No Church Funeral For Gay Man
I understand why the Church would not want to host the service, and I think it’s better for all involved that they didn’t host it. But they should have done their homework a lot better. You can bet they will from this point forward.
It also begs the question—without the photos celebrating the deceased’s lifestyle, would the Church really have been willing to perform the ceremony?
An Arlington church volunteered to host a funeral Thursday, then reneged on the invitation when it became clear the dead man’s homosexuality would be identified in the service.
The event placed High Point Church in the cross hairs of an issue many conservative Christian organizations are discussing: how to take a hard-line theological position on homosexuality while showing compassion toward gay people and their families.
...
Mr. Sinclair, 46, died Monday. He was a native of Fort Worth, a Navy veteran who served in Desert Storm helping rescuers find downed pilots, and a singer in the Turtle Creek Chorale, said his mother, Eva Bowers. He did not belong to a church.
...
Both the family and church officials agree that the church volunteered to host a memorial service, feed 100 guests and create a multimedia presentation of photos from Mr. Sinclair’s life.
But the photos that the family selected alerted church officials that there might be a problem with the service, Mr. Simons said.
“Some of those photos had very strong homosexual images of kissing and hugging,” he said. “My ministry associates were taken aback.”
And then, he said, the family asked to have its own people officiate the service. “We had no control over the format of the memorial,” Mr. Simons said.
...
But it’s not clear where the two sides could have found common ground on the central issue. High Point Church opposes homosexuality, and there was no way the church could host a service that appeared to endorse it, Mr. Simons said.
“Can you hold the event and condone the sin and compromise our principles?” he said. “We can’t.”
I guess I don’t understand why the family would have asked this church - why not knock on the door of a church that is okay with homosexuality? It seems like a little bit of research would have avoided this man’s death becoming fodder for blogs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 0842 hrs
I agree. You’d think the family would have known about the church’s objections.
For the record: the church is entirely within its rights to refuse.
For the record: Knowing their stance on such things, I’d not step foot inside it.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 0851 hrs
Oops. I forgot to include a link to the original article. It must be Monday morning around here.
Link is now in the post, as well as a link to a follow-up.
The Church was chosen because the deceased’s brother is an employee and member of the Church.
Posted by Jed on August 13, 2007 at 0901 hrs
Yes, the church has a right not to have the service, but the way they went about cancelling the service and then lying about why they were cancelling were NOT the way to do it.
The family didn’t approach the church for the service, they were approached by someone that was a member. They were aware that this was a gay man.
This from the partner of the man that died:
On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any overtly homosexual references. Cecil’s sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done. These individuals went through all the other photos, which were pictures of family gatherings, birthday parties, vacations, etc. At no time was anything expressed to her or us that they had a disagreement with any of the other photos.
To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues. We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn’t even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 0914 hrs
“Can you hold the event and condone the sin and compromise our principles?” he said. “We can’t.”
As a private institution I fully support the church’s right to make these kinds of decisions.
It does seem curious to me that many churches seem to accept a great deal of sin in context of the fact that everyone is a sinner. Welcoming a sinner into the church isn’t ‘condoning’ the sin is it?
But THIS particular sin (of homosexuality) is treated so much differently. (and when I say sin, I only mean in the eyes of the church. I’m not convinced it is a sin)
I’m just curious if the church would have held a funeral for a person who had a baby out of wedlock. Wouldn’t having the illigitimate children there be ‘condoning’ the sin? Pictures of the person with their illigitimate children in the service etc.
I consider myself agnostic now, after having had a very intense immersion in christianity as a child. But from my education, my understanding of Gods love was always that if “god” had a church he would welcome anyone into it. Gay, Bi, Straight or otherwise… And that welcoming a sinner into the church isn’t an endorsement of their sins.
Maybe I misunderstood…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 0927 hrs
xxpilot – we are all sinners there is no doubt about that. And all sinners are welcome in church but there is a difference between a repentant sinner and a sinner who rejects the law and gospel of Christ. A man who lived openly with a gay partner right up until his death is not repentant and is not therefore allowed to have the sacraments (2 if your Lutheran, 7 if your Catholic) and is not allowed a funeral in the church.
At my church he would be more than welcome to attend the weekly Divine Service but not commune. The same holds true for a murderer, adulterer, pagan, liar, thief etc.
The type of sin is not the issue. The repentance or lack thereof is. The reason homosexuality is getting so much play is two fold. 1. There exists an organized pro-gay lifestyle movement that is challenging the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality 2. in responding to this movement many Christians who are not properly catechized are not doing a very good job of articulating the orthodox Christian position, which is more than just gay = bad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 0959 hrs
I’m not really interested in what their rationale is. None of it makes a bit of sense to me, so I don’t bother. It’s like having a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. People can choose to run their organizations on such nonsense if they wish, but I refuse to even enter that discussion on the grounds that it’s absurd on its face.
