A 1 Hour Radio Debate Between Peter LaBarbera & Glenn Sacks (Audio Available)
April 16th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I had a one hour radio debate with Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, on Mickelson in the Morning on WHO News Radio AM 1040 in Des Moines on Wednesday. We discussed the problems facing American families, and also the recent Iowa same-sex marriage ruling.
My view is this: however one feels about gay marriage (and I have no problem with it), it is a small issue, and Christian groups which claim to be defenders of the family are misguided and/or hypocritical for focusing such an extreme amount of time and money on gay marriage while ignoring the real problems faced by American families.
These are: the divorce epidemic; the single motherhood epidemic; and the way family courts allow fathers to be driven out of the lives of the children who love them and need them.
Gay activists and gay marriage didn't cause these calamities--heterosexuals created them.
To listen to the commercial-free audio of the show, click here.
Some of the subjects discussed included:
1) My previous conflict with LaBarbera, in which I had said that respectable Christian/religious/conservatives groups should distance themselves from LaBarbera's toxic rhetoric against gays. To learn more, click here.
2) The controversial Lisa Miller/Janet Jenkins lesbian custody battle. In my blog post Lesbian Social Mom Target of Ex's Alienation Campaign--and the Christian Right Helps I explained:
The former couple joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 and had a child together in 2002. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.
Jenkins had been involved in Miller's pregnancy from the beginning, was present in the delivery room, worked to support the family, and played an important role in Isabella's life. Following their breakup, Jenkins was granted visitation rights but Miller refused to comply. Jenkins has pursued a long, hard legal battle to get back in her daughter's life.
To learn more about Miller-Jenkins, click here. To learn more about lesbian custody battles in general, see my co-authored column Lesbian child custody battles and heterosexual divorce (World Net Daily, 8/5/08).
3) The unwed birth rate has reached an all-time high, and 90% or more of these mothers are heterosexual. The divorce rate is also near an all-time high.
4) After divorce, short-sighted mothers and family courts usually permit decent, loving fathers only a few days a month with their children. When mothers refuse to allow fathers to see their children, family courts often do nothing to enforce visitation orders.
5) Hundreds of thousands of innocent fathers have been booted out of their own homes via restraining orders based on false domestic violence allegations, with little judicial oversight. As the Family Law Section of the State Bar of California has noted, these restraining orders are often used as custody maneuvers in divorce.
One point that I didn't get a chance to call LaBarbera on was this--whenever LaBarbera wanted to incite hostility or disgust towards gays, he specifically cited gay men and sex between gay men. This is yet another example of how society stigmatizes male sexuality, both in heterosexual and gay men.
"));
19 queries. 0.492 seconds.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
There is an old saying, "pick your battles", and Mr. LaBarbera does not know how to choose the important ones.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
"toxic rhetoric" sums it up.
"...Glenn is the one being irrational..." - that's a laugh.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
To be fair homosexuals are indirectlysignificant part of the problem, though not male ones the Christians hate so much, only man hating feminists lesbians.
For example some members of NOW suggest 40% of their members are lesbian - obviously that's vastly more than in the female population as a whole.
However,I'm not homopobic and obviosuly there homosexualaity isn't in any way the problem - it's their hatred of men which is the issue which is caused by extremist feminism, not sexuality.
Just saying i think it is wrong and misguided to only blame heterosexuals when the many problems faced by men have have been caused by such a wide range of different groups.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
The problem right now is that we have limited resources to fight John , to quote Jean who as usual came out with a fantastic comment that is applicable to us as well, we need to "pick" our battles, we win one then move on.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
It is so bizarre to see a heterosexual man (LaBarbera) who claims to be so repulsed by gay sex and gay people that he makes a living reveling in the alleged disgustingness of things gay. A full-time fomenter of homosexuality-disgust. That's just twisted. And he's mean-spirited as well. Insanely unempathic. He's a serious liability to social conservatives. Good for you, Glenn, for calling him out.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Someone help me understand how gay marriage does not go against all laws of nature.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Good work Glenn, bring up the fathers side of the issues... If the mother decides she doesn't want the father around all she as to do is claim she is "afraid of him" and then the removal service comes and kicks him out of his own home... She gets the kids, house and his money... He gets the streets and a card board box to live in.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:34 am
"Someone help me understand how gay marriage does not go against all laws of nature."
First help me understand how it does go against "all laws of nature."
A certain percentage of people are attracted to their own sex. They fall in love just like heterosexuals do. They kiss like we do. They date like we do. They have sex in some ways different and in some ways the same as heterosexuals do (lots of heteros use objects and even have anal sex). They don't reproduce just as some heteros either choose not to or cannot reproduce. How in the world would their getting married "go against all laws of nature"? Because they're the minority? Because they're different from you? Because their form of sex doesn't reproduce kids? If that's what it is, then I'm going against the laws of nature every time I use a condom.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:20 am
What Marc A said.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I've always wondered if homosexuality is a "natural" form of population control. The more our population increases, the more homosexuals are born to lower it to moderate levels. Of course I just thought of this now and have nothing to back me up. Just simple speculation.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Well Hobbs mankind is not a monogomus species by nature, so first tell us how ANY marrige doesnt defy the 'laws of nature'
April 17th, 2009 at 3:15 am
Glenn,
You got to read Murray N Rothbard & Dr. Walter Block, if you are going to get into fights like this and win decisively!
Seems like Peter had a problem with what Public schools are teaching and what Catholic charities are required by law to do. In either case govt IS THE PROBLEM!
Its not gay people coming to the doors to force you to fund public schooling! Shut them down for all I care! Its not gay people coming to force catholic charities to do things a certain way. If you read the two people above, you can kick anyone's ass in talking about christian beliefs with commonsensical arguments.
(Till then, I will keep screaming "Say this..." and "Say that...." to an mp3 audio recording and nothing will change!)
April 17th, 2009 at 4:55 am
Who knows, maybe Peter can convince me that gay marriage is a good thing?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:39 am
lujlp.. It doesnt end of , however from a religious ideal only ( which to us heathens is worthless) its about the union of a man and a woman as such let them have that as i respect anyones right to have a belief its when they start to disagree with civil unions and equal rights in the eyes of the law which to me is a much greater tangible entity than religion is where i get really irked.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Glenn, I listened to the program, and I thought you did an excellent job making the point about how regardless of whether biological mothers have female or male partners, they tend to use the same ruthless tactics when it comes to getting custody of children during a divorce or separation.
But, I gotta agree with Pankaj, in that Peter's argument about catholic charities shutting down is a red herring. If private agencies are sponsoring CPS cases, and/or taking state monies, then they have to abide by the non-discriminatory clauses. So, since the Roman Catholic Church is pretty much filthy rich anyway, why does it require state monies to run anyway?
Furthermore, laws can be changed to allow a conscience clause for private organizations like the RCC. Rather than whine about how those evil "monstrous" gays made the poor Catholic Church shut down its agencies, maybe it would be more productive--and more to the POINT--to address laws which make no concession for religious beliefs, even when dealing with a religious organization. After all, the gays didn't make MA adoption agencies do anything. The Catholic organizations in question CHOSE to shut down, because they take such a dim view of homosexual unions, they believe it better for kids to be raised by the state, rather than with private individuals.
Which would bring up my biggest point to Peter: please show me the data regarding the suicide rates, depression, criminal records, etc. of children raised by the state, versus children raised in families with gay parents (who have been through all the screening and background checks, etc.). Especially since Peter had such a kick on saying how ignorant you were, and everything, surely, he would have such exhaustive information at the ready, being that he's so informed and all.
Wanna bet which group is worse off? It ain't the "sodomites", I bet you. We shouldn't want the government raising our kids, whether it's through foster care, or court-ordered and government-sanctioned single motherhood. Bad business for everyone.
Oh, and here is at least one Christian who agrees with you, Glenn, that many Christian organizations haven't done squat to address the inequities present in our family law, yet spend seemingly exhaustive amounts of time and money on saving heterosexual marriage from "the gay."
