘gays’ and the thousands who live in America?
9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way? Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim? Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?
10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the ‘correct’ way? Do you feel it isn’t necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts? Do you believe it’s impossible to be “kind” and oppose homosexuality?
11. Are you quick to say “Judge not, lest you be judged” ( Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all the while being very judgmental yourself?
12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual sex acts? Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do? Do you believe there’s such a thing as ‘sin’ and if so, how is it defined? Are you the one who defines sin for yourself? Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn’t Christ’s death and resurrection pretty pointless? Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a “Christian”?
13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all ‘gay’ people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?
14. Do you close your ears and figure it’s a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all the HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?
15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically “hateful,” while you seethe with hate yourself?
16. Do you believe it’s okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other? Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged? Would you call such parents “ignorant” and accuse them of “censorship”?
17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the ‘real’ truth is emerging? Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?
18. Do you believe that ‘gays’ are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States? Do you understand that hate crimes stats don’t support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed? Would you be unconcerned about overall civil liberties if trumped -up charges of so-called “hate speech” were used to silence people?
19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies? Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?
20 And--very big question: Is your need for other people’s approval greater than your appreciation of truth? Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people? If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worthy cause, to speak up and inform family, friends--and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?
The purpose of this quiz is to educate. If you feel angry now, it could be you have some bigoted attitudes, much like the author of this quiz did before learning the facts. Maybe it’s time for a change of mind and heart- -and courage to go with them. God bless you in your sincere search for truth.
What the left promotes while the right sleeps .
Dear Safe Schools Coalition members and friends:
(1) Lobby Day to focus on science-based, medically accurate sexual health curriculum (Feb 12; Olympia, WA)
Sponsored by our friends at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington and Planned Parenthood, in partnership with other members of the Healthy Youth Alliance.
If you want to help or if your club or church or other group wants to participate, contact Alissa Haslam, Field Coordinator at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington (206-624-1990 or mailto:alissahaslam@prochoicewashington.org)
----------------------
About this Listserve
To SUBSCRIBE to the Safe Schools Coalition's IMPORTANTNEWS List, which averages 2 messages/week including only: urgent messages, action items, SSC meeting minutes
To SUBSCRIBE to the Safe Schools Coalition's NEWS List, which averages 2 messages/day including THOSE SAME THINGS plus: events (conferences, courses, rallies, TV specials, activism opportunities) , resources (books, DVDs, scholarships, curricula, and more), jobs and volunteer and internship opportunities, news digests
To UNSUBSCRIBE or
To SWITCH LISTS (from NEWS to IMPORTANT NEWS or vice versa) or
To CHANGE your address, if you are already a subscriber,
GO TO http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/listsub.asp
About Safe Schools Coalition
The Safe Schools Coalition is a public-private partnership of 80+ organizations (government agencies, schools, community agencies, churches, youth/student groups, gay/lesbian groups, human rights groups) and 400+ individuals working to help schools become safe places where every family can belong, where every educator can teach, and where every child can learn, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
Safe Schools' website: http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org
Got a problem at school with anti-gay harassment?
1-877-SAFE-SAFE (1-877-723-3723) 24 hours a day - the phone line is answered at the Sexual Assault Hotline and they will have a Safe Schools Coalition Intervention Specialist volunteer get back to you within 24 hours. Or email us intervention@safeschoolscoalition.org
For non-emergencies:
Questions
Speakers’ Bureau (student/community workshops, professional training)
Membership
Publications and Listserve
Web Site
For donations: "Safe Schools Coalition" c/o Lifelong AIDS Alliance, 1002 E Seneca, Seattle, WA 98122-4203 (or call 206-957-1621)
Co-Chairs:
Frieda Takamura, Washington Education Association, 253-765-7062
Beth Reis, Public Health - Seattle & King County, 206-296-4970
Marsha Botzer, Ingersoll Gender Center and The Task Force, 206-601-8942
Ok, anonymous coward, I'll play.
Here are my answers, where are yours?
1. No, I believe in free speech for everyone on all subjects.
2. I call bigotry, what it is. Supporting diecrimnation against people for innate characteristics is bigotry, be that characteristic sexual orientation or religous belief. I see no reason to pretend things are not as I see them for your, or anyone else's benefit.
3. I believe same-sex couples should be granted the rights and privledges of civil marriage. Your second question is an irrelevant misdirection.
4. I believe fear and ignorance are undeniably behind anti-gay attacks. I see no evidence of compassion in efforts to allow discrimnation in employment and housing based on sexual orientation.
5. The evidence shows that some people will inevitably be homosexual. Why else would it occur in similar proportions in every human population? I don't believe that a significantly larger percentage has an interest in gay sex. Why, would you experiment with gay sex if gay marriage were legal? why do you think everyone else would?
6. No. I am very well informed on what homosexuals actually do (nothing that some heterosexuals do not do) and the precautions to take should one chose to engage in such activity.
7. No and no. The way to prevent these suicides to have outreach programs available to these kids where they can discuss their issues in a non-judgemental and supportive environment. Once they learn to accept themselves, what the rest of society thinks is irrelevant.
8. I've looked extensively into the claims of these groups, and found them to be wholly unsupported by scientific research, unwilling to conduct such research and of questionable integrity. Why don't find the regular revelation that the latest ex-gay poster child was caught in a gay bar or with a gay prostitute to throw their credibility into question? If you find their claims so credible, would you want your daughter to marry one of those thousands of "ex-gays"? If these groups are so credible and compassionate, why didn't the president of the National Evangeilical Association go to one of them, rather than a gay hooker? Even if these groups claims are actually true, what relevance does it have to gay americans and their rights?
9. I do not believe sexual orientation is chosen. I do not know if it is determined by genetics, conditions in the womb, early childhood events of some combination of them. I have seen now credible evidence showing that ones sexual orientaion is chosen, if you have it present it. I have looked at the research and there is no such correlation.
10. The bible and its interpretation by various churches is irrelevant to me. Not being a christian it shouldn't concern me in a nation with true religious freedom. I believe kindness and ones position on homosexuality aren't connected.
11. N/A not a participant in your mythology.
12. see above
13. No, do you believe in sweeping stereotypes like all gays are promiscuous and hate christians and all christians are oppressed victims?
14. No, I research facts for myself, rather than qouting propaganda. According to the most recent CDC numbers (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table1.htm) male to male sexual contact accounted for 46% of all new HIV infections, an increase from 40% in 2001, in fact the number of new cases from male to male sexual contact went up in that time while overal new cases went down. Gee, do you think the cuts and shutting down of gay-targeted safe-sex programs since Bush took office have anything to do with that?
15. No, I don't seeth with hate. Do you believe that anyone, who does not share your opposition to homosexuality is hateful, even while you seeth with hate yourself?
16. I believe homosexuals are a fact of life and should be included in an age appropriate manner in education. I hear the calls but too often they misrepresent what happened, and seeth with hatred towards homosexuals.
17. I don't believe that all cultures have prohibited homosexuality, but I can see where many taboos that may have once served a purpose are no longer relevant.
18. I don't believe in hate speech laws.
19. I do believe that conservatives are creating an issue where none exists. Or more accurately, leaders like Gary and groups like FFN are creating an issue to drum up cash from the rubes, who follow them. I don't believe there are any risks to chidlren in accepting homosexuality.
20. If my heart and mind are going to be changed on this issue it will be by facts, not by lists of asinine and largely rhetorical questions. And do you open up your heart and mind to be changed by my arguments? Or are you too busy putting on your phony oppressed act?
-JC
So, anonymous coward, what you rather have? a school where gay families don't belong, gay educators can't teach and gay children can't learn?
Makes you wonder exactly who is seething with hate.
-JC
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it
treats its least fortunate amongst them.
I am a Christian and I have a lot of problems with the GOP
and your organization. How do you reconcile your Christianity and
the GOP's record on social and family issues?
So much for FFN being open and accepting of all. Twice yesterday I posted a fair and balanced response to this that was both somewhat positive and somewhat negative to the Republican party and twice after it got on there it got deleted. Guess that means this one will likely get the same treatment too.
Wow. 20 question quiz about homosexuals. I suppose later we'll get a 20 question quiz about abortion. Those would be the ONLY two issues the Republicans have a more biblically based position than Democrats. And you know we'll never see any posts or quizzes on here about the protection and preservation of the environment, the right to education, the terrible effects of a lack of gun control, honesty, peace, minorities getting equal rights, the right to life of those killed by wars and/or the death penalty, or any of the numerous issues where Democrats are actually more biblically based in their position than Republicans.
IF ffn is really into causes that are Biblical and noble, they'd be praising the results of last Tuesday and working hard with both parties to get them both to keep moving towards having the Christian stances on ALL these issues.
The GOP has claimed to be morally
and ethically superior. The veil
is dropping. They are neither any more ethical or moral than anybody else.
In fact if anything they have less
etics , morals and integraty than
the Democrats. Hint :
check out this site
http://www.vote-smart.org/
ht tp://www.vote-smart.org/
and see how the parties supported
veterans organizations like the disabled vets.
Do your homework and see who TALKS THE TALK and WALKS THE WALK.
Ralph,
I am a republican , butthe republican party sure does not represent Jesus Christ or his teachings . Why would you want a political party to do so ?
Are you say the democratic party does ? I don't think you are . But I support the party that is closest to my values . Thats all you can do . Otherwise you are for major disappointment . Everyone I voted for lost in this past election , but if you see some of statements and hatred , you would think they all won ...
I have seen a major shift in our culture the past 40 years , have you not .? Especially in some areas , media and academia .
I mean , stores are actually making a big deal that Christmas will be said by their employees this year , and some people are upset about that . oohhhhhhhhh
I supported Bobby Kennedy , but he would ot know the democratic party of today .. Would be interesting to see if he would ended up like Ted Kennedy ,I sure would have liked to see him live to find out . He was a stright talker I thought .
Example of the way I see things is the Boy Scouts , use to be a welcome organization in all parts of our culture . I mean teaching boys , or at least highlighting virtues such as loyalty ,being helpful , friendly , kind , obedient , cheerful , thrifty , clean reverent , and such .. Now we have a culture that teaches about hate crimes and hate speech in our schools , those values are subject to interperataion .... in my area we have police officers in the middle schools , its a rural school district , and a large majority in academia with the humanistic secular world view that now supports the notion that the Boy Scouts as part of the culture is our problem , not its solution . You have the folks here who believe that also . they usually luk around places where they can attack people and try to intimidate those with traditional value systems . They shut them up using words like bigots and such .. Just a value syatem that teaches abstinence , do unto your neighbor , try to love all , is now considered a bigoted belief system . Somehow the left seems very silent when dealing with these types of groups , in fact the democrats get much political support from groups that promote this type of hate speech .. I mean the Salavation Army , a Christian organization over a 100 years of helping all races , all people , was targeted by leftist organizations because they did not give health care benefits to homosexual employees. Something the government does not even do , but why would you hurt a minsitry whose own religion teaches that , is that so intolerant , who is intolerant here ?