Only thing that matters to me is whether your organization is a positive influence in the world. In my estimation, organizations which exclude persecuted minorities aren’t on the correct side of that ledger. Simple as that.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1009 hrs
Scott - we all aready know your position. My post/explination was (as is clear from it) directed to xxpilot, who ended his own post with an invation for a post such as mine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1021 hrs
I didn’t mean my comment as a challenge or a rebuke to your remarks, Joe. Just spouting off. Feel free to ignore me.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1025 hrs
Ex-con murderers, pedophiles, rapists, etc. are all persecuted minorities. Can you just keep me off your ledger?
Next time you ‘don’t bother’...don’t bother.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1029 hrs
I won’t even get into the argument with Joe that as a Gay Christian, I have nothing to repent about (well, as it relates to being gay.
) and neither did the deceased in this case.But as I mentioned above I do believe the church had the right to deny the service, it’s the WAY then went about it that I have a problem with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1032 hrs
Ex-con murderers, pedophiles, rapists, etc. are all persecuted minorities.
No, they’re not “persecuted minorities,” they’re criminals. And, I might add, all might be welcome to fully participate in the church’s activities provided the correct number of angels were dancing on the heads of the correct pins.
What I find really offensive is the fact that you are drawing some kind of moral equivalency between this man, of whom we have no report of being anything other than a pretty decent fellow, to the worst kind of criminals.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1042 hrs
Ex-cons are indeed persecuted as they find it hard to get jobs and integrate back in to society after we free ‘em. And think what you like, but I was in no way using them as moral equivalencies other than they are on the same side of YOUR ledger as defined by YOUR comment. But you are in ‘good’ company as there are many churches that also keep them on the same side of the ledger albeit the opposite side.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1058 hrs
“What would Jesus do?”
Posted by John Foust on August 13, 2007 at 1115 hrs
What is most offensive to me is that a church will accept a Gay person’s donations for a lifetime, never do more than a lip service, if that, against their lifestyle, and then deny them in death as unrepentant. I know that didn’t happen in this case exactly, but it does happen and will when the gay members of that church die (after, hopefully, a very long happy time.).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1121 hrs
Scott - fair enough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1124 hrs
I love how people who support gay rights get so huffy about comparisons between one sin and another sin. Comparing homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships is fine—indeed, they want them to be legally and morally equivalent. But compare one sin to another sin and they freak out!
Is homosexuality “as bad” as incest? Is theft “as bad” as adultery? Is bigamy “as bad” as murder?
What’s the difference? Why the outrage? Do you think a person who practices routine or cultural or psuedoreligious incest thinks its morally wrong? Is a person who believes in the “rightness” of his bestial relationship (as in “Give me one good reason why its wrong to love my dog?”) “allowed” to get upset at being compared to a rapist?
Our society has decided, for good or bad, that homosexuality is a net loss for us. We are, perhaps, currently reevaluating the system, but as it stands right now we view it as “bad”.
Just like we view murder, rape, incest, bestiality, theft, and many other things as “bad”.
Moral relativism doesn’t change the equation, it just changes who gets outraged over what.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1240 hrs
And all sinners are welcome in church but there is a difference between a repentant sinner and a sinner who rejects the law and gospel of Christ. A man who lived openly with a gay partner right up until his death is not repentant and is not therefore allowed to have the sacraments (2 if your Lutheran, 7 if your Catholic) and is not allowed a funeral in the church.
Thank you for a further explanation.
I guess I never participated in the church long enough into my adulthood to understand there are different levels of acceptance/participation into a church. Or perhaps our church (non-catholic) wasn’t like that.
As I consider in more depth the issue of treating a person differently because of their sexual preferences it reminds me of the reasons I had to re-evaluate my ideas of right and wrong as I got older and started to think outside of the bondaries of what my parents church had endoctrinated in me.
That led me to my current belief system that more mimics my political beliefs. That the most important thing is that people have the right to pursue happiness in whatever way they deem most efficatious for them. And that there only obligation in doing so it to not tread on other people.
So I’ve kinda rejected the philosophy of my parents church with regard to all the ‘rules’ that seemed to have no effect on other people. If there is a god I would hope that his desire for people he has created is that they would be happy. And that in doing so they not cause others unhappiness.
If a consentual relationship with a person of the same sex is what brings a person happiness, that doesn’t harm anyone else, my time and energy will be spent focusing on how I can be a better person, not telling 2 people who are in an agreeable relationship that doesn’t infringe on me that i think what they do is wrong. (anyway, off topic there but)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1331 hrs
xxpilot: while that may be sufficient for your personal beliefs, God is not in the same class as we are. Ancient languages often used repetition to emphasize points; the only time any word is repeated in reference to God is Holy, Holy, Holy. Its not love, love, love or happy, happy, happy, or even kind, kind, kind.