April 17th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I am from Des Moines and love to get on the Jan Michelson show for a few key issues such as: Iraq, fathers rights, and religious conservatism. Unfortunately, I can no longer listen to the Jan Michelson show because all audio streaming has been blocked on American bases these days.
I am still against gay marriage based on my belief this is just like the day's of Lot when people practiced open homosexuality to the point God interrupted their wickedness. On another note, I have gay friends and as long as we do not discuss homosexuality we get along fine. I also support everybody concerned with the destruction of the American family thanks to biased courts challenging everyone at every opportunity including Christian conservatives famous for ignoring our issue while recognizing only gay marriage as a threat.
April 17th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Labarbera's a closet case...
April 17th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The churches were AWOL when no-fault divorce, allowing one spouse to end the marriage unilaterally, passed 49 of 50 states. Feminists rammed this through state legislatures despite little or no public demand for such a radical change in the divorce laws. And now many churches actually welcome (indeed, encourage) unwed mothers instead of using shaming as was once done. To add insult to injury, if fathers or husbands are mentioned in church, it is mainly to blame them for the current state of affairs; think of all the reports of pastors castigating men on Father's Day after praising mothers on Mother's Day.
So--the supposed "sanctity of marriage" is endangered by homosexuals marrying? Sorry, but that horse left the barn many years ago. And the churches did little or nothing about it. Glenn is right: it is more than a little hypocritical for clergy to huff and puff about gay marriage. With the divorce laws what they are today, though, I have to wonder why homosexuals would even want to marry...
April 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am
"I am still against gay marriage based on my belief this is just like the day's of Lot when people practiced open homosexuality to the point God interrupted their wickedness."
Ken, that wasn't the sin that got Sodom destroyed. The sin was inhopsitality. this is somewhere in ezekiel, I think it is. "What was the sin of Sodom....?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Marc: "Because their form of sex doesn't reproduce kids? If that's what it is, then I'm going against the laws of nature every time I use a condom."
Marc, a condom is an man-made accessory -- not your god-given sexual organs.
Gays cannot reproduce and should not be allowed to adopt children, who will be taught to believe they are part of a "natural" union. The frightening part is that glenn's claim of the current 2% gay population will multiply.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:10 am
The laws in this country are to protect everyone, so why do homosexuals get special protection?
What is it about sexual deviancy that requires special legislation for special people?
Laws are in place to protect everyone the same, but homosexuals want special protection for themselves over everyone else. Im surprised Glenn hasnt picked this up.
Gay rights and gay marriage are a smoke screen to cover the bribery and extortion going towards making them a special class of people distinct from the rest of us with more rights and protections at heterosexuals expense.
The gay issue is one of gay superiority and needs to be rejected. Especially from this website, pew.
"Gay activists and gay marriage didn't cause these calamities--heterosexuals created them."
Not true.
"These are: the divorce epidemic; the single motherhood epidemic; and the way family courts allow fathers to be driven out of the lives of the children who love them and need them."
We all know by now that hetero hating feminists have fomented these problems between natural people for decades to further the homosexual agenda. Of these feminists a considerable number are homosexuals.
When o when will there be a non biased study on homosexuals so we can really know their affect on OUR society?
April 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am
bell,
You know its much harder to pick up on imaginary things, so forgive Glenn for being slow. In the meantime, do tell where in the bible is the state allowed to punish people for homosexuality? If anything, the punishing of Sodom was done by god, not "Christians".
Funny, how "Christians" think their "God" isn't able to take care of his business himself and set out to do his job for him. Hey, you people are supposed to respect this entity as all knowing and omnipotent. The least you can do is let him do his job
April 17th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Glenn makes the primary point.
The number of children and fathers affected by the cultural misandry and legalized sexism drawfs the number affected by issues of homosexuality.
Why not focus on the big issues.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
This happened in my neighborhood this week.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD7Ccdm4z-4
April 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
What a shame - he tore a book! A BOOK! How dare he!
April 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
"Marc, a condom is an man-made accessory -- not your god-given sexual organs."
So when heterosexuals have anal sex, or use their fingers on each other, they're violating the laws of nature because that kind of sex doesn't reproduce?
And when a person has sexaual attraction to their own sex, that's somehow more artificial than a man-made condom?.
"Laws are in place to protect everyone the same, but homosexuals want special protection for themselves over everyone else. Im surprised Glenn hasnt picked this up."
I disagree. In fact I really respect the gay rights movement for NOT doing what feminists have done. So far as I've seen the gay rights movement has asked for EQUAL rights, unlike feminism which fights for UNEQUAL rights. Gays are asking for the right to marry, just as we have; the right to live their life, just as we can; the right to be represented in school texbooks just like we are; the right to hold hands in public just as we do; the right to adopt, just as we have. EQUAL rights. And when I go to a gay neighborhood I have never felt a trace of hostility even if I'm holding my girlfriend's hand. They are mostly peaceful, kind, good people. There is no excuse for the hatred and discirmination they face. Only a very small percentage of them are in any way hateful to heterosexuals and their hate is not accepted by the rest.
Oh yeah, I know, their political groups have sided with feminists. Blah blah blah. I hear that all the time. But the same people who say that never mention that minority groups have done the same, labor groups have done the same, and even right wing groups have done the same. That associational argument doesn't mean I'm going to oppose the people those lobby groups represent, or oppose their equal rights.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
First - marrige is man made and unnatural, there are animals species which mate for life, no other partners and no sex once one of the partners die. Given the frequency that both men and women cheat it is obvious that mankind IS NOT biologically predisposed top monogomy.
Second - there is homosexual behvior in every mamillian species with large group living in close proximity, ergo homosexuality is natural
Third - Sodom and Gomorrea was not about gay sex, why cant you bible thumpers ever quote the f*cking bible properly? The most rightous man offer the crowd his daughters to rape and they daughters thought nothing of screwing their father afterwards, I doubt gay sex was the only thing going on there assuming it even happened.
Fourth - How would you christians like laws passed on the teaching of the expolits of hurcules to effect your lives and legality of what you choose to do in your homes?
Fifth - bell please explain you claim that gay marrige will 'take away' your privliages for marrige
Sixth - According to the law set down by moses, only one deals with homosexuality - there are over seven for not going to church, two for going to church on the wrong day, and five for aspiring to being a preist if you were not of the tribe of levi. Seems god cared fourteen time more about killing you for messing up the ceromies surrounding his worship then where gay men laid their heads
Seventh - The bible endorses rape, slavery, and murder, but that different you say cause it was a different time? Then why do you care about gay sex? The bible also says god is unchanging the same yesterday, oday, and forever. So either god still edorses slavery rape and murder or he never did - either way it make the bible a bound stack of toilet tissue
Eighth - Judges 6:28-31
28 ¶ And when the men of the city arose early in the morning, behold, the altar of Baal was cast down, and the grove was cut down that was by it, and the second bullock was offered upon the altar that was built.
29 And they said one to another, Who hath done this thing? And when they enquired and asked, they said, Gideon the son of Joash hath done this thing.
30 Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he may die: because he hath cast down the altar of Baal, and because he hath cut down the grove that was by it.
31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death awhilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar.
To parapharse a prophet of god,
I am just one man, saying your god is false, if he truly is a god let him appear and defend himself - as he demanded of his competitors
April 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I am a gay man, and believe in a lot of the principles that Glenn supports about men's and father rights/responsibilities. He really grabbed the bull by the horns with this topic.
From my perspective, the family is best when it's a loving mom and dad, each with complementary and natural-to-them roles in supporting their family. [The roles they have don't have to be the same as every other family, as sometimes it's the wife who wants to work and the dad wants to stay at home, or both work part time, or whatever allows them to lead productive, happy, satisfying lives with a nurturing, supportive, loving environment for them and their kids....]
But life is what you make of what you're given!
So, if some (regardless of gender) want to make a family, and then add kids, so be it. They have a responsibility to their kids, themselves, and their community to meet to the best of their abilities the standard I summarized above.