This is just an example of a complicated problem , but it deals with right and wrong . To many of us , treating gays or anyone was never acceptable , we did not even know about it , did not know the large hidden world of such things . But values and traditional belief systems are not changed by politics , as this organization fails to undertand , and while the left continues toplow a path that leaves us all worse then we were the generation before.
All the folks I know would support your point about helping vets , and if republicans are not doing that , I would support democrats doing that . But i don't support Murtha calling our vets murderers, or Frank allowing male prostitutes in his home , or Hillary Clinton's idea of socialism , or abortion on demand , or redistributing wealt and playing God and trying to give more rights to people Might have been treated unfairly in lifebased on race only or because they have a sex life that is unnatural ,
P.S < your points are actually talking points you been fed my friend, based on votes taken for other reasons , sort of like when McGavik tried to get Cantwell for not supporting the minimum wage increase when she actually was stopping the death tax >
Like I said politics will not get you closer to God , the only way I know of that is Jesus Christ , and he really does not care who you vote for , but I do believe He wants you to vote .
"the republican party sure does not represent Jesus Christ or his teachings . Why would you want a political party to do so ? "
Why would you NOT want that? If you truly want to support Christianity, shouldn't you want Christianity in all areas of the world and your life?
"To many of us , treating gays or anyone was never acceptable"
You mean treating them like they are humans?
"calling our vets murderers,"
If a vet murders someone, what do you call them?
"redistributing wealt"
Yeah, Jesus would definitely be for the rich getting richer and the poor starving and dying.
"abortion on demand"
We sure can't be killing unborn children when there are good ol' regular people to kill like Iraqis and wrongly convicted people on death row.
"trying to give more rights to people Might have been treated unfairly in lifebased on race only "
It would be tragic to see those African Americans and Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans actually get the SAME rights as the good ol' White Americans who were in this country first.
"a sex life that is unnatural ,"
Unlike the NATURAL sex lives that include cheating on your spouse and abusing your spouse. Those things certainly don't threaten traditional marriage.
1. Do you believe in free speech about homosexuality for everyone except conservatives or Christians?
1A. I believe in free speech for everyone as long as their free speech doesn't incent violence or crimes. As long as you would not feel your life was personally threatened by the speech if you were the target of the free speech, then it probably shouldn't be a problem. This is the sort of do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.
2. Do you participate in name-calling of those who object to homosexuality -- names like bigot, hate-monger, etc.?
2A. No, I don't participate in name-calling. I will say that I think they have prejudice against gays if they are only basing their opinion on generalizations and stereotypes. If they act based based upon those predjudices then they are bigots. It doesn't matter how "strongly held" your belief is, as Gary mentioned a few blogs ago. If you say all homosexuals are immoral, indecent, pedophiles, etc, then you are practicing prejudice. Go and meet some gay people and get to know them. That will break down those prejudices very fast.
3. Do you believe ‘gays’ have been deprived of the right to marry? Doesn’t pretty much everyone have the right to marry now -- to a person of the opposite sex?
3A. Yes, gays are deprived of the right to marry the person they love. What if we passed a law that said heterosexual couples could only marry if they had different color eyes? That wouldn't be depriving anyone of the right to marry because everyone could marry someone of the opposite sex with different color eyes.
3B. Isn't the basis marriage of the love between the two people being married. If love isn't involved, the marriage won't last. So why would you want a homosexual person to try and marry someone of the opposite sex. Isn't that being disloyal to their spouse since they are not truly attracted to their spouse. Marriages of convenience where a homosexual person got married to hide their homosexuality used to be quite common, see Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, etc. Isn't that kind of false marriage wrong or more of a threat to traditional marriage?
4. Do you believe those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear or ignorance? Do you believe they could never be motivated by compassion for the people involved, and if they say so, they must be lying?
4A. I think that those who object to homosexuality are motivated by fear of what they don't know. The more people who object to homosexuality get to know homosexual people and realize they are just the same as themselves, their objections melt away. It not's much different than when immigrants from Ireland began to flood in America. At first there was fear from ingnorance of who these Irish people were. Fortunately, that sort of fear fades (quickly) away when people get to know each other.
I don't believe they are for the most part motivated for compassion as I think you are implying. If you are talking about compassion for homosexuals that want to get married and provide security for their families, then yes they are quite honest. They tend to be some of the most vocal speakers for equality for homosexuals. If you are talking about having compassion for homosexuals because they are sinners and are just following the "love the sinner, hate the sin", then, they aren't really being compassionate.
5. Do you believe some people will just inevitably be homosexual, and that there’s a set percentage of the population that will always be ‘gay’, and that this won’t increase, even if a culture embraces ‘gay’ sex? Do you think homosexual experimentation could never become ‘chic’ and popular? Is there no risk for the people involved or our culture if this happens?
5A. Yes, I believe that some people are born that way (though that is not at the same time as conception). But by birth, your sexual orientation is set. I also believe it's not simply one or the other. I think it's more black and white with plenty shades of gray in between. And depending on where in the gray you are, it may be easier or harder to live as heterosexual or homosexual. I seem to always fall back to Star Wars 3 - "Only the Sith believe in absolutes" - "If you are not with me, then you are my enemy".
5B. No, homosexual experimentation could never become "chic" or popular. Swining was in for a while in the 70s. It certainly didn't become mainstream, expected, embraced etc. For most people, the idea of having sex with someone of their own sex is repulsive. I can't see how anything could motivate them to say, "What the heck, that looks like it could be fun." In a similar vein, the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite sex is repulsive to me. I can't imagine it at all. There isn't anything that would make we say, "What the heck, that looks like it could be fun."
6. Do you automatically dismiss any conservative comments about homosexuality without listening? Do you believe you are well-informed, while refusing to learn about what homosexuals actually do and the risks involved?
6A. Being homosexual, I'm pretting informed about what homosexuals actually do and the rists involved. I also know that the extreme (and I would add gross) things that some do is not widely practiced. I also know that heterosexuals participate in anal and oral sex as well. And there are some heterosexual couples that indulge in extreme (and again I would add gross) things too.
6B. I am always willing to listen to another perspective. The more perspectives I hear, the more ways I can look at things. I can't say that I listen very strongly to "It just says so in the Bible" anymore. Otherwise, as long as they have facts and evidence for their opinion, speak up. I am most opposed to those who refuse to look at new information and knowledge. There are times when I here that Bible just says so, that I picture an ostrich burrying it's head in the bible and closing it, because they don't want to hear anything other that what the Bible says.
6C. I also recognize that the translation of the Bible to English was done by people, and when you look back at the text in the old Hebrew, it doesn't speak of "homosexuality" - it's just post victorian versions that do.
7. Do you believe that the tragedy of any suicide by someone involved in homosexuality is the fault of conservatives? Is the best solution to these tragedies to demand that everyone in America accept homosexuality?
7A. No, the tragedy of suicide is not the fault of conservatives. It's the fault of our whole society impressing on people as role model that the person can't meet and leads to poor self-esteem, depression and suicide. Holding young girls to the idea that they have to be emaciated is another example. Holding kids to the idea that they have to be heterosexual or else they are wrong and can't fit in, is just another example.
7B. I'm not sure what America accepting homosexuality implies. Should everyone in America try being homosexual or something - No way! That's just way to scary. LOL. Should everyone in America not care about who is sleeping with who in their private bedrooms - Yes. Do you really want to know that my cat likes to sleep in my bed some nights by resting his head on the back of my hand?
8. Do you automatically dismiss the idea that anyone could be a former homosexual, despite the hundreds of groups started by ex-‘gays’ and the thousands who live in America?
8A. I don't think thee are "hundreds" of groups. There are some people who are in the gray area that can suppress their dominant sexual orientation for certain reasons. If that works for them and they are happy, then great for them. I don't believe though that it actually changes their orientation. I tend to believe the much more educated psychologists who explain that the most import thing is for someone who has issues relating their religious beliefs with the orientation, that the most important thing is to find a balance where they can be happy. They also point out that there are grave risks to trying to flat convert people - and that it doesn't work.
8B. I don't believe in "cures" that are soley based upon religion either - take Jesus Christ as your saviour and you will be redeemed from you homosexual sins. Does that say then that only Christians can be "cured"?
9. Do you believe that homosexuals are born that way? Do you refuse to consider the evidence against this claim? Have you ever looked at the connection between child sexual abuse and later homosexual attraction?
9A. Yes, homosexuals are born that way - although not necessarily conceived that way. The hormones of a mother has been show to affect the sexual orientation of their boy babies for instance. That is why it is much more common for the younger/youngest boys be homosexual. My unscientific research would fit this too.
9B. Yes, I have looked at that evidence, and it doesn't hold water. That is why it was discredited by medical associations over 30 years ago. I also have yet to meet someone who was homosexual becuase they were abused. I'm not claiming that it couldn't happen, but I stand by the research and evidence from medical professionals that says sexual abuse is not the primary cause of homosexuality. Many of the "research" groups that like to claim that it is nurture not nature (like NARTH), doesn't provide actual data for peer review by others, publish their actual data, etc. Their claims, then end up on the pile of pseudo-science becuase they can't be proved. Instead they use their "evidence" to imply their theories and thus deceive people looking for honest information.
If you are going to look at evidence from any research or study, you must also look at the commentaries by others for and against that research. The commentaires against the "nurture" argument are very hard to discount.
9C. I knew I was different by the time I was 5 or 6. I wasn't sexually abused. I have two parents and grew up in a loving family. While I didn't know what it meant, playing shirts and skins at soccer practice made me feel different even then. Or seeing a guy with his shirt off, always caught my eye.
10. Do you believe that only churches that accept homosexuality have interpreted the Bible in the ‘correct’ way? Do you feel it isn’t necessary to read the relevant Bible passages yourself, all of which are straightforward in condemning homosexual acts? Do you believe it’s impossible to be “kind” and oppose homosexuality?
10A. No, I think the Bible is difficult to interpret much of the Bible. If you spend some time looking at the reseach Biblical Scholars, (religions and not), continue to do to translate the Bible more correctly, only shows how hard interpretting it is.