The state/community has a responsibility to make sure the kids aren't actively harmed by their parent(s) behavior, but if we allow the state/community to start grading us all in how well we raise our kids (i.e., set the standard and evaluate the performance), then we are looking at a theological fascism, something America seems to abhor when it's militant Islamism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Keep religion out of the State's hands!
Again, as a gay man, I agree...the "nuclear family" stereotype may seem best, but that doesn't make the rest of the other situations evil!
On the note of counteracting the claims of Peter LaBarbera, and I was glad that Glenn was able to counter his stories somewhat, here is a youtube video that explains the context and details about the photographer tale mentioned, the adoption tale mentioned, and one other. It's a great, succinct explanation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20
I may not be as articulate on my viewpoint as I would like, so please understand I may clarify any points that my post may need.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
"bell,
You know its much harder to pick up on imaginary things, so forgive Glenn for being slow. In the meantime, do tell where in the bible is the state allowed to punish people for homosexuality? If anything, the punishing of Sodom was done by god, not "Christians"."
Pankaj
I never mentioned a bible nor punishing people for homosexuality. To be clear, injuring a man or a woman or a homosexual for that matter should carry the same penalties. No one group should be offered greater protection or representation than another. To be homosexual is one thing, to bribe politicians to treat you better than the other people in society is objectionable. How and who people decide to engage with is their business but putting it in public and in the political arena makes it the business of everyone. To shout down opposition because of moral values or spiritual beliefs whether right or wrong is totalitarian and that is unacceptable all of the time.
Generalizing Christians or generalizing any group such as Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians or Buddihsts is tantamount to hate speech and displays a projection of low self esteem. Once again, all laws should apply to all of us the same with no distinct groups being singled out for special protection, representation or privileges.
April 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Ok bell,
I have a solution to your problem - Dissolve public property. Then you will not have the problem of putting things you don't like in "public" because there will be no "public"!!!
Its a solution extreme libertarians have always suggested. Too bad you are not committed enough to follow through.
And for the record, I believe hate speech should not be outlawed, but then I also do not believe in public law either - i.e. you follow and fund your laws on your property - and I mine. So there is some hope of understanding - unless you want to back out now?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
To be clear, injuring a man or a woman or a homosexual for that matter should carry the same penalties -bell
THank god homos arent real men and women, right bell?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Oh and to all the christians who didnt respond to my attack on your god.
Congradukations you're now going to hell for not defending him.
Why do you worship such a cruel and capricious task master anyway?
April 17th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
"Only a very small percentage of them are in any way hateful to heterosexuals and their hate is not accepted by the rest."
Marc- I respectfully disagree. I have found that the extreme hatred of heterosexual men exhibited by some gender feminist lesbians is often accepted by other lesbians, some times with cheers and gestures suggesting sexual mutilation.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
21
Bell says:
"When o when will there be a non biased study on homosexuals so we can really know their affect on OUR society?"
(When can WE get told only what WE want to hear, to echo OUR warped and pre-conceived stone-age beliefs? Works for extremist feminists!)
30
Pankaj Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
"Ok bell,
I have a solution to your problem - Dissolve public property.
Its a solution extreme libertarians have always suggested"
Then let's declare that the earth is flat and 6000 years old. Organizing society on extremist belief is a GREAT solution for problems.
----
Some of the comments on here are so out to lunch, there is really no reply needed for them. It's just bathroom grafitti.
Applause for Glenn for putting on the rubber gloves to handle a toxic debate with the ilk of Peter Labarbera. Standing up against gay-baiters and extremists is progress for men.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
"Marc- I respectfully disagree. I have found that the extreme hatred of heterosexual men exhibited by some gender feminist lesbians is often accepted by other lesbians, some times with cheers and gestures suggesting sexual mutilation."
Lots of heterosexual misandrist feminists do the same. I remember lots of them doing those genstures during the Bobbit thing. But I don't hear MRAs using their sexual orientation against them. Only when they're lesbian do we mention their sexual orientation. They stand out more because of that, but the straight ones just get attacked for being feminists, not for being straigh. Meanwhile I know lesbians who have helped out our cause, and the same for gay and bisexual men and women, and I've known plenty of hetero men and women who hate our cause.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Pat,
Whats wrong with you?
Either you are afraid of letting people decide and live as they choose, i.e. you believe they may posses serious threat to you. I, on the other hand, believe that there are more good capable people than crazy bad people. You want to equate letting ALL people be exactly what they want, with flat earth society? Funny, but completely out of place!
April 17th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
bell, Pankaj:
On the subject of hate speech and hate crimes, please consider the following, as we obviously disagree on the subjects.
Hate crime is treated with different (harsher) penalties as a disincentive to others to fall victim to their temptations of letting their hate of a particular group lead them to violence. It's like a case of an Indian person being attacked by a rabid anti-Islamic person because they hate "those A-rabs who hijacked those planes on 9/11". The motivation for the crime is a separate case from other reasons for assault, and one more likely to inspire or lead to other similar crimes by others. If you believe that the repercussions for a crime should only be to punish the wrong-doer, then you you don't believe in the effect of deterrents, so perhaps you don't believe in other sentences for other crimes that provide a similar effect.
bell:
Hate speech is by NO means the "generalizing any group such as Jews, Blacks, Whites, Asians or Buddihsts"....that's just asinine to state or believe. Hate speech is when a person uses words to invigorate or encourage harmful acts on others based on the emotional appeal, usually of fear. It's more akin to inciting a riot than "generalizing" about a group. Think before you say such things next time.
As for laws affecting everyone equally, "no distinct groups being singled out for special protection, representation or privileges", you are, of course, using a very general statement there in "comment standards terms". You probably are not being that precise about what you really believe because you certainly believe that there should be age and ability restrictions on laws such as driving license, drinking, gambling, etc. And also restrictions on violent felons on owning guns, or age minimum restrictions on sexual conduct, or handicap access laws, etc.
You probably meant that "gays shouldn't get *special* rights", because that's how you see marriage for same sex partners...as a special right. But to us, of course, it's *equal* rights, not special rights. We want the same opportunities that straight people have, but you decide how to parse the language to fit your bias...one MAN and one WOMAN....when it used to be ONE man and as MANY women as he could take, or one SAME RACE man and one SAME RACE woman...
I think quite frankly you let your disgust with gay people get in the way of the application of sound policy on encouraging and rewarding loving, supportive, nurturing, beneficial-to-the-community relationships that occur naturally between 2 consenting *adults*.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Robert in SF
Thats sounds great in a coffee shop but makes no sense.
Let me try this one more time. To physically injure anyone or their property or any reason should carry the same penalties for everyone. Example, women committing DV and getting away with it while a different group, men, are given considerably harsher penalties for the same action. Same difference has been experienced by blacks and whites in relation to police and courts. The Gay crusade seeks to establish an order further separating ourselves from each other and establishing group preference in politics and policing.
The ridiculous term "War on Terror" much like the "War on Domestic Violence" made us realize that terror could be anything and became an all encompassing term that has hurt us all. I suggest a "War on Hate" specifically "War on Hate Against Homosexuals", leads to the same dead end. Everything becomes hate until everything associated with it becomes denigrated.
I might add that derogatory names and unattractive sounds do not injure anyone. Choice is prejudice, and fixing the vote or public opinion by not letting people choose what they want to use to make their choices by, is once again totalitarian, separatist, and egad socialist.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
"Lots of heterosexual misandrist feminists do the same."
Yes, they do. I would like to go on record as acknowledging that some hetro women, as well as some lesbians, accept the vicious gender hatred expressed by other lesbian (as well as some hetro) women. I'm glad you know lesbians who have helped our cause. I do not know any, and I know a lot of lesbians. At best they are silent. I oppose same-sex marriage, not because I have a problem with same-sex marriage, but because almost every time I've seen a person leading the charge against father's rights, it's been a lesbian gender feminist (e.g., Shiela Kuehl). My thoughts are that, if they're busy fighting for their rights, they'll have less money, time, and enthusiam for fighting against mine. I am sorry that gay men and good women, such as the lesbians you know, get caught up in this, and want to emphasize that they can still marry in California, it's just that the state currently won't recognize it. A slim distinction, I admit.
April 18th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Robert,
I am definitely no supporter of retributional justice - i.e. the current criminal instance. As for deterrence based judicial system - you don't have it - AT ALL. So don't try to tell that deterence is keeping any criminal minds from committing crimes - and for non-criminal people don't need to be deterred or prevented them.
Bell,
"I might add that derogatory names and unattractive sounds do not injure anyone."
Except when they are enforced by a majority established law and judges.
"Choice is prejudice, and fixing the vote or public opinion by not letting people choose what they want to use to make their choices by, is once again totalitarian, separatist, and egad socialist."
Funny, how people like Peter are FOR prohibiting a socio-religious association between people - limiting their choices somehow is not totalitarian?
April 18th, 2009 at 1:14 am
lujlp said: "Oh and to all the christians who didnt respond to my attack on your god.
Congradukations you're now going to hell for not defending him.
Why do you worship such a cruel and capricious task master anyway?"
Rebekah said:
Because otherwise all I'm left with is stupid, cruel, and capricious humanity. ;)
I didn't respond to your attack because I actually agree with most all of it, especially the part about most Christians not understanding that Sodom and Gomorrah were NOT about gay sex.
Also, I just generally found your post to be funny as hell. It's so true.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Jim wrote:
"Ken, that wasn't the sin that got Sodom, destroyed. The sin was inhospitality. This is somewhere in Ezekiel, I think it is. "What was the sin of Sodom....?"
Ken’s response:
Sexual wickedness was the sin that brought God's angels to Sodom rather than people being impolite since their stated intention was to go down to the city and destroy it for wickedness, which to my knowledge has always been connected to idolatry, extreme sexual sin (not just adultery etc), and murdering children as sacrifices to demons (reason I am against abortion as well). It seems gay people conclude that "if God is against this...then I am not interested in that type of God" rather than realizing God is always right. For that reason, practicing homosexuality is something God-fearing/Bible believing Christians will resist encouraging or legalizing but that does not mean they hate the homosexual. The gay agendas, clearly in opposition to fundamentalist Christianity, will seek to criminalize anyone speaking against them as evidenced by recent events in Massachusetts.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/tranny_day_0406/index.html
My complaint is that our society is actually promoting divorce while churches stand silent since that issue is at least as spiritually destructive. The gay and feminist lobbies reject the Bible as the accurate Word of God and coincidentally reject traditional notions of marriage and family as well. Western Christians need to realize feminists are as destructive to the family as anything the gay agenda represents.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Ken:
I don't think the sinful nature of an activity should be the factor of determining if something is legal or illegal, as that would make the State responsible for enforcing a religious code or set of beliefs....whose would be the main standard we put into place? The majority? Would it be Catholic? Free Will Baptist? Seventh Day Adventist? Buddhist? Mormon? You, and a LOT of other people, want laws based on religious neutral, not religious blind mind you, principles and needs...
If we started using sin as the arbiter of what's legal vs not....well, let's just say the polyester blend and seafood industry would take a biiiiiig hit.
Any agenda of equal rights by homosexuals is NOT "clearly in opposition to fundamentalist Christianity". Christianity is usually the ones who "strike" first....we just want equal rights, but the so-called Christian fundamentalists always interject their religiously founded arguments against the equal protection under the law... If these obstructionists could phrase their points without relying on a religious foundation then there could be a discussion and consideration for the civil law side of things. But there are none so blind as though who WILL not see. By the way, your link doesn't really come from a neutral or unbiased source, and yet it doesn't even support your point of gays trying to "criminalize anyone speaking against them".
And as for the religious arguments, in this case Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction: God is plenty clear why he needed to destroy them. Let the Bible speak for itself, instead of reading your own prejudice and bias to color the message... Your belief in what words mean or what you've been told it means should be overridden by what the Bible tells you it means. Maybe I missed the part about it being sexual wickedness in Ezekeiel 16:49-50: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
There are other areas of the Bible that discuss/compare Sodom...let me know if you can't find others and I can post a link to a webpage about the topic in particular.
And as a Christian who is gay, I don't think all the gays believe or want the same thing, just as all Christians don't.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:48 am
"Ken, that wasn't the sin that got Sodom destroyed. The sin was inhopsitality. this is somewhere in ezekiel, I think it is. "What was the sin of Sodom....?"
Maybe that's true, but there are plenty of passages in the bible that clearly condemn homosexuality. For example, there is something in Romans condemning 'men who give up natural relations with women, and lust after each other, and women who do the same in turn' or something like that. I'll try to find the exact quote.
It seems pointless and silly denying it when it is clearly there.
None of this is a problem for me, because I am somewhat alienated from mainstream Christianity and certainly have nothing to do with fundamentalists or evangelicals. I don't really believe the bible is the whole or unadulterated word of God either.
Indeed, the bible is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies, and I doubt that God would be that chaotic and disordered in his thinking.
April 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Ken wrote:
For that reason, practicing homosexuality is something God-fearing/Bible believing Christians will resist encouraging or legalizing but that does not mean they hate the homosexual
My reply:
Explain then god fearing bible bealiving christians who go to church on sunday rather than saturday as that is the jewish sabbath, explain christians who eat shrimp and lobsters and pork and non koser foods. Explain christians who wear clothing comprised of two fabrics.
Explain christinas who go to mid week services even though the law of moses demands death on two occastion for those who go to church at the wrong time. Explain why christians refuse to make not going to church illegal as it is mentioned 5 times as often as the law agaisnt homosexuality
April 18th, 2009 at 11:54 am
NickS
there are plenty of passages in the bible that clearly condemn homosexuality
Leviticus 18:22 - though according to Lev 18:23 beastiality isnt as bad, when are you christians going to enfore gods will and leagalize beastiality?
Leviticis 20:13 - and according to Lev 20:18 any couple having sex while she is on her period is to be banished from the land - why arent christinas trying to pass that law?
Nick the verse you were thinking about was
Romans 1 :27, yet if you read vs 26 it clearly states god afflicted them with such affections, so apperantly god made them gay
So to recap there are TWO count them TWO verses in the bible that deal with homosexuality.
Thank you for playing
"I'm a christian who wants to tell others how to live there lives based on a book I hardly ever read and dont really understand"
Please try again
April 18th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
".we just want equal rights,"
Robert in SF, who do mean by "we"? What equal rights are you referring too? What rights dont you have that you feel other people have? seriously
April 18th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Guys,
I can agree with gay men denied visitation rights by vindictive ex-wives. I can agree with anyone exposing feminist assaults on marriage that culminated in our one-sided divorce industry against fathers. I appreciate my gay friends and co-workers for their good things but that does not mean I will reject God's word to make them comfortable or to be politically correct. As I have stated many times before when this issue comes up, in order to be a practicing gay person you must reject the Bible as it is written and assume it has been altered. That means that God is not an all-powerful God or He is especially cryptic by giving us a false (not entirely correct book). I cannot accept that God is flawed. There are difficult to explain parts of the Bible and those in opposition to a Sovereign God tend to point out parts that seem contradictory or strange. Another tactic is to ask why people are not concerned with another sin and only homosexuality. That is equivalent to saying why do you prosecute murder when just last week another guy was seen jaywalking and was never charged. In the end, anything we do that does not put God first is wrong and the gay (as well as feminist agenda) definitely does not put God first and are both in opposition to a literal interpretation of His Bible.
There is no confusion on this matter by reading these verses in the Bible.
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9(NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB) - "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."
Jude 1:6-7 (NASB) - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I want to expand upon one verse a little more because I believe this verse scares people living contrary to God's will.