10B. I don't both passages are straightforward in condeming homosexual acts. I believe the recent English versions of the Bible say it straightforwardly, but not the original texts.
10C. It's just as impossible to be "kind" and accept homosexuality as it is to be "kind" and oppose people of another race. "I don't have anything against them, I just don't want them living in my neighborhood". That's not being kind.
11. Are you quick to say “Judge not, lest you be judged” ( Matthew 7:1) and similar passages, without understanding the Christian theology behind it, and all the while being very judgmental yourself?
11A. No, because I don't need the bible to know how to live morally.
12. Do you sincerely believe Jesus would have accepted homosexual sex acts? Do you believe Jesus is cool with whatever anyone wants to do? Do you believe there’s such a thing as ‘sin’ and if so, how is it defined? Are you the one who defines sin for yourself? Do you have no need of a savior and if not, wasn’t Christ’s death and resurrection pretty pointless? Despite all these contradictory and self-constructed beliefs, do you consider yourself a “Christian”?
12A. I believe the portrayal of Jesus would be fine with homosexual people as long as they were in love. Otherwise, I don't believe in Jesus Christ or God.
13. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, like that all ‘gay’ people are innocent victims or that all conservatives must be mean and stupid?
13A. The only stereotype I believe is that people who believe in sweeping stereotypes are lazy or ill-informed.
14. Do you close your ears and figure it’s a conservative plot if you hear that at least 2/3 of all the HIV transmission in the United States still involves males having anal sex with each other?
14A. Nope. I worry that when stats like that are put out, that non-monogamous heterosexual couples (who are at just as much risk with unprotected sex) don't realize how much they are at risk. Most of the infections in Africa are through heterosexual acts.
15. Do you believe anyone who objects to homosexuality is automatically “hateful,” while you seethe with hate yourself?
15A. No, I believe that they just don't know people and understand being homosexual really means. Sometimes the only information that they have is just stereotypes that have been told to them.
16. Do you believe it’s okay for thirteen- year- olds to learn at school that they have the right to have homosexual sex with each other? Do you close your ears when concerned parents are outraged? Would you call such parents “ignorant” and accuse them of “censorship”?
16A. When I was 13, I was in 7th grade. There certainly wasn't any thing saying that it was right to have heterosexual sex with each. I can't imagine why it would be right to say that homosexual sex was right. The only time it is right to start a sexual relationship is when both are mature enough, are in love, are ready to make that kind of commitment to each other. If that means waiting until marriage, great. If that means a different point, ok. But what sex the other person doesn't change when.
17. Do you believe that, after several thousand years where most cultures have prohibited homosexuality, only now the ‘real’ truth is emerging? Do you believe this is not an arrogant, narrow or immature position?
17A. No, I believe this is simply the maturing of our global society. 100-200 years ago it was unthinkable for women to have the right to vote. Eventually, our society grows and learns.
18. Do you believe that ‘gays’ are the target of widespread violence that goes unpunished in the United States? Do you understand that hate crimes stats don’t support this claim and that laws already exist to punish all crimes, no matter why they are committed? Would you be unconcerned about overall civil liberties if trumped -up charges of so-called “hate speech” were used to silence people?
18A. I still see plenty of hate-crimes that are committed in the US - cases where the criminals specifically attacked their victims were gay.
19. Do you believe that conservatives are making a big deal out of a behavior that has no harmful effects on individuals, families, communities, or societies? Do you scoff at any claims that serious public health issues are involved, like sexually transmitted diseases or risks to children?
19A. I wouldn't accuse conservatives of that. I do believe that those against homosexuality use stereotypes and misinformation to scare others.
20 And--very big question: Is your need for other people’s approval greater than your appreciation of truth? Do you refuse to consider an unpopular viewpoint because it might make you appear unenlightened to some people? If your mind and heart changed about this issue, would you have the courage to be a rebel for a worthy cause, to speak up and inform family, friends--and fellow humans who are involved in homosexuality?
20A. Nope, the truth is most important. Unfortunately, many people believe that claim the Bible is the "truth". I find too many people where the truth and starts and ends with the Bible, and aren't willing to listen to other evidence. They may be willing to listen to their doctor that they need to have surgery to get rid of their cancerous tumor, but when their doctor says that homosexuality is normal, they close their ears.
Now, my 20 questions...
21. Do you believe in free-speech for neo-Nazi groups calling for the elimination of all Jews and Muslims?
22. Do you participate in name-calling or reitorating stereotypes of homosexuals? - like they aren't happy, depraved, etc.
23. Do you really believe that because same-sex couples have been marrying in Massachusettes for 2 1/2 years, that society is about to end? What evidence is there to support that? And if it just takes, time, how much time? If society does collapse couldn't it just be that women go the right to vote and it took time for that to cause society to collapse (say about 100 years)?
24. How many people do you think that object to homosexuality actually (really) know people who are homosexual? How many of the most vocal of people are actually homosexual themselves - most recently Ted Haggard.
25. When did you decide to be heterosexual? What were the key reasons?
26. Do you believe that all secular evidence is biased or politically motivated. Do you belief that their is a great leftist conspiracy out there controlling all scientific research?
27. How do you deny research that shows that children in same-sex households are just the same as in opposite-sex households except for any prejudice against their parents? Or evidence that supports that children are better protected if their same-sex parents are legally married?
28. For the ex-gays, do you accept that many that claimed to have been "cured" actually weren't? Have you looked at their evidence (as opposed to their claims) and seen that they don't say how long their patients were cured? If Teg Haggard with so much to loose (family, church, etc.) and all of the prayers he gave and continually got, couldn't "pray away the gay", why do you think that everyone can?
29. What was the most attractive aspect of being homosexual? What would have tipped the balance and you whould have chosen to be homosexual instead of heterosexual.
30. Do you believe that only churches can interpret what is right or wrong when it comes to science and biology? Wasn't the church wrong about the earth being the center of the universe? Couldn't the church be wrong in it's objections to homosexuality?
31. In medieval/feudal times, the inheritance went to the first born son. The second born son was insurance against infant mortalilty and would end up living on the inheritance. The third son was given to the church. With the recent evidence, that later born sons are likely to be gay, is it a surprise that that homosexuality and the church have a long history? Does it not make sense that much of the claims against homosexuals come from closet homosexuals in the church?
32. When did Jesus specifically speak out against homosexuality? If homosexuality was so important, don't you think he would have talked about it. Wouldn't it appear in the Bible more, say, then marrying outsiders?
33. Do you believe sweeping stereotypes, that all gays are unhappy, were child molested, are pedophiles, etc?
34. Do you believe that HIV is a curse sent by God to kill homosexuals?
35. Do you believe that people who hate gays do so to elevate themselves - "at least I'm not gay" - to increase their self-esteem and hide from the hatred in their souls.
36. Do you remember when you were 13 and how nervious you were anytime the word sex was even mentioned? Do you really believe that if a 13 year old kid was told that some people are homosexual that they would become homosexual? How many thirteen year olds today don't know about being gay, do you think?
37. Do you believe that thousands of years of persecution and discrimination against gays makes it acceptable to persecute and discriminate against gays today?
38. Do you believe that hate crime legislation should be removed? That is, just remove all groups and just deal with a crime is a crime. Including removing hate crime protections for religion?
39. Do you believe that conservative politicians are more concerned about homosexual behavior or getting money and power from religious conservatives?
40. Are you willing to read the positions of all medical groups that say that homosexuality is normal, that speaking against it is harmful, that same-sex marriage is good for society, even if it contradicts what you read in you copy of the Bible?
wow - I'm tired.
tim
This is answers for the guy to afraid to use his name . Most likely from years of being mistreated and hurt by prejudice ?
You can tell how sensitive you are ?
"the republican party sure does not represent Jesus Christ or his teachings . Why would you want a political party to do so ? "
Why would you NOT want that? If you truly want to support Christianity, shouldn't you want Christianity in all areas of the world and your life?
-----------------------
Because I believe in the separation of church and state .. That to promote Christianity in a political party is wrong for the Jew, Muslim , or for homosexuals ,
-----------------------------------
"To many of us , treating gays or anyone was never acceptable"
You mean treating them like they are humans?
-----------------------------
Oh poor little boy ,,,, Do you need atta a boy from the government for having been given a chance to be born .. I mean at least your not a death row ...
----------------------------
"calling our vets murderers,"
If a vet murders someone, what do you call them?
--------------------------------------------
How sad , When you make blanket statements about people who have not been given a trial or a chance to speak to the issue , at least give them the same rights that homosexuals have , terrorists , Conservative hippocrits , and folks like Jefferson Clinton ,
What only 13 year old homosexuals have rights ,?
"redistributing wealt"
Yeah, Jesus would definitely be for the rich getting richer and the poor starving and dying.
Yeah Jesus teaches people to give all they have , not to do it through a system where the government does it .. You mean the same government that kills all those innocent Iraq folks , Oh you want Jesus in the deal when it suits you making a bigoted comment ? big difference , and thanks for proving you don't know the difference . Who benefits from the giving and receiving , the people I know , including myself are rewarded from above for knowing how to give and how to receive . Giving to the IRS being compared to the helping the poor ? Yeah In DC a kid has a better chance to go to jail then receive a diploma if he is black , unless of course he goes to a private religious school because of charitable donations .. The government does not think that is important , see your answer with Jesus being involved in the political party , the government won't alow it ...
"abortion on demand"
We sure can't be killing unborn children when there are good ol' regular people to kill like Iraqis and wrongly convicted people on death row.
---------------------
Great pro choice statement . Obviously a NARAL supporter .,.
"trying to give more rights to people Might have been treated unfairly in lifebased on race only "
It would be tragic to see those African Americans and Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans actually get the SAME rights as the good ol' White Americans who were in this country first.
------------------------------------------------------------
What country do you live in .. , about 16 million people are here illegally who are Hispanic , I guess it is not that bad is it. Better then where they came from anyway , not bad for a county stated up by a bunch of "white boys"
About one in six white boys died in a war stoppoing the tradegy of slavery , interesting enough Grant 6 years into his corrupted adminsitration has his Congress go all democrat similiar to what happened there . Then the people were mad about all the troops and money going down to the south to make sure reconsruction was carried out . There were black republicans in state houses then , even a majority in one state . Guess what , the democrats got the troop bacl, the democrats and the KKK ruled the day again till the Civil Rights of the 60s and riots ..
"a sex life that is unnatural ,"
Unlike the NATURAL sex lives that include cheating on your spouse and abusing your spouse. Those things certainly don't threaten traditional marriage.