1 Corinthians 6 (NIV)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Notice that all of these listed sins that are signs of a wicked person incapable of entering Heaven are not forever sins. Verse 11 points out many "saved or redeemed" people used to conduct themselves according to those sins but they rejected them by accepting Jesus unconditionally rather than partially (i.e. I love Jesus but I love these sins more). Even people struggling with a sin are justified as long as they agree with God and seek His will.
My point is we are flawed people above and beyond gay or straight issues but rejecting God simply because we enjoy a sin is what will keep someone from God. This is the issue at hand for those believing Fundamentalist Christians are hateful etc.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
bell:
You said: "who do mean by "we"? What equal rights are you referring too? What rights dont [sic] you have that you feel other people have? seriously"
Oh so now you want to talk seriously? So before you weren't being serious? OK, I know I was being serious when I was discussing this topic, but if you weren't, I am glad to know it. it helps put some of your comments into perspective.
When I say "we" I mean we, the gays who want the right to get married. [Yes, I am gay. Duh. Have you read any of my previous comments?]
People can parse the language of the law, and the principles, to shape them to support their viewpoint as the only "valid" viewpoint. Some say "You can't redefine marriage! Marriage should be kept as it always has been, one man and one woman".
Someone counters with, "Yes but marriage hasn't always been between ONE man and ONE woman..and was restricted by the State (sometimes with "christian" justification) to one race with the same, and so we have a history of "redefining marriage".
Then the counter to that is "yes, you're right about that [actually they never seem to admit this], but it's always been between a man and a woman!! Gotcha!"
Again, it's always in how you parse the language.
We gays want the right to have the state legally recognize our same gender relationships, just as the state does with opposite gender ones. We gays parse it based on love and commitment and support...the opposition parses it based on gender...who's asking for special rights now?
As for the rights I mention, marriage grants/confers so many rights and responsibilities onto the partners with the filing of a single marriage certificate/record. These rights/obligations cannot be duplicated without extensive legal filings, contracts, and fees associated with those, and even then all it takes is a disapproving family member to sue the partner trying to take care of their loved one's medical or financial decisions when in the hospital for example, to throw all of that work into chaos and emotional torture.
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/
"Seriously" as you say, do you believe the a person can be in love with someone of the same gender and form the same kind of legitimate, intimate relationship that 2 opposite gender persons can? I doubt it....I have the impression that obstructionists to equal rights think of gay people as "less than"...unworthy...not as fully realized as "normal humans". They might think we are incapable of loving as wholly and completely and "real" as they are...they are just better suited for it.
Sort of like those who judge men as worse parents than the women, because let's face it "men just aren't natural parents, so the mom should always get custody, for the sake of the children"....So bigoted, deep down.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Ken, thank you sir, Christians who believe in mens/fathers/childrens rights should also feel welcome here.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Ken,
The Bible is not a casual rule book that can picked up and read without the context of the full word of God. The verses you quote are very much out of context. Almost any of the verses can be picked up and when read in isolation, without the perspective of the topic being covered, the language used, the translations source, the culture of the time, and the bias of the reader, be spun to support whatever point you had in mind when you picked that verse to quote. There are countless studies of this subject on the web by much greater scholars than either you or I, I imagine. And of course the occasional biased "scholar".
And to rank sin (your murder vs jaywalking analogy) is faulty as far as I know, to God...He doesn't rank....we all have sinned and are unworthy.
This comment thread has really veered off from the original topic...why the Christian "right" has dedicated such an disproportional amount of time, money, effort, energy, focus, anger and "support" to such a non-impactful problem to families... People are not getting married, getting divorced, or kicking fathers out of their kids life because of John and Mark getting married/having a legally recognized relationship...
It's much more complicated than that, and needs more time and focus. There have been a ton of commercials against gay marriage, but how many commericals for marriage counseling or marriage prep classes? That's a ton of money spent on a non-issue...what a waste!
April 18th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Robert,
Those verses speak for themselves and how "out of context" can they be when they are quite specific. You can reject them, as I presume you reject major portions of the Bible, but to deny what they say is almost beyond belief for an intellectually honest person. If you cannot agree what is plainly written then we really don't need further discussion do we. A person looking outside at the bright moon seen exclaiming it is a glorious sunny day without a cloud in the sky really cannot have a discussion with those walking in the moonlight. If you took the argument that these words are incorrectly translated, or men put their own biases in the Bible, or even that God got it wrong I could entertain your argument but denying plain text without qualification is beyond reason.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Ken you say you like plain launguage, did you not see my post regarding judges 6:31
where in a prophet of god challanged the 'false' god Ball to appear to defend himself?
I issued the same cahllange to your god and got no response.
I noticed that you wrote down 1st Romans 26&27, as did I, you also conviently ignored the fact that according to the passage god MADE them gay
And everything after that you had to use the new international version where the word homosexual was place in the verses.
You claim the bible speaks for itself and yet you had to use a trasnlation created after the modern term homosexual was coined - kind of disingenious dont you think?
You right though the bible was very clear sodoms sin was sexual immoraligty not soely homosexuality - because if every one was only haveing gay sex they wouldnt have had a sustainable population.
Answer men this ken, bell, other bigots, you claim to be christians - yet christ said render unto ceaser that which is ceasers. We live in a secular society - so why dont you do your christian duty and stop imposing you narrow morailty on society at large?
April 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Robert,
I am not ranking the sin 'per se' but certain sins have a tendency to keep people from God and that is the point of my argument. My comparison was to show those guilty of one sin tend to point out other the sins of others as an excuse to keep sinning which is a false argument. The sin of homosexuality is particularly dangerous because those practicing it face an accept or reject the God of the Bible as it is written. Of course, you claimed plain text was somehow out of context entering into a bizarre situation akin to Bill Clinton's parsing of the meaning of the word "is" etc. Beyond plain text arguments, in a land where people agree what words actually mean, we come to a place where people either agree with the Bible or claim it is false in some manner. Those claiming it is false can pick the parts they like and ignore the rest. I would call that rejection and I believe the weight of the scriptures backs up my appreciation of that situation. Of course, the opposing view is those taking the Bible literally should pluck out eyes and stone sinners, which I am not advocating. I accept there are parts of the Bible that are difficult to explain and when I notice occasional verses (not a body of weight); I accept I might be misunderstanding them or that they were illustrative of a different time. I do not accept that they are categorically wrong and that I am somehow smarter than God or His Bible. I am guilty of many sins listed in the Bible but I am desperately trying, with God's grace, to shed all of them and when I fail...I give them to God and move on. I do not desire to sin and when I am in opposition to God I know I am the one in the wrong not God.
Practicing homosexuals (those who agree what plain text verses say) cannot agree with God on the issue of gay sexual conduct. God must be wrong or, if He is right, they refuse to restrain themselves. Heterosexual sexual sins are just as deadly if the person doing them refuses to agree with God. The critical difference is those unmarried have the ability to make it right with God by getting married. Homosexual marriage is not a substitute according to the Bible as it is written. That is why homosexual sin is wicked...because it is in direct opposition to God without even a hint of obedience to God.
As for the focus of this forum, we can agree that men get a terrible shake in family court. Gay men have my sympathy when they are harmed and their children are denied to them just as happens to straight men divorced from women. I will not go the next step and deny my God and my Bible by accepting homosexuality as Godly. On that point, we differ but my hope is you and all those practicing sin will seek God rather than the sin. God has been very good to me and I value every day especially since I almost died a horrible death. God will meet you if you listen to His knock but if you ignore Him, too many times He will stop knocking at some point. Eternity is forever and if the dead could talk to us, they would tell us three things:
#1 - Life is short
#2 - Death is certain
#3 - Our relationship with Jesus determines our fate with Heaven or Hell and there is no in between for all eternity
April 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Also Ken do you have anythong that mixes two types of fabric?
Cause you're going to hell.
Ever eat shrip? - Hell
Lobster? - Hell
Bacon bits on a baked potao with butter and sour cream ? - Hell
Its fairly plainly set down in the bible, yet I'm willing to bet you ignore many of the prohibitions of the Law of Moses.