--------------------------------------------------
That is not only unnatural , its illegal .. Do what you want in your bedroom , its free country .. Just when folks start telling me what charties I can support , and then tell me the government can take the money and support the charties that only the democrats or republicans support , expect some resistance from some of us , which included blacks , whites , hispanics , gays , and a host of others who happen to believe its not the government's place ..
Just like you and some people can not debate an issue without promoting a perverted slant to it , the government is made of people also , and that perverted slant then becomes my problem because they are using my tax dollars to promte it .
At 11:54 AM, November 16, 2006, Anonymous said
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Mick,
1) Most of the people on here who support whatever FFN and the Republican party says (inlcuding the juvenille supporter of yours from 1:13) don't use their name. How come you only call out the ones who don't agree with you?
2) Interesting point about separation of church and state, but it sounds like you're walking the slippery slope of compartmentalizing there.
3)Your "atta a boy" doesn't even come close to making sense - or sticking with the topic.
4) What "blanket statement" was there that didn't give someone a chance - you were simply asked a clarifying question which you still refused to answer.
5) Again, your wording is pretty confusing when you agree that Jesus would support giving all your wealth, but you imply that that the person who questioned you about that is "bigoted" when they do so.
6)That wasn't a "pro choice statement" at all. You should try reading it again (or perhaps for the first time it sounds like). It's a pro-life statement - just a pro-life statement for not killing ANYONE.
7)Mick, you're all over the map. You make statements against equal rights based on race and when questioned on that you response is to bring up the Civil War?
8) "Perverted slant"? You won't answer the simple questions that guy/girl asks you and when you do it comes out as incoherent and unrelated to what was asked and then your defense of that is try to attack his/her character as being "perverted"? Good thing you have your buddy from 1:13 to come up with a truly mature response to it all.
Unknown hiding liberal
1) Most of the people on here who support whatever FFN and the Republican party says (inlcuding the juvenille supporter of yours from 1:13) don't use their name. How come you only call out the ones who don't agree with you?
Good question ... Same reason JC does it I guess. Attack the person not the statements .. I was wrong ... good point ... How come you attack those who do use their name and then leave yours unstated .
2) Interesting point about separation of church and state, but it sounds like you're walking the slippery slope of compartmentalizing there.
To you maybe , looks like a baseless comment with nothing to back it up . Amazing how lefties supprt religion when it supports the degrading comments of those who hate this country, tits history , the opportunity it provides for all of us , and the people in it , just because we all don't want the government telling us who and what to believe in . Interesting I love my country because of the people in it , you hate it because of the people in it .
3)Your "atta a boy" doesn't even come close to making sense - or sticking with the topic.
The person was suggesting he does not have rights . Because the government does not support his sexuality .. The government does not support my religion , it does not mean I don't have rights . He has the same rights I have and you have , that different races .
Somehow supporting the boyscouts is a violation of his and your rights , and this same thinking wants the government to be an extension of that value system ...
Hence , police officers in public schools . Where before they were not needed before.
Makes sense to me , I wonder why you don't speak to the random comments taken out of context by this person when I was writing to another person . Could it be ,you support only those who support a belief that Traditional Christianity is evil itself .. Which does not appear very coherent to me , considering the obvious alternative , communism / socialism has killed more people last century in the history of the world .
Why don't you answer any of my questions ?
4) What "blanket statement" was there that didn't give someone a chance - you were simply asked a clarifying question which you still refused to answer.
You support calling someone a murderer without a trial . A person fighting against people who put bombs in the hands of children and say walk over there ? I answered it , are you so hateful of this country and all the great things we do that you will not defend a person who is on the lines of battle , in situations where good and evil get mixed up , where children and women are used as pawns in terror and war . So yeah , when a John Murtha talks about our troops as being a murderer , then this joker defends that comment , makes you wonder if John Kerry was actually just mistaken in his comment . Or would you defend him either way , because you appear to defending the undefendable here .
5) Again, your wording is pretty confusing when you agree that Jesus would support giving all your wealth, but you imply that that the person who questioned you about that is "bigoted" when they do so.
Again you are making no sense .. The person believes the government should be the arm of Jesus ...
Big difference between you giving me money to feed my self and family and the government doing it . For one , if you did, I would be thank ful to you ,.. You doing it in the name of Christ , I would be thankful to both .. I would feel obliged to you , which is normal . So if you asked me say to cut some firewood for you , or perhaps if you could help get me a job , not only a friendship would be formed , a connection , but you would be a better person also for knowing you did something good .. Instead of cracking each other over the head with emails , I would look up to you as a man , my whole family would be thankful , and I would be a better person because now I would be working and supporting my family .. That is whay I don't want government involved , their is no accountability , no real help for the people receiving the aid , and those who truly benefit from government supports is truly terrible , in fract if government was a charity as some people would wish it was , we would not give to it because there are so many other charities that do such a better job .. This makes sense to me , and the fact you rather attack instead of simply understanding such a basic and simple concept proves your not interested ,, I can't explain it any better ..
Should we have the government be the arm of the Toprah , should we stone those who commit adultry instead of making them movie stars ? You want the government to do the things Jesus would do , well its obvious that many people have difeerent opinions what Jesus would do , and for one , you can't even undertand what I am saying .. So what happens with people like me who have dyslexia , who can't communicate as well as experts such as yourself , only your ideas and government money is used . The poor black person in Seattle downtown pays a sales tax that supports college grants for a Asian American whoose parents could send him to school , but they get government money based on race .. You don't see the possibility of why a conservative would be against this . Why it gets so old when people such as you seem to make out that the conservative just wants minorities to suffer , ? I give my money to folks like the poor black man in Seattle through my charities , and he gets warm clothes , food , and a chance and a belief system tells him someone named Jesus Christ cares about him when you are I on our merry way to Alberstons .. Some people who would rather support the poor folks in Darfur then the poor folks in Detroit . I am against redistributing wealth , because I believe it takes away the opportunity of many people to achieve a better life , not wealth , just a way of life that allows them to support their families. Capitalism does that , socilaism and redistribution of wealth brings down levels of care for all people ..
..
6)That wasn't a "pro choice statement" at all. You should try reading it again (or perhaps for the first time it sounds like). It's a pro-life statement - just a pro-life statement for not killing ANYONE.
Ohhh , your against abortions and allowing people to kill the Terri Schavos of the world . I was wrong again , interesting with all the millions of innocent babies killed , the innocent death row immate comment comes up .. ? I am not sure who was innocent that he is talking about , but all those babies were . They had nothing to do with any crime ... Interesting you would defend that method of communicating a point ..
7)Mick, you're all over the map. You make statements against equal rights based on race and when questioned on that you response is to bring up the Civil War?
really , this government and nation is comparison to the rest of the world has a long history of oppression , and working towards making it right .. We should be proud that so many Asians , Hispanics , and different races will do anything in their power to come here . I suggest the statement depicting America as anything but the greatest nation , still , is pretty stupid and bizare .
8) "Perverted slant"? You won't answer the simple questions that guy/girl asks you and when you do it comes out as incoherent and unrelated to what was asked and then your defense of that is try to attack his/her character as being "perverted"? Good thing you have your buddy from 1:13 to come up with a truly mature response to it all.
I answered them all , intersting you can not understand or have any problem with the constant rants of your buddies .. Darkness loves darkness.. Hurts to open your eyes and hear a different view is it not , because for a person to disagree with your view , because they may believe that we all would be better off , including the homosexual , the black , the white , the poor , would mean the person you disagree with has good intentions , and in your simple world that means you may be wrong ...
Liberal
1) Most of the people on here who support whatever FFN and the Republican party says (inlcuding the juvenille supporter of yours from 1:13) don't use their name. How come you only call out the ones who don't agree with you?
Good question ... Same reason JC does it I guess. Attack the person not the statements .. I was wrong ... good point ... How come you attack those who do use their name and then leave yours unstated .
2) Interesting point about separation of church and state, but it sounds like you're walking the slippery slope of compartmentalizing there.
To you maybe , looks like a baseless comment with nothing to back it up . Amazing how lefties supprt religion when it supports the degrading comments of those who hate this country, tits history , the opportunity it provides for all of us , and the people in it , just because we all don't want the government telling us who and what to believe in . Interesting I love my country because of the people in it , you hate it because of the people in it .
3)Your "atta a boy" doesn't even come close to making sense - or sticking with the topic.
The person was suggesting he does not have rights . Because the government does not support his sexuality .. The government does not support my religion , it does not mean I don't have rights . He has the same rights I have and you have , that different races .
Somehow supporting the boyscouts is a violation of his and your rights , and this same thinking wants the government to be an extension of that value system ...
Hence , police officers in public schools . Where before they were not needed before.
Makes sense to me , I wonder why you don't speak to the random comments taken out of context by this person when I was writing to another person . Could it be ,you support only those who support a belief that Traditional Christianity is evil itself .. Which does not appear very coherent to me , considering the obvious alternative , communism / socialism has killed more people last century in the history of the world .
Why don't you answer any of my questions ?
4) What "blanket statement" was there that didn't give someone a chance - you were simply asked a clarifying question which you still refused to answer.
You support calling someone a murderer without a trial . A person fighting against people who put bombs in the hands of children and say walk over there ? I answered it , are you so hateful of this country and all the great things we do that you will not defend a person who is on the lines of battle , in situations where good and evil get mixed up , where children and women are used as pawns in terror and war . So yeah , when a John Murtha talks about our troops as being a murderer , then this joker defends that comment , makes you wonder if John Kerry was actually just mistaken in his comment . Or would you defend him either way , because you appear to defending the undefendable here .
5) Again, your wording is pretty confusing when you agree that Jesus would support giving all your wealth, but you imply that that the person who questioned you about that is "bigoted" when they do so.
Again you are making no sense .. The person believes the government should be the arm of Jesus ...
Big difference between you giving me money to feed my self and family and the government doing it . For one , if you did, I would be thank ful to you ,.. You doing it in the name of Christ , I would be thankful to both .. I would feel obliged to you , which is normal . So if you asked me say to cut some firewood for you , or perhaps if you could help get me a job , not only a friendship would be formed , a connection , but you would be a better person also for knowing you did something good .. Instead of cracking each other over the head with emails , I would look up to you as a man , my whole family would be thankful , and I would be a better person because now I would be working and supporting my family .. That is whay I don't want government involved , their is no accountability , no real help for the people receiving the aid , and those who truly benefit from government supports is truly terrible , in fract if government was a charity as some people would wish it was , we would not give to it because there are so many other charities that do such a better job .. This makes sense to me , and the fact you rather attack instead of simply understanding such a basic and simple concept proves your not interested ,, I can't explain it any better ..
Should we have the government be the arm of the Toprah , should we stone those who commit adultry instead of making them movie stars ? You want the government to do the things Jesus would do , well its obvious that many people have difeerent opinions what Jesus would do , and for one , you can't even undertand what I am saying .. So what happens with people like me who have dyslexia , who can't communicate as well as experts such as yourself , only your ideas and government money is used . The poor black person in Seattle downtown pays a sales tax that supports college grants for a Asian American whoose parents could send him to school , but they get government money based on race .. You don't see the possibility of why a conservative would be against this . Why it gets so old when people such as you seem to make out that the conservative just wants minorities to suffer , ? I give my money to folks like the poor black man in Seattle through my charities , and he gets warm clothes , food , and a chance and a belief system tells him someone named Jesus Christ cares about him when you are I on our merry way to Alberstons .. Some people who would rather support the poor folks in Darfur then the poor folks in Detroit . I am against redistributing wealth , because I believe it takes away the opportunity of many people to achieve a better life , not wealth , just a way of life that allows them to support their families. Capitalism does that , socilaism and redistribution of wealth brings down levels of care for all people ..
..
6)That wasn't a "pro choice statement" at all. You should try reading it again (or perhaps for the first time it sounds like). It's a pro-life statement - just a pro-life statement for not killing ANYONE.
Ohhh , your against abortions and allowing people to kill the Terri Schavos of the world . I was wrong again , interesting with all the millions of innocent babies killed , the innocent death row immate comment comes up .. ? I am not sure who was innocent that he is talking about , but all those babies were . They had nothing to do with any crime ... Interesting you would defend that method of communicating a point ..
7)Mick, you're all over the map. You make statements against equal rights based on race and when questioned on that you response is to bring up the Civil War?
really , this government and nation is comparison to the rest of the world has a long history of oppression , and working towards making it right .. We should be proud that so many Asians , Hispanics , and different races will do anything in their power to come here . I suggest the statement depicting America as anything but the greatest nation , still , is pretty stupid and bizare .
8) "Perverted slant"? You won't answer the simple questions that guy/girl asks you and when you do it comes out as incoherent and unrelated to what was asked and then your defense of that is try to attack his/her character as being "perverted"? Good thing you have your buddy from 1:13 to come up with a truly mature response to it all.
I answered them all , intersting you can not understand or have any problem with the constant rants of your buddies .. Darkness loves darkness.. Hurts to open your eyes and hear a different view is it not , because for a person to disagree with your view , because they may believe that we all would be better off , including the homosexual , the black , the white , the poor , would mean the person you disagree with has good intentions , and in your simple world that means you may be wrong ...
A)"Good question ... Same reason JC does it I guess. Attack the person not the statements"
Hardly a very satisfying answer if one was hopeful to get a Christian response or an honest dialogue.
B)"How come you attack those who do use their name and then leave yours unstated . "
You mean like "Unknown hiding liberal"? Maybe it has more to do with responding to your comments than you. Maybe if you had been anonymous, the response would still be there, but to 'anonymous (insert time here)' instead of 'mick'.
C)"The person was suggesting he does not have rights . Because the government does not support his sexuality"
No, the person was responding to when you said that it was never acceptable to treat gays, but you didn't specify what it was unacceptable to treat them as and therefore they asked a clarifying question. Read, don't overreact and jump to unfounded assumptions.
D)"You support calling someone a murderer without a trial"
Once again - Read, don't overreact and jump to unfounded assumptions. You said that you cannot call vets murderers and all that was then asked was what happens if a vet does actually commit murder. You sound like you're giving them a blanket of protection for anything they ever do simply because they were a vet.
E) "Big difference between you giving me money to feed my self and family and the government doing it ."
I can completely concur with that statement. IF private charities could sufficiently do the job, then they should be allowed to. But there is no evidence supporting your claims that there is no accountability or that the people who would benefit from this are terrible. And when you look at situations like Katrina, I think it becomes obvious why you need a strong government to be able to step in. Even though they've done a terrible job at it - all the charities who are working so hard aren't coming close to making a significant dent there.
F)"Ohhh , your against abortions and allowing people to kill the Terri Schavos of the world . "
Why wouldn't someone be against that? Only God should be taking lives away - whether it's unborn babies or people on their death bed or people on death row or people who are getting their homes bombed in Baghdad. Seems pretty simple - protect ALL life.
G) "I suggest the statement depicting America as anything but the greatest nation , still , is pretty stupid and bizare . "
One, where is that statement? I didn't see it in these comments anywhere. And this one goes back to when you implied that people should not be given equal rights simply because they were treated unfairly based on their race.
H)"I answered them all "
You didn't even read them all.
"intersting you can not understand or have any problem with the constant rants of your buddies .."
One, how do you know who is my buddy or not? Two, how do you know I'm not the anonymous person who rips on the people you think are my buddies (because frankly, everyone on here gets attacked)? Three, so what if I don't? If you're willing to make statements and someone is willing to call you out for them being ridiculous or un-Christian or offensive or incredulous or perplexing or whatever - why wouldn't you just be man enough to defend them without getting all pissy about it?
"Hurts to open your eyes and hear a different view"
Is that why you can't respond to anyone on here without turning to name calling and character attacks? Is that why they next best response to any disagreement on here is to characterize someone as being a crybaby? (Anon 1:13 - that's a shout out to you!)
"would mean the person you disagree with has good intentions "
Is that what you think when you are reading someone's posting that disagrees with you? You might have great intentions mick - I really believe that. Half the questions I have of you and I see others having of you around here are simply looking for you to clarify what you wrote - because frankly you came off as really sounding like you believe gays don't deserve any rights at all and racial equality was a bad thing. I'm hoping those aren't really your positions, but I suppose that's your decision and it's even your decision whether or not you'll ever answer those questions to clarify that. I heard this site was entirely full of people who do little more than want to attack those who disagree with the GOP. I'm starting to believe that.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
mickster,
the pro life positions of these liberals is enlightening
So they support Nancy Pelosi , Murtha , Ted Kennedy , and their political choices that promote abortions , and you
actually believe that this guy is pro life ..
You need to get a clue Mick , just attempting to have a conversation in good faith
is where you went wrong ..
Are you a new Christian ?
I will e mail you and explain .
Anon 7:29,
Have you found the political candidate who shares ALL your exact same views? If so, who?
If not, is it inconcievable that someone might support "liberals" yet not be in support of their position on abortion?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
anon 6:41
There are some issues that when you say you support , usually have a higher degree of weight to them .
To stop millions from dying , I would gladly vote for Pe3losi, Murtha or Ted Kennedy . ..Ted has only killed one person from what I understand .
mick,
Anonymous 6:41 was responding to anonymous 7:29. So are you A) admitting to being anonymous 7:29 (and apparently just pick and choose when you want to identifiable and when you want to be an unknown hider) or are you B) just butting in because you want to?
I'm just kidding with you. I think what you actually said there is pretty true. Some issues probably do have more weight to some people than others. The wealthy people I know always seem to value Bush's tax breaks for them more than any other issues out there. Teachers seem to generally think education is the most important issue. Military families are highly concerned with military issues.
And I'm sure there are quite a few people who are very pro-life and still choose to support the Democrats because of all the other issues they put great value in to (and because the Democrats show more pro-life values when it comes to things like not killing people on death row or in Iraq).
Oh boy a quiz:
1. All conservatives and Christians have 'free speech' about homosexuality. I bet this question is about thinking that those in positions of authority can make any statement they want in a public forum without repercussions. No, 'free speech' doesn't mean you can say anything you want in any situation you want, doesn't mean that for anyone.
2. Those two example aren't name calling - they have specific meanings and some people who 'object' to homosexuality fulfil those definitions. Some one can 'object' to homosexuality and still acknowledge others right to be homosexuals and that the government should support even the people with the quality the opinion holder 'objects' to. They wouldn't be a bigot.
3. Only if you think that marriage comes from the government which no Christian or even the Supreme Court of the United States does. Marriage comes from beyond government, and there are many gay married couples. The accurate question is 'why are only some married couples allowed to license the civil contract issued by the state in its support?'
4a. Yes most are because when you get them talking they make it clear they have no consistent rationale for their objection.
4b. Never say never, but it would be out of ignorance that someone thought that an individual needed 'compassion' because of their homosexuality. And saying something out of ignorance repeatedly is at least the sin of 'gossip' and if willfully ignorant than it is lying.
5a. We know that the relative percentage of the people who are gay is pretty rock solid from the repressive 50's where modern statistical methods were first used until present day.
5b. Well first 'homosexual experimentation' doesn't make someone 'gay'. And the likelyhood that it would become 'chic' and popular is low since it never has in the past. Heterosexuals aren't interested in sex with their own gender.
5c. This series of leading questions couldn't be more transparently self-serving - trying to generate a situation that hasn't happened and is unlikely too happen and then asking if it would be risky. Yes it is important for people to figure out what their sexual orientation is, but the vast majority have no difficulty with that - they know what it is by the way they are, the way they feel.
6. Well most conservative comments are generalizations of a few to a larger group - the 'sweeping stereotypes' of the author and the standard of negative propaganda, and so the best thing is to listen, correct and then watch the conservative 'automatically dismiss' the truth situation. for as we know there is no 'thing' that all homosexuals 'actually do' that 5-6 times more heterosexuals don't also do.
7. Obviously not all suicides are the fault of conservatives so the 'best solution' they offer doesn't apply. But really, no one is demanding acceptance, all that's ever asked for is tolerance (they are not the same thing), just as people tolerate conservatives right to live their lives as they wish.
8. Of course not - there are probably dozens of ways that people end up self identifying themselves as 'gay'. Go read the horror stories at the 'Beyond Stonewall' website. Most of these 'cured gays' led horrific lives that really had little to do with their sexual orientation - what's amazing is that think that their miriad problems were BECAUSE of homosexuality when they were obviously just 'acting out' other neurotic problems this way. Many of the founders of these groups have left and recanted their claims that change is possible - that's a strong indication that it may not work no matter how many groups there are saying it does.
A Dr. Robert Spitzer found that a rare few people can change their self-perception of their sexual orientation, but it is very rare. He was referred 270+ supposedly 'cured' ex-gays and over half were found to have not really changed their sexual orientation. The majority of those that did were really bisexual in experience and desire AND still had homosexual attractions even after being 'ex'. He says 3-4% of gays have a malleable sexual orientation but that 96-97% do not. So most ex-gays really aren't even if they claim they are - the odds are in your favor to think they are confused rather than cured.