Tell us Ken why should we indulgue your one petty bigoty when you arent devout enough to follow every other law set down in leviticus?
April 18th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
One last thouht for all you belivers - the law in the bible is clear, homosexuals are to be killed.
So by not killing homosexuals you are infact breaking gods laws and just as deserving of hell.
Becuae you're right Ken 'the bible is true or it isnt' and if it is true your god has commanded you to kill homosexuals - so why arent you?
April 18th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I think it IS presumptuous of you (somewhat typical I find from obstructionists to equal rights) to know my religious beliefs or the foundation thereof.
And my point stands...you can't take single verses or even sections of them and interpret the meaning without significant dedication to studying them, their context within the chapter and book, and as well with cross-referenced sections of the Bible of the same topic. Sure, there are some which are straight forward...Jesus wept couldn't be simpler, but I wouldn't try to use it say Jesus was a crybaby!
And to say that since I disagree with your spin on the Bible's message on this topic automatically means I "reject major portions of the Bible," is just stupid. Whole denominations can't agree on other aspects of the Bible such proper baptism, the day of the week that the Sabbath currently is, etc. So don't try to frame this as though yours is the only way, and thus the correct way, to know the word of God.
And your own intellectual honesty falls apart when you say what the standard is that is measured (the moon in the sky) and then characterizes anyone who says it's the sun is a fool.
To not be so disingenuous about it, if two people saw a *light* in the sky, and we, the observers of those two people, don't know what the light is, how would we know if it was the sun or moon, or something else entirely? Your phrasing actually begs the questions (used correctly I believe) of what the light is in the sky and who is a fool in their beliefs about it. I don't think you have a leg to stand on when it comes to intellectual honesty when it comes to this approach.
The Bible has different translations, all of which change the meaning somewhat. That's why study is needed to ascertain God's message, not our own human spun bias into the Word. You have to look at more than the translation...you would benefit from studying the original language, the vocabulary's use and meanings, as well as context of the narrative and circumstance. It's not a casual rule book.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Lujlp,
Ykes, where to begin...are you saying you challenged God and got no response? I can tell you that the time of prophets with Jesus in the form of John the Baptist sent to announce the coming of the Messiah. After Jesus, there would not be any more prophets until his second coming and God would not talk to man in the manner of the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit was sent into the world to help believers in the coming age until Christ's return. Therefore, call you to God all you want but the Bible indicates you will not hear His voice until the tribulation period at the end of the world.
OK, you got all of us (and please do not use the word "bigot" for those who do not happen to agree with you that is the sign of a weak argument on your part) on the word homosexual because I cannot read the original texts of the Bible in various languages. Moreover, thee and thou speech found in the King James Version is dated by about 500 years and loses a level of meaning to modern speakers of English so clearly identifiable conditions are changed for our benefit. Your argument would follow that we can only read the Bible in the original languages and if we cannot read Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek we are out of luck - how absurd is that?
The part about unsustainable population growth is probably the most bizarre argument you make as a proof that God was not upset about their homosexuality. I am sure there were more sins at hand but the sin that is obviously the focal point from the moment the angels arrived until their hasty departure was homosexuality. They called for the "angels" to come out so they could have sex with them and threatened to rape them if denied. They rejected Lot's virginal daughters so it is clear this was the sin that caused the city's destruction.
The part about God making people gay is a false argument as the Bible clearly indicates we have choices and those rejecting God are given over to their lusts. You think I do not have lusts of my own? You think I do not struggle with heterosexual thoughts that end with me doing things that are against the Bible's teachings. The difference is I acknowledge these as sinful and do not seek to do them. When I fail, I realize I failed and God did not but He forgives and we go forward. Rejecting God is not an option for anyone believing in God.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Let me repeat that there are some verses that are hard to apply directly from the Bible. The Old Testament had many verses of wrath and punishment while the New Testament had Jesus telling us to pluck out our eyes if they cause sin. I cannot explain every verse of the Bible, especially single verses that do not reinforce over and over such as the admonishment to avoid homosexuality, but it is certain the New Testament changed our relationship with God. The Old Testament showed conclusively we cannot be perfect and will sin. The Jews of Jesus time spent their time trying to live by the rules and even made up their own traditions beyond God and was called on it by Jesus. Jesus was love and overcame everything with love to the point He died for all of our sins giving Himself for us as a sin offering thus ending much of the Old Testament's legalism. The veil was split and God was no longer separated from Man. The Old Testament to the New Testament changed the way we relate to God and if we come with a humble heart and surrender to His will, we have the Kingdom of Heaven. If we reject Jesus, we are judged by the standards of the Old Testament and no fully human person has ever been sinless by that standard. The New Testament gave us an out; it gave us the ability to accept Jesus and His ability to cover our sins. Those believing in Jesus will not purposely sin even if they struggle with sin for the rest of their lives.
There are famous Christians who have struggled with homosexuality. They paid a terrible earthly price for their private failings but these same people are a victory in that they, for the most part, agree that homosexuality is a sin even if they lost everything because of it. They still believe in Jesus and they resist it, not always winning, but they do not call it good because that would separate them from God. These Christians are consistent with Biblical teachings and I am sure they will be in Heaven unlike those who reject God because they enjoy homosexual sex more than God does.
Again, we can agree on father's rights issues but I will never deny what I know is true in the Bible with regard to homosexuality.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Ken Richards says:
"In order to be a practicing gay person you must reject the Bible as it is written and assume it has been altered. That means that God is not an all-powerful God or He is especially cryptic by giving us a false (not entirely correct book). I cannot accept that God is flawed"
Um no, you can also just realize that this is a book of fairy tales passed down from stone age sheep herders who believed the earth was flat. Those people claimed god told them stuff. If you want to believe that, it's your freedom but it's not "objective truth". Neither is all that stuff about slavery and eating bacon. In other words, blind faith and voluminous posts don't change the fact that your religious interpretations are selective and bigoted.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Pat,
You are at least honest enough to admit your unbelief in the God of the Bible. I pray God reaches you because eternity is a long time but I do credit you for being honest.
Unfortunately, there are many claiming to be Christians who deny parts of the Bible that are inconvenient. They are not being honest as they call something evil as good. I am sure those in Sodom felt what they were doing was good. God was the furthest from their minds until it was too late.
Of course it could all be fairy tales and if that is true you should be as selfish as you can in this life since we only die and nothing happens after that. If it is not a fairly tale then it means being selfish in this short life causes a lifetime in an everlasting pit of fire. In gambling terms that is a bad bet so why not check into this "fairy tale" before writing it off?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Ken if you were intellectually honest you, and every other bible bigot, would advocte against divorce and against allowing divorcees and adulters to marry as there are far more scriptures dealing with adultery than the two on homosexuality
April 18th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I don't believe in Santa Claus either, which makes your suggestion kind of insulting. So, are you going to heed the bible and go kill gay people? It is not ambiguous about this. This is your duty as a bible believer. Or do you accept that just maybe, it has flawed parts? So what's it going to be Ken. Kill gay people, or shirk your duty given to you by god?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Also Ken if god no longer reveals hiself explain James 1:5
April 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
And Ken what about this?
Matt 5
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
So the law to kill gay people, and adulterers, and people who mix dairy and meat is still in effect Ken - what are you going to do?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
There is enough room for both christians, and liberals to fight for the rights of
men/fathers/children,
April 18th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Regular christians who repect other people are fine but there is no room for bigots anywhere.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
It's Pat: "... no room for bigots anywhere."
Why is that? There are MANY of us here who are christians, and some of us are labeled "bigots".
What do you liberals want? Do you want clones? Do you want everyone to be the same color? Do you want everyone to have the same income dictated by government? What exactly is it that liberals want? And why are we "so-called bigots" now in a minority? Don't you believe we have a right to our beliefs?
April 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Pat,
I hate you for making me agree with GG (just kidding! but watch what you are saying, if you are even humanly capable of doing that). Like I have said before, hate speech should be legal, seditious speech should be legal as well, and so should speech that could or would/did incite violence. There is plenty of room for everyone, if you don't like it - you still have room, but you are welcome to leave.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Where in the bible does it say gay people should be killed? Also, militant atheists are no less guilty of bigotry, arrogance, and condescension than the fringe leaders of the religious right. Is there any room for them? The extreme on both sides manifest the same personality.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
69
Georgia Girl Says:
What do you liberals want? Do you want clones? Do you want everyone to be the same color? Do you want everyone to have the same income dictated by government? What exactly is it that liberals want? And why are we "so-called bigots" now in a minority? Don't you believe we have a right to our beliefs?
First what makes you think only liberals care about fairness?
No, no, & no.
What do we want? Fairness for all
Bigots become an minority naturally over time as they open their minds to new ideas
Yes GG you do, but you dont have the right to force you beilfs on the rest of us either.
You dot want gay marrige? Join a church that exculdes them, but as we live in a secular society your mythology is not a good basis for laws governing my actions.
Also according to your beilfs you have been charged to kill those who violate a good number of gods laws, so why are you not doing as you "believe"
April 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Do you bother to read the posts max?
Lev 20:13 re reads ken post #48 or look it up online
April 18th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Don't you bother to read the bible lujlp?
Lev 20:13
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Thats a death sentence for sodomy, not homosexuality as a state of being. Stop twisting the words. Straight men who commit this act (like in prisons) are guilty of this as well. The act itself is the capital crime. Furthermore, it is a sin to be attracted (in your head) to anyone regardless of gender. Men who undress women in their heads are just as culpable for their actions as men who do the same with other men.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I guess that means that I can no longer lust after sweaty construction workers?
April 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
lujlp @46 says "Thank you for playing
"I'm a christian who wants to tell others how to live there lives based on a book I hardly ever read and dont really understand"
Please try again"
lujlp, I really wish you would play that other game called 'let's take a valium and have a good rest'.
If you actually bothered to read my whole post it would have been clear to you that I have no interest whatsoever in telling others how to live their lives based on the bible, and even less interest in passing laws based on biblical doctrines.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
"I guess that means that I can no longer lust after sweaty construction workers?"
And I can't lust after busty supermodels. Everyone is equally inhibited.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Oh, and who said liberals and Christians can't be one and the same?
I am gay, a Christian, "liberal" in some beliefs, "conservative" in others.
While all of our interpretation of the Bible and God's word may differ, some wildly, some subtly, I think most of us can agree:
Religious group, when they truly wish to support families and the well being of children, must pay attention to the growing divorce rate and disenfranchisement of fathers from their children's lives!
I make no charge specifically in the above statement about how much they are currently doing, whether it's enough, or whether some religious groups are distracted by their fight against...well, as neutrally as possible, allowing gays to get married *civilly* to each other. I only state that the groups must pay attention.
If you believe they are paying attention, plenty of attention, and paying enough attention, then fine. Others may disagree on that point, and will have their own reasons for it.
It's a separate topic on whether gay marriage is something we should allow as a *civil* institution.
Perhaps some church-positive persons here could summarize what their church is doing in this regard, or how they are fighting the good fight within their church to encourage attention and support for the issue of family unity and father's rights [outside of opposing gay marriage!]? Anyone want to start, perhaps by telling us about a program sponsored by their church, or classes offered, or counseling supported? Anyone?
April 19th, 2009 at 1:02 am
The Christian Church of the West has been noticeably silent on divorce outside the pulpit and even within it rarely discuss this issue in terms beyond a man's fault.
April 19th, 2009 at 4:14 am
More divorces = 2 single-again individuals
More individuals in single pool = more possible marriages
more marriages = more funds for churches and marriage bureau
Who is divorce hurting? No one. Except the husband and wife, and CHILDREN! So who cares? Yell and scream about protecting marriage, Do NOTHING against divorces
April 19th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Pankaj,
In the West marriage is not money making proposition for the state, church or one of the families. We do not pay a dowry and churches do not charge for their services beyond nominal use fees. Pastors & priests are sometimes given a gift but it is not worth the time they could spend with their families given the small nature. Divorce is terribly destructive for all concerned, including the state as the costs of divorce far outweigh expanded revenues and social programs. The only ones benefiting from divorce are those seeking to expand entitlement programs as well as lawyers making a living from the divorce industry. Even most of these people would prefer another way to make money in a perfect world and do not wish pain upon those trapped in terrible situations.
In the end, marriage is a good thing and Godly marriage is a great thing because a marriage blessed with God is much more likely to endure. I saw a statistic once that married couples who attended church regularly were about 1/100th likely to be divorced as the general population. That is powerful stuff and worthy of consideration for anyone. I am twice divorced and as much as I credit our divorce, industry for what happened I could not minimize my own actions that brought about my divorces. I would prefer we remove the profit, revenge & blame motives built into our mother-friendly divorce system but the truth is if I were a Christian man living according to the Bible and God's direction I am sure I would not have enduring these divorces (the proof is in Christian marriages of those actually attending church rather than just professing Christianity).
April 19th, 2009 at 9:07 am
when two individuals divorce, it should not mean the children also have to divorce one of the parents.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Ken,
I do not "prefer" to remove profit, revenge and blame from the marriage-divorce industry. I prefer to remove irresponsibility from the whole cycle. Marry at your own risk - divorce at your own risk. The only intervention sources possible and allowable could be mutually agreed upon at the beginning of the marriage - voluntarily as opposed to state mandated.
No amount of priest's blessings (which they can claim all they want as God's blessings) or fighting gay marriage is going to stop you from getting divorced again. Be a human, take responsibility and act upon what you believe is right. You are divorced twice already - what makes you think you have the right idea of what marriage is supposed to be. If I were you, I would bear some humility and mind my own business (and keep others out of my business as well). Maybe you are doing this already - but I hope this has not led you to wrongly believe that gay marriage has anything to do with the failures of your marriages or those of any other than gay marriages. I do think the gay marriage activists are wrong to demand state sanction of their relationships, but that is their business.
April 19th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Pankaj asked – If I take responsibility for myself.
Answer - I have repeatedly stated I was at least as guilty as my ex-wives were for my divorces. In a court, preceding that would be an “asked and answered moment.” Please come up with better questions rather than wasting time on previously covered ground.
Pankaj asked – If I would mind my own business.
Answer – I assume opinions that run contrary to his sage advice cause him problems. I also assume freedom of speech is not a value he embraces especially when an opposing view is hard to dissect.
Pankaj asked - If I thought, gay marriage had anything to do with my divorces.
Answer – Gay marriage had about as much to do with my divorces the tea crop was in China last year. That means Gay marriage had nothing to do with my divorces and I never indicated anything to that effect so I am wondering why you asked a seemingly irrelevant question.
The final answer is the father’s movement can accommodate denied visitations regardless of a father’s sexual orientation. Gay marriage is another matter and it is not bigoted or hateful to tell the truth. Equating Gay marriage with this movement in any manner other than denied visitations is unwise. Furthermore, I understand why Bible believing Christians have not helped the father’s movement even though I think they should. I agree with Bible believing Christians that homosexuality is a wicked sin and I could never support gay marriage as a result.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
"Gay marriage is another matter and it is not bigoted or hateful to tell the truth."
Have you read 1984? Of course as an extreme libertarian, you would be surprised as to how far I go in respecting freedom of speech - when done in context of where (i.e. whose property?). Regardless of that, I doubt you can honestly claim that Glenn has tried to censor any views - neither have I.
"I agree with Bible believing Christians that homosexuality is a wicked sin and I could never support gay marriage as a result."