9a. 'Born that way' is a loaded term - there are many indications that genetic, gestational and neonatal biological factors strongly bias someone towards a particular sexual orientation. And there is no evidence that disputes these observations.
9b. Yes gay children get molested more than straight ones which doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why - many gay kids are isolated from their peers by their differences and the preferred targets for pedophiles. But a number of behavioral researchers have noted many of these gay children exhibited gay typical behaviors before they were molested and some of the older ones even freely admit they thought of themselves as gay before they were molested. There is no indication there is a 'cause and effect' between molestation and homosexuality - far too many children are molested by someone of the same sex and go on to be heterosexuals for this thesis to be credible.
10a. Of course not - a church can interpret the bible anyway they want in America. What they have to do though is acknowledge other churches have this right too and that they have no right to force their interpretation on others or the government.
10b. Since the passages in their original text and context don't condemn homosexual acts in general the question is nonsensical.
10c. Of course you can be 'kind' and oppose homosexuality. What you can't be is 'kind' and not acknowledge someone else's right to be something you oppose in a free society.
11. Nope.
12a. Yes. He praised the roman centaurion who asked for his 'pias' (a boy servant usually kept for sexual purposes) to be healed. Jesus knowing what we know today would most definitely support gay people - remember the hatred of sexuality and our biological needs is a grecoroman addition to Judaic thought.
12b. No Jesus is not cool with 'whatever'. He was very down on those who thought they knew how everyone else should act and the 'sin counters' who had hardened their hearts.
12c. Christian sin is all that is not in compliance with the two commandments Jesus gave: Love God. Love each other as God loves you.
12.d Nope.
13. Considering the author has used sweeping generalizations throughout this 'quiz' its an odd question. When is any large group composed only of 'innocent victims' or the 'mean and stupid'. They exist in both groups I'm sure.
14. Close my ears? Of course not but I do keep an open mind: only a small minority of gay men have HIV and there are only a few new cases each year considering the size of the group. I do wonder about the motivation of those that mention only this but then ignore that HPV, the virus linked to a number of cancers, is sexually transmitted and infects 30% of heterosexual American adults.
Seems like the author is WANTing the quiz taker to engage in sweeping stereotypes when it suits their purposes.
15. Another sweeping generalization. No, objection isn't tied to hateful. I object to skateboarding, riding motorcycles on the freeway, and a host of other things - but I acknowledge the right of people to do things I object to, I don't hate them for it. What's hateful is when people object so much they make specious sweeping generalizations, try and deny people the right to do things they object to, and hurt them in the process. People who intentionally hurt people are 'hateable' even Jesus made that clear.
16a. Of course, just as much as they are taught they have a 'right' to heterosexual sex (are they taught that?).
16b. Most parents are 'outraged' about something that doesn't happen. Teaching that gay people exists and that they have a legal right to do so is not teaching kids to have gay sex but some parents look at it that way. So yes, parents who want kids to be lied to or not exposed to the truth very often are 'ignorant' and advocating 'censorship' of the simple truth.
17. Well many cultures didn't prohibit homosexuality and it is only now that we know is is not a pernicious vice but something very integral to the individual. So yes, we do know things now that we didn't know then and have to adjust accordingly if we are going to be dedicated to the truth. The arrogant narrow and immature position is the one that just because something was thought in the past it must be right.
18a. Actually hate crimes statistics (where they include gays) show they are often the largest quality that people will attack an individual for so the question is erroneous from the start.
18b. American justice has always factored in the intent of the criminal when deciding the severity of a crime - that's why we have all the different types of homocide catagories. Hate crime legislation allows for an additional penalty to be imposed on someone committing a crime because of a perceived group the individual belonged to rather than something about the individual themselves. This allows for more severe penalties for a more severe crime while limiting the base severity of sentencing of the underlying crime.
18c. Hate-speech statutes in the US would violate the First Amendment and have been struck down whereever they have been attempted. But any business or functional group can limit what is said in their areas of influence as they have since the founding of this nation. You have a right to free speech, you don't have a right to have no consequences to your exercising it in many situations.
19a. No they are making a big deal about something they can't do anything about, a 'something' that history shows that any attempt to repress just makes the situation worse. You can no more stop homosexuality than you can stop heterosexuality.
19b. There are no inherent 'public health issues' with homosexuality, another sweeping stereotype by the quiz author - you can't get an STD you aren't exposed to no matter what your sexual orientation. The obvious solution is to encourage all adults to couple up in sexually monogamous married relationships but conservatives ignore that solution. As to threats to children - fundamentalism is the top risk factor for in-home incest after a drunk or drugged father. Out self-identified homosexuals are rarely pedophiles.
0 Total irony. Those are the questions that the conservatives (and the quiz author) need to consider themselves.
The purpose of this quiz is to educate. If you feel angry now,
Don't feel angry, more sad that someone could be so wrapped up in the lies, the 'sweeping stereotypes' that they would think these questions were provocative or that the answers supported the case they were obviously trying to support.
"Ok, anonymous coward, I'll play."
Boy, you can't beat staring off on the right foot, credibility-wise, with a little name calling...
Touché
P.S. Oh, and don't forget the hypocrisy of starting a post with that comment, yet posting anonymously yourself. Well played... It's only out of my deeply curious nature that I'll bother reading the rest of your post.
Why does "anonymous" postings annoy you (whomever)so much? Would having a name or "handle" make the message any more viable? Any person could if they wanted put an alias and you still would not know who they are. This just appears as a skirt away from the message. What if someone without giving any name ran into a gay bar and yelled the place is on fire! Would you ignore the message because the person did not give a name or title? Silly, when you think about it.
the problem with 'anonymous' over a handle is the 'anonymous' isn't 'owning' their notes - they just are part of a rabble that all make comments, many in conflict with other notes named 'anonymous'. Difference between someone coming up to you and giving you an opinion and tossing it through your window tied to a rock.
What's especially annoying is that some are left by people who have administrative access to this blog (only they can delete an 'anonymous' Blogger™ post as we have seen occur several times). Who can respect someone who runs a blog but posts anonymous comments to it?
Oh, and on several of the seattle political blogs there is a person who's handle is 'anonymous coward' - Having written many notes addressed to him I have to inhibit writing 'anonymous coward' myself.
This is the only blog I follow where people who post more than rarely don't have the courtesy to own their messages with a consistent handle.
Annon 11:39 AM
I agree with you .. You made the point well .. When someone tells me their pro life and votes the democratic line up and takes on their issues , it appears so insincere .. But your right , I support many issues the left does also , but if I don';t support a leftist candiddate like a Al Global Warming Gore , my sincerity for taking care of the envirnoment appears sincere too I guess.
A And to the person who questioned how long I was a Christian because of my attempts to communicate with someone , I understand your point , but wisdom is not always judged by length , and believing someone may show a lack of discernment , but I do not believe it shows a lack of Spirutual maturity . If someone is deceiving you , the mistake is on the part of the deceiver in the long run . But I do appreciate your concern , blogs really do little I find ... Once in a while you learn something ,
When someone tells me their pro life and votes the democratic line up and takes on their issues , it appears so insincere
How? You can be pro-life and still be pro-choice, the difference is there are two approaches:
1. I am going to force you to act pro-life because I think its right and don't dare what you think, and
2. I am going to convince you to choose to act pro-life of your own free will.
Again, we are back to tolerance which is hallmarked by allowing people to have beliefs and engage in actions that you yourself wouldn't. Just acknowledging their god-given right to choose and realizing you have no god-given right to tell other people what to do.
Well Oshtur many legal professionals would disagree with that.
If our Declaration declares an inalienable right to life, how can we allow doctors to legally take life? Seems pretty inconsistant to me.
I leave my address anonymous because it really doesn't matter who I am. Just another part of the body of Christ.
"Who are you?"
"Noone of consequence."
"Ah, but I must know"
"Get used to disappointment" excerpt from The Princess Bride
Well Oshtur many legal professionals would disagree with that.
In a perfect world we could all do as we wish and never step on the toes of someone else's rights. But its not a perfect world so the law was created to balance the rights of one against the other. These laws are the creations of man, not god, a mental construct that has no reality outside the minds of men.
So again, we all have a right to choose, we don't have a right to choose for others. We do have laws to balance rights but they are creations of necessity, not a right.
If our Declaration declares an inalienable right to life, how can we allow doctors to legally take life? Seems pretty inconsistant to me.
Only because you think rights of others are something you can administrate. My right to life means its my right to discard it if I choose, just as I can give up my liberty, etc. Do doctors have a right to murder someone against their will? No but they can help someone do what they want.
As far as anonymous, I am just going to treat 'Anonymous' as what he appears to be - a single entity. What you fail to notice is that many times 'Anonymous' agrees with my point of view as part of the body of Christ.
Oh well, guess he just can't make up his mind sometimes. ;)
"These laws are the creations of man, not god..." How righy you are! They were the creation of God. Vishanti, set out to prove that there is no God once and for all, like many other former athiests have done, instead of bantering about on the internet. Or are you afraid of what you would find?
"We do have laws to balance rights but they are creations of necessity, not a right."
So Vishanti, you disagree with our Declaration of Independence, one of the documents upon which our nation was founded? That men are "created with certain inalienable rights, among them life..." Is that treason to try to undermine the foundation of a country?
So Vishanti, you disagree with our Declaration of Independence, one of the documents upon which our nation was founded? That men are "created with certain inalienable rights,
You are confused - I said the LAWS were not a right, i.e. we have no 'inalienable' right to tell other people what to do. Of course we have rights, telling others what to do is just not one of them. That's why Americans are free to do as they want as long as by doing so they don't infringe on the rights of others. We have laws to adjudicate our respective rights, we have no right to just tell other people what to do if our rights are not being infringed on.
And your red herring about atheism is just that, a distraction. This isn't about your sect or no religion, this is about your sect and its beliefs and the beliefs of others. You are not THE Christians, there are many Christians that don't believe as you do on many topics this blog frets about. Christians are some of the strongest supporters of marriage equality, equal rights for all citizens, and acknowledge the right of people to pursuit happiness as it is for them.
Why do we come full circle again!!!??? Oshtur, in talking about "equal rights for all citizens", you, I presume are talking about specifically, equal rights for GAYS!
AS HUMANS, they already have the same rights as other humans. They can marry (a person of the opposite sex), work, etc. just like all other humans!
The marriage thing is the problem for you and the gay activists especially. The recent election proves that. The gay activists are STILL going for the jugular and INSIST on the equal rights regarding marriage. They are not satisfied with what the "laws" have granted them specificially (employment, housing, etc.)
Once accepted, the gay ACTIVISTS do want marriage to be obliterated completely - so they can practice their proclivity without any hindrance at all!
Also, if gay sex is the hot button regarding "the pursuit of happiness" then, I am sorry, but your thinking of life is just to shallow. I really don't think the founding fathers of this country were thinking of any sexual issue when they included that in the basic papers of our country! They were more interested in being able to pursue a life of purpose - before God - that was noble and free to employ productivly at what they could, at the end of the day, feel a sense of accomplishment and toward betterment for themselves and others. To be able to worship as they sensed was their gift from God not as the government "religion" insisted. When you read about where they came from and the society they were stuck in, this was paramount.
Let's put "sex" in perspective please.
Anonymous as usual your note reveals more about than you probably want to admit and shows you ingnorance.
First you hold up marriage as merely a contract - that gays could just license a copy with someone of the opposite gender, problem solved. This of course trivializes marriage in my eyes and ignores that marriage is about a basic biological need of human beings - the desire to pair-up with a mate. The vasopressin/oxytocin mediate mammalian pair-bonding response. And so saying that someone can license marriage with only the gender of person this will never happen with is not as 'mighty big of you' as you think.
This totally off the wall fantasy that gay activist want to obliterate marriage entirely? Hello - many places have licensed same gender couples and that has never happened, never attempted. You aren't taking comments from rare individuals as some sort of group manifesto are you? (think what I could do with that for Christians) Gays that want to license their marriages want to because they are married and need the contract's benefits and structure just as much as those married to opposite gendered spouses.
And your dismissing 'gay sex' as not important to the pursuit of happiness is nonsensical when you compare it to the popularity of the notion of saying the same thing about 'straight sex'. And yes our founding fathers would have accepted the need for 'gay sex' when they know what we know now that it is not merely a vice that heterosexuals have just as they accepted the generic need for sex.
I've always liked the phrase 'Sex is like oxygen - you don't even notice it unless you aren't getting enough'. Of course sex shouldn't be the center of a person's life, but it SHOULD be a part of their life. We function better when we have it, we are happier, healthier, more trusting of our fellow human beings, with more benefits showing up all the time. And we all potentially have the need to biologically pair-bond which adds even more benefits in terms of emotional and economic stability, health, et. al.
So yes, let's put "sex" in perspective: it is an innate drive adult humans have and a part of their physical and mental well being as much as sleep, shelter, food, and air. Although it shouldn't be the center of anyone's life, some reasonable path should exist for it to be A part of their life. We should encourage our fellow humans to pair-bond as this ties mere sex with affection, empathy, family, and all the positive things we know make our fellow humans lives better and we innately want to pair-bond. And if a government dedicated to equal treatment of all citizens is giving a path for some citizens to license their pair-bond and by doing so strengthen and encourage them, it should give such a reasonable path to as many law-abiding citizens as possible.
What exactly is the upside to NOT licensing all such pair-bonds anyway - barring the paranoia that its all some sort of 5th column movement to destroy marriage from within that is.
7:03 you know what it is?
It is thinking your comment posted when it didn't. Your comment sits there and asks you to enter a different word verification. If you don't see it you move on to the next blog's comments and you lose your comment.
I've had it happen too and I am like minded with FFN.
No, that's not what it is.
I've posted many times on here and a few times I've had what you describe there happen to me.
My post got on - and then later was gone (and not by my doing).
But I appreciate you trying to clarify that, even if it's not ultimately accurate with this particular situation.
Anonymous Idiot at 6:17 & 6:19.
Why on earth should I care about "starting off on the right foot, with someone, who posts a laundry list of rhetorical, leading and insulting questions? Oh, and PS, I don't post anonymously, I sign each and every post with my initials JC, my name being John Colgan. How do you get about with such a complete and utter lack of brain power?
-JC
7:12 thank you. I have had it happen too. I thought if was because of the reason I described. They have let so much on here that I would consider to be garbage. You are very polite. I can't imagine they would want to censor you.
oshtur
read the activists lips:
"Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, '...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely...To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. ...The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec/Jan., 1994)"
"Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater 'understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.' He notes: 'The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.' (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)"
"Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: 'Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. ...Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ...We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.' (partially quoted in 'Beyond Gay Marriage,' Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)"
"Evan Wolfson has stated: 'Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? ...marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all.' (quoted in 'What Marriage is For,' by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)"
"Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: 'Ambiquity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.' (quoted in 'Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?' by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)"
Do not ignore these quotes or dismiss them. These "rare individuals" are leading activists! Would you like more quotes???
No oshi vishi- I see your last part of your comment sittin above my post box- smiling. I "ignore" most all of your posts. Just happened the last paragraph sits there. :-) Again smiling- "Rare individuals"- like you. God created you for good. He created you in his image. He loves you very much. Please turn from your ways and thinking."activists" push thier thinking. Most on here that support faith and freedom want Gods. whether we always agree with Gary totally or not. We all want Gods will. And more "quotes from your activists?"NO I want more quotes from God. I want his touch ,his love, his grace, his mercy and his living breathing life inside me! EVERYDAY! I do not want what you have for me. I want what he has for me. He has Great things for me. He has great things for you. Holding onto what you think --is prejudice against gays and marriage is exactly what I want.I want right and wrong. I do not want grey area for my kids. I do not want maybe--I want yes go for it and no absolutley NOT- something that the gay community does not want to hear. Kids being punished are not happy either. I have to say when the washington state ruling came down. Knowing people in the fight for Marriage between a man and woman---this was GODS ANSWER> It came from above not the judges. The lawers on the side defending marriage were sure we would see gay marriage. And the Gay community had no idea they would loose. Funny how many will forget the look of those on the news in shock and confused on both sides. This was Gods RULING! Not peoples. We need to know the line and see the writing on the tablets. And do not cross that line.
Anon 11:18
You're welcome. Thank you for your kind comments, too. It did surprise me. I've had both supportive and disagreeing comments on here before, but the ones FFN deleted weren't even what I would have imagined as my strongest opposition ones. I guess there is just no telling what they will allow and what they won't.
Do not ignore these quotes or dismiss them. These "rare individuals" are leading activists! Would you like more quotes?
Why bother - 4 people out of over 9 million is rare, even you can see that. And they are easily dismissed or explained.
Michelangelo Signorile is a professional gadfly - he makes his living saying provocative things sort of like our local Dan Savage.
Andrew Sullivan is a more sincere, but he isn't trying to undermine marriage but suggesting that not all non-monogamous situations are inherently bad. If you disagree or not that still isn't in anyway a desire to 'obliterate' marriage or destroy it.
And yes there are way left 'queer' activists like Paula that talk loudly and no one listens to, our Seattle gay pride celebration committee used to be packed with them (only ones with enough free time to take on the task I suspect ;) These are the ones that complain that being 'queer' should mean not having to follow any rules, have sex any time you want, queers should "transform society" - just your basic sociological anarchists/Green Party/Socialist/'look at me' activists that have no following other than their other blowhards but they make good headlines, particularly for someone trying to say bad things about an entire group.
If you read the Mitchel Raphael quote you posted you will see that he is lamenting that gay people AREN'T like the ones that Michelangelo and Paula would like to see and that's what you should see too. There is NO indication that there is any desire to radically change the aspects of what a marriage is by gay married couples despite what the rare fringe blowhard is saying. Should I hold up the silly things that Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, and Dobson say as being the 'Christian agenda'? Come one - our media is structured to hold up the 'man bites dog' aspects of our world, not what's typical.
And the reason all these things haven't come to pass? Because gay married couples intrinsically want the same things that straight ones do. Empirical (yes I know you hate the word) studies have shown the want the same things, they NEED the same things, and like I like to point out one study even showed they bicker about the same things. And that's why all these voices whining that they want things to be different aren't important - they aren't speaking for many more than themselves.
And finally, Evan Wolfson is just stating the facts. We license the civil contract of marriage to sterile couples all the time, even the federal government has no exception of procreation when deciding what is and is not a marriage. Of course children are best raised in a home with married parents, but that doesn't mean that's the only thing that marriage is for.
So out of your list you have 2 that are 'queer activists' who want to change the world but no one agrees, you have one that suggests that maybe gay men should not be completely monogamous, and one that just states the current state of affairs: marriage isn't just about procreation.
Must I really go get some 'leading Christian activists' quotes to comparatively paint all Christians with? Of course these people will no more represent the majority of Christians than the 2 you mentioned do gays, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? (or should I say gravy and turkey the day before thanksgiving?)
Quite letting yourself be manipulated by propaganda sites and research the real situation yourself. State licensing of same gender couples is NOT anything new - if these horrible goals were real then there would be objective evidence of same - there's not.
As to your rambling diatribe about your views of God, you have a right to them, and I have a right not to share them. No one is asking for you to have to religiously perform your sect's right of marriage for same gender couples, only that you let ones that have been married outside your faith to share the same totally secular civil contract that supports marriage, theirs and yours.
Again, I wish you would be able to open your heart to tolerance, and realize that whether you think gay people are part of your God's plan or not, they are still much better off married rather than single, as is society for the reasons I have stated many times.
Be a good American and give your fellow citizens the right to not agree with your religion.
Oh and actually if notes were being deleted I would think I would have been the first to know - I do know that often, even when I have put in the correct word verification, the posting of the message will not 'take' and I have to enter the word verification and post again (just happened now). If someone isn't familiar with the process or isn't paying attention a response could end up not being posted.
Osh, I KNEW you were going to have an explanation for the gay activists quoted, because you have an answer for EVERYTHING!
Of course my fellow citizens have the "right" to not agree with my religion. Tha is the beauty of the basic Judeo/Christian principles that allow people of OTHER religions to worship as they see fit.
The problem arising is, by pushing aside the Judeo/Christian base of this country's founding papers, this same element that allows all other religions to do their thing, soon ALL religions will be curtailed and not have the freedom that was "promised".
So I say, Be a good American and allow your fellow citizens of the Judeo/Christian beliefs the right to not agree with YOUR "religion" (if you have any) and yet allow you to practice that religion with freedom.
JC (John Colgan). Even though you give your name, I STILL don't know you! The really important thing is God knows you! He knows ALL about you! Everything! Everything you have ever thought, said, did or will do!
For we humans to know, on a blog, your "name" really doesn't matter. That doesn't mean you are not of value, just it doesn't matter on a blog who you are. When so many people use an alias on these internet communique', one doesn't put too much stock on a name or handle. So, don't make such a big deal out of such a little thing!
Anon @ 1:57,
So now we aren't to make a big deal of it, funny earlier it was you doing so, until proven wrong that is.