Alright, don't! Quite frankly, in a free country homosexuals would not need your support for marrying each other - but in the aspect of marriage, we all know Americans are not free. Even you hetero folks need a marriage license. The whole problem is that these people are not free anymore.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
My view as far as sex is that it's either straight missionary activity or celibacy. Most straight people don't engage in any other sexual activity besides straight missionary activity. They must also abolish sex change maimings. What they must do is cure Gender Dysphoria, not maim people to make them what they're not. GID & homosexuality are 2 different topics, but most homo&lesbian groups while opposing repair therapy to go straight or @least better treat homosexuality, think it's OK to maim people to make them what they're not.
People will live their sex lives as they see fit but I don't regard men having sex with men & women having sex with women as a virtue. Also if they eventually find the cure for homosexuality & GID, the world is a better place w/o homosexuality & w/o GID. If they eventually find a cure for oral sex, then that's fine with me.
What is it with the blind faith surrounding homosexuality? People who engage in homo & lesbian sexual behaviors have higher VD rates & higher incidence of mental problems.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:17 am
On another note, the topic here is more about the ideology of homosexuality. I used to not care much about homosexuality with the view that what 2 willful & knowing adults do is their own business. HOWEVER, the reason that I changed my views of homosexuality is the ideology which surrounds this topic. Homos&lesbians frequently discuss intolerance rerunning comments such as bigotry as Mr. Sacks did, but it has been my observation that homosexual groups are the 1s who are intolerant of opposing views.
Homosexual groups frequently push their views in the workplace & schools telling others that there's nothing wrong with same sex behaviors & then not tolerating views of people who see something wrong with this. I know that Glenn Sacks sees nothing wrong with same sex behaviors but Mr. Sacks & other commentators & posters of this site ignore the fact that it's the homosexual groups who push their views on others & there have even been cases where people have been fired when they said that they don't want to hear about homosexuality during work hours. There have even been cases where people have been fired when they expressed views of homosexuality outside work hours saying that they see something wrong with it on a radio or TV show & after homosexual groups complained, the worker was fired-see the Robert Smith case in Washington D.C., fired by then Gov. Robert Ehrlich.
Work & school are not the places to discuss this. If they want to discuss homosexuality, then let them talk about it outside work hours. Yes, Christians, Jews & Muslims see something wrong with homosexuality, but you can also be non-religious & see something wrong with same sex behaviors. Also homosexual groups believe in the right to engage in same sex behaviors but they're hostile to free will when it comes to repair therapy to cure or @least better treat homosexuality. How many homosexuals & lesbians want to be straight, but engage in same sex behaviors because they've been told that repair therapy is something to be discarded? I don't know but these are topics surrounding homosexuality which Glenn Sacks has not discussed, but what Mr. Sacks does is simply rerun the same things that we've heard about this complex topic. Why doesn't Mr. Sacks give a neutral discussion of repair therapy & what if they eventually find the cure for homosexuality & GID?
April 20th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Ab brings up some very good points. Notice, every attempt to point out that we have common ground on child visitation issues is ignored while gays and gay friendly posters push the line that a person is a bigot if they do not agree with the gay agenda. This is an all or nothing argument that liberals refused to believe when G.W. used it against terrorist nations but somehow it applies to their gay agenda. Clearly, the most intolerant people in the world are, in fact, gay people pushing their agenda to the point of prosecution if given the opportunity. Not all gay people share that agenda and many are trapped in the lifestyle because of bad information and lies. Many gay people left the gay lifestyle because they believed more in Jesus than earthy desires. Their desires changed after prayer and their lives have been forever changed for the better with a place in Heaven. Heterosexuals practicing adultery and fornication have also changed to desire only their wives thanks to Jesus with the same result. Bible believing (note that is a requirement) Christians would not condone civil unions or any other union that is not consistent with traditional marriage as defined in the Bible. Any other union will cause problems including plural marriage and concubines. It should be understood that children cannot be married nor should animals but given the direction of the gay agenda, that is not a foregone conclusion. In the end, anyone saying or writing anything against gay harmony is a bigot and should be prosecuted. I suspect they will one day seek retroactive prosecutions if given enough power just as liberals in Congress are attempting to retroactively prosecute Bush administration officials.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Tell me ab how hostile would you be if you were constsantly told you were sick and wrong and needed intesive therepy to control your 'unnatural' urges
I doubt very much you'd keep quiet if gay groups started holding therepy sessions to "cure" people of their straightness
April 20th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Poster#89 is simply rerunning propaganda that we've heard before but to address the points. To start with, Also this poster is not a religious person, so it's not just the religious groups. Yes, many people do use religious faith to justify their positions against homo&lesbian sexual behaviors but so what?
But to the points surrounding repair therapy. The homosexuals & lesbians who go to repair therapy do so because they're not happy about who they are. They want to be straight & engage in straight activities only & have the normal things in life. Now if you see nothing wrong with same sex behaviors, then you'll be offended by the idea of repair therapy.
Before continuing on homosexuality, it's noteworthy that there's hostility to repair therapy to go straight, yet most homosexual groups think it's OK to surgically maim a man to make him an artificial woman or in some cases vice versa. Gender Dysphoria (GID) is where the medical & psychological professions rather than trying to treat this disorder has sadly collaborated with it. Sex change surgeries happen becausethe knowledge is there to do it. If they knew how to change skin color, the medical & pscyhological professions would be making the same justifications for changing skin color of people who have racial dysphoria (Blacks who think they're White & vice versa) as they do for people who have GID. Science being sadly wasted to mutilate people & make them what they're not.
Since we're discussing homosexuality, it must be noted that people who engage in homo&lesbian sexual activities have higher Venereal Disease (VD) rates, higher suicide rates & higher incidence of health & mental problems. Yes, homosexuality was removed from the DSM in 1973, but the copathologies among people who engage in same sex behaviors are higher than those who only engage in straight normal sexual behavior. But as asked earlier, what if they eventually do find the cure for homosexuality-be it pill, surgery or shot which cures homosexuality & changes them to straight sexual behavior only? How many homos&lesbians would take the pill or shot to go straight? There are no #s available, but it could be said that there would be quite a few homosexuals & lesbians taking the cure. It's unknown how many homosexuals would rather be straight. Also if they could predict that an unborn baby would engage in homo&lesbian activities in adulthood, it could be said that quite a few parents would abort an unborn baby if they see something wrong with same sex behaviors.
Again, you may be offended by what is written here if you see nothing wrong with same sex behaviors. But if they find the cures for GID, homosexuality & oral sex, the world would be a better place with straight missionary activity only-less VD, fewer mental problems & so forth. Why would you lose sleep if there's no more homo&lesbian sexual activities & if the only sexual activity left is straight missionary activity?
April 20th, 2009 at 10:58 am
It seems the gay agenda is intent on brow beating everyone down who hints gay love is not good. It comes down to believing in the Bible or not believing in the Bible for everyone on this debate. Honestly, the gay agenda has been against fathers all along despite the fact many gay people are also victims of PAS and denied visitation. If memory serves me, Glenn was attacked by gay activists and became bewildered since he has historically been pro-gay rights.
It turns out the gay agenda is tilted heavily towards leftists and liberals because they also reject God. Furthermore, they may not have anything else in common with other liberal causes but they clearly identify men who are heterosexual, white, & Christian to be their enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend goes the saying and for that reason the gay agenda has been incendiary against father's rights. I can assume many gay men are not in the least concerned about family and some may actually hate the notion since they have been denied offspring with their same-sex partners etc. Unfortunately, some men had children before crossing over and they are simply collateral damage for the gay movement in their partnership with other liberals/leftists.
I am convinced many gay people in their movement troll for any story about gays and hijack it at the first chance so whatever topic at hand is consumed by the topic of gay marriage etc. Too bad gay people do not get on board with the fact many of their own members have been denied basic rights like visitation for their children and instead concentrate on bashing the fathers’ movement. Too bad Glenn does not realize the gay movement is truly uninterested in our issue in their larger crusade to force everyone to recognize gay marriage or be called a bigot (possibly jailed for hate speech). And too bad Christians do not realize fathers are an overlooked group that has been spat upon by every segment in our society while single mothers are fawned upon regardless of their actions and choices.