The reason for a name or handle in a conversation thread is simple, it allows people to know who they are responding too, and prevents misunderstandings when one attributes posts to the wrong person. It isn't about knowing everything about you, merely about identifying which words come from which poster. Since you obviously have no interest in conversation it isn't surpizing that the reasoning eluded you.
-JC
The problem arising is, by pushing aside the Judeo/Christian base of this country's founding papers, this same element that allows all other religions to do their thing, soon ALL religions will be curtailed and not have the freedom that was "promised".
So I say, Be a good American and allow your fellow citizens of the Judeo/Christian beliefs the right to not agree with YOUR "religion" (if you have any) and yet allow you to practice that religion with freedom.
You've just repeated my point. And since Christians are the ones religiously marrying many gay couples there's no 'pushing aside' being done even if that was some how proscribed in this country.
I have gotten the impression from some recent notes that people think I the supporters of this blog are 'wrong' and that isn't what I intend. You have every right to believe whatever you want about the Bible, take every 5th letter as sacred and create a religion about that - I don't care as long as you acknowledge that others have a right to THEIR religion even if you don't agree with it. That's why I have posted the 'other' views on the Bible passages that can be considered to reference homosexuality - other Christians have very logical and supportable reasons to disagree with your interpretation of them and as such you should respect their right to have them as you've just said.
Ok so now that you agree that people have a right to practice a religion you don't agree with please explain why religiously married gay couples shouldn't have access to the totally secular civil contract of marriage again? The two beliefs would seem to be incompatible.
And your presumptive answer to that question is the 'why' of my presence here. You aren't satisfied with practicing your religion and respecting others right to practice there. You want the government to only reflect YOUR sect's views, to make it an extension of YOUR beliefs.
As long as you promote your view of religion as THE religion, I will be here to show there are other points of view and remind you that it is our obligation as Americans to support a government that allows the greatest latitude of belief as possible. That means letting all married couples license their marriage unless there is a good reason not to; atheist, gay, infertile, poor, "May December" whatever. That means letting others have beliefs you don't agree with and as a result do things you might not want to do. That means quit trying to decide for others what's best for them in a society dedicated to the rights of the individual to make their own choices.
Just as long as you remember that we can all believe as we like, we just can't act as we like. That is called anarchy. Is that what you are espousing?
Just as long as you remember that we can all believe as we like, we just can't act as we like. That is called anarchy. Is that what you are espousing?
We aren't talking about 'anarchy', i.e. the absence of government, we are talking about maximum freedom within the law, and American law should be the minimum necessary to protect the rights of the citizens as per the concept of a government 'for the people'. None of the issues being discussed here even border on 'anarchy' so bringing it up would seem to be an attempt to toss out a pretty ineffective red herring. I hope it wasn't but that's how it seems.
But if we agree that we, as Americans, do have a right and an obligation to tolerate beliefs and legal choices of all American citizens then that's a start.
Not really OV. Your line of thinking allows pedophilia and polygamy. They say the same things you just did.
Not really OV. Your line of thinking allows pedophilia and polygamy. They say the same things you just did.
These ineffectual bulletpoint issues are pretty old, discredited and unconvincing. Minimal government does not allow people to have sex with children or make any kind of marriage arrangement automatically acceptable.
Read again:
"American law should be the minimum necessary to protect the rights of the citizens"
Children don't have the life experience to give consent to sexual congress, so since the pedophile can't exercise his 'rights' without harming someone else's rights they can be regulated and be consistent with the idea of 'minimum necessary'. This is in contrast to two con-tractable adults who marry that are the same gender. Neither of their rights are being abridged or infringed on.
As to polygamy the US Supreme Court has already pointed out the reasons we don't allow it. We are a country based on equality of the individual citizen - what you are calling 'polygamy' such as practiced in the bible, mormons, middle eastern cultures is really 'polygyny' - the men alone being allowed to have multiple wives. Polygyny can and should be disallowed in the US since it would institutionalize unequal rights based on gender. True polygamy would be closer to the old hippy commune concept - and they do and still can marry - I know of one that's existed for 30+ years now right here in Washington state. And true polygamists aren't asking for license to the existing civil contract of marriage because its features don't suit their family needs even if the licensing restrictions disallowing all their spouses having joint access were removed. This is in contrast to same gender married couples that could use the contract as it currently exists - the only change they need is in the licensing restrictions so they can have access.
What's concerning is you can't see these issues and their differences yourself.
o
Oshtur here - oddly my last reply is viewable in the 'Post a Comment' window but not in the main window. Maybe some of the 'lost post' problems are actually a blogger bug?
(this is a test to see if a new note will force the old ones to be seen)
You conveniently once again forget the Constitution which states that the government should "provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare..." In study after study, the best setting for the current and for the upcoming generation is a stable family life which is in study after study marriage between a man and a woman. Equality under law is given in that every person may marry the person of opposite gender. Feelings are not taken in to consideration under the law.
Actually its you that conveniently forgets that gay and lesbian married couples and their families already exist and will always exist regardless of if they are given license to the civil contract of marriage or not. So you are, once again, asking the wrong question so you can get the answer you want to reach. Rather you should be asking:
Is 'the general welfare' improved by having married gay couples being licensed the civil contract of marriage?
The obvious answer "Yes, the same as it is for married straight couples" (again, you aren't under the erroneous impression that the government actually 'marries' people are you? - It can no more make you 'married' than it can make you 'tall' or 'smart'. Marriage comes from beyond government - government only reacts to its existence.)
As to your silly notion that saying people can only license the contract with a gender they wouldn't want to marry that again just tells us more about your hardened heart than you probably want us to know...
Anon @ 7:41,
Kindly direct us to at least one of these alleged studies that show that marraige between a man and a woman is better than same sex marriage. I assume these would have had to have taken place in Massechusetts in the last three years since that is the ONLY time that any other form of marriage has existed in this country.
-JC
"Americans, do have a right and an obligation to tolerate beliefs and legal choices of all American citizens then that's a start. "
Again, pedophiles and polygamists say the same thing.
For Oshtur Vishanti
From Citizenlink.org
11-27-2006
Polygamists Borrow from Same-Sex Marriage Playbook
from staff reports
The same legal strategies are increasingly being employed.
Adopting a strategy from the same-sex marriage playbook, polygamists are attempting to move into the mainstream by deemphasizing their religious beliefs and focusing on personal freedoms. The goal is to decriminalize plural marriages.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, told Family News in Focus he does not support polygamy in practice, but added, "I believe that the criminalization of polygamy is wrong."
Many polygamists are hoping to convince Americans to take a similar view. They are increasingly appearing in the media as part of a new movement to make their marriages legal -- and they're looking to same-sex marriage advocates for their game plan.
Chris Stovall, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said any redefinition of marriage opens it up to future tinkering.
"Once you've adopted that notion that marriage is merely just the state putting a stamp of approval on the choices adults make about their long-term relationships, all bets are off," he explained. "You've got to then acknowledge that there's no legitimate way to confine that to two partners."
Stovall said once the nation's courts take such a position, then polygamy would be a logical next step. In fact, he said gay-marriage advocates have had polygamy, polyamory and other relationships in mind all along.
"Honestly, it's not surprising," he said.
Actually, gays have unsuccessfully married in the Netherlands, and their divorce rate is astronomical. It is true here in the US also, every where it gets legalized, gays stay married an average of two years. Talk about unstable.
Got a source for that Anon? I'm guessing no, since there usually aren't web references for "facts" you pulled out of your ass.
-JC
Again, pedophiles and polygamists say the same thing.
And again again there are very American reasons why they can be proscribed from those actions.
Come one and use a neuron:
pedophiles depend on violating the rights of someone else to exercise theirs - meaning there is no way they can do it.
polygynists want the state to enable a system of unequal rights with men being allowed to be polygamists and women not.
As to the silly self-serving reference again, anyone can ask for anything - they have a RIGHT to ask, but since the situation is as above a reasonable ethically consistent American response can be 'No'.
There is no ethically consistent American reason for why one married citizen has no reasonable access to the contract in support of their marriage and another does based solely on the gender of their spouse.
And for statement about the Netherlands, gays, and divorce - you really really really do need to go and read something other than the propaganda sites - the Netherlands publishes their public records and statistical analysis there of - if you were really interested in the truth you would bother to research it. if you want to state more clearly what you are actually talking about I might be able to direct you specifically. You might be referring to a study done about long term relationships with data collected from gay men deliberately selected for their promiscuity (the Amsterdam AIDS Study Cohort) on data collected BEFORE there was same gender marriage in the Netherlands. This study is often twisted by the Christianists to say things it not only didn't say but couldn't say. In April of 2005 the Netherlands government released statistics about the 2001-2004 period that same-gender marriage had been allowed and their stats showed that about 1% of those marriages had ended in divorce, the same number of opposite-gender ones that had happened in that same time period.
As I would like to point out again - you are being systematically lied to and you are repeating these lies with gusto, pride, and malice in your heart. You aren't acting 'Christ-like' in any way, shape or form. The main soul in peril here is yours.
Of course only 1% in that time period ended bacause noone is getting married in the Netherlands these days. Once gays could get married, they didn't. And neither does anyone else. Why bother with marriage, when all they are doing is finding a new partner to sleep with? Marriage just makes it messy when you want to move on. Which is why I really question why gays want to marry in the first place. They don't believe in God, or they would listen to Him, ("For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cling to his wife and the two shall become one") and divorce is messy, and if it is really the land thing when one dies, a good lawyer is all they really need. The benefits thing doesn't even work, because usually both gays are working (to destroy marriage) and have their own benefits. No, mostly why gays want to marry is because they feel guilty and they want to feel normal, but putting a patch on a festering wound won't make it go away. What they really need is a different focus in life. A focus not on themselves but on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Of course only 1% in that time period ended bacause noone is getting married in the Netherlands these days. Once gays could get married, they didn't. And neither does anyone else.
Your evil has no shame it seems - you were caught in a lie and then try to tell another lie to cover it up. Yes people are getting married in the Netherlands today; between 1994 and 2005 the rate has decreased less than one tenth of one percent, a decline seen all over Europe, REGARDLESS of if they allow same gender civil marriages or not. I'd explain to you why this is and why it is expected considering the years of negative replacement birthrates but its obvious you have NO interest in the truth. You just heap lie upon lie upon lie desperately trying to justify your own hatred and bitterness to the world and the sorry little diatribe at the end just punctuates this point perfectly.
Anonymous, you have been caught in a lie and continue lying - explain to me how that is in anyway in keeping with the teachings of Jesus Christ? Please quit lying to others and yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home