God’s essence is goodness, so much so that when Christ Jesus accepted the sins of the world on Himself God turned away from Him in disgust. God cannot be or be around Wrongness.
At any rate God also gave us free will to do as we please. This means that He has the same attitude toward us that you do toward others—something along the lines of “Do what pleases you.” But that doesn’t mean that one person’s pleasure is as good as any other’s. This is why sometimes absolute right and wrong overrule one person’s interpretation of the same thing, and why some things are evil while others are good.
In our misunderstanding of right and wrong we evaluate good and evil on scales of our understanding related to how these things negatively (or positively) impact us. Thus, murder and rape are great evils while putting a penny in the penny tray at the 7-11 is a minor good. Because God does not live in the same sense that we do, and our actions do not have any effect on Him, there are no degrees: there is only Right and Wrong.
I’m saying that politically I’m with you—God’s will is that Man should be left to do as he pleases—but insofar as religion is concerned things can’t be evaluated in the same manner.
We should treat all men with love and kindness because in the eyes of Right and Wrong, we are all Wrong. This does not mean, however, that we abrogate God’s laws as far as to condone the actions of others. Paul writes:
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Christianity is often mistaken as a religion of “rules”. The “rules” don’t matter.
He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
In essence it is Christ Jesus that frees us from sins, not following of “rules” or “codes”. Those are the fruits of a good lifestyle, not the seeds.
Sorry for going long
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1417 hrs
I say this not so much as a challenge or an insult, but for informational purposes. I think it might do some of you some good to better understand how people like myself see and hear you. So here goes. When i read a paragraph like this one…
In our misunderstanding of right and wrong we evaluate good and evil on scales of our understanding related to how these things negatively (or positively) impact us…
It makes me positively ill.
Of course I understand that it is well-intentioned and that the author is a perfectly lovely human being who does not kick puppies or eat babies, but when i read this stuff… I despair for the future.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1424 hrs
Now just for the record, I am with the majority in saying that the Church was well within its rights to refuse to hold the Service.
However here is a question that NOBODY (at least this far) has thought to ask….Seeing as the brother is a member and an employee of this church, SHOULD HE NOT have been aware of the Churches stance on Homosexuality?
And by extension could this whole mess have been avoided, if the brother had exercised better judgement, and not asked the church in the 1st place?
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on August 13, 2007 at 1425 hrs
Thus spaketh the K2, explaining why “rules” and “codes” are as freely defined and redefined as the wind. Wouldn’t it be great to put all this into the Constitution? All those wonderful theocracies out there in the world, wouldn’t you want to live in one?
Posted by John Foust on August 13, 2007 at 1428 hrs
well that’s a lot to digest. i’ll have to read it a few more times and think about it before i form any coherent reaction, but just on account of the time it took to write that i wanted you to know i read it all closely.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1430 hrs
(previous comment #23 directed at k2aggie)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1431 hrs
Sorry I make you ill scott, but human perception of right and wrong has magnitude or degrees to it. The “us” in that phrase is used collectively to represent society. Society (and humans in general) largely determines good and evil reactively to protect itself from its nastier members.
Why does that statement make you ill?
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1450 hrs
Cheaney - I asked the same question in post # 1.
xxpilot - re: # 18 your welcome. I would also point out the denial of the sacrament of communion is not done as a punishment but as protection for an unrepentant sinner and in the hope that they will repent and be saved:
“whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks with recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” 1 Corinthians 11:27-29.
So it is to prevent an unrepentant sinner from drinking judgment upon himself that the Eucharist is withheld until such time as he/she repents.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1453 hrs
It doesn’t. What makes me ill is that you go on to say that for God “there are no degrees: there is only Right and Wrong.”
Deciding what is right and wrong is and must be an entirely utilitarian process in which we weigh the costs and benefits in the most rational, compassionate way we know how. Bringing in black and white (purported) view of “God” strikes me as a bunch of superstitious, backward nonsense. Making ethical decisions this way is to me highly unethical.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1457 hrs
God doesn’t make ethical decisions. He simply Is.
And utilitarianism isn’t even the end-all be-all system for humanistic moral decisions. If you’re going to throw a shades-of-gray philosophy at me, at least use one that holds some water.
At any rate, God’s perception of right and wrong cannot and will not extend to the way we govern ourselves and others. As I said, right and wrong have relative values to humans based on the impact of their actions on others (something you might call utility). That doesn’t change the fact that absolute right and wrong exist, something which is readily apparent in the similarities between the moral codes of nearly all successful societies (something which is often described as a theory of moral evolution).
If you don’t believe in God, then why do you care if He sees things as black and white, or monochrome, or shades of gray, or Technicolor?
Anyway, John, I didn’t cancel any codes or rules. I just repeated something Paul wrote in 1 Colossians regarding the code that Christ Jesus canceled on the cross—which was a code relating only to the Hebrews of the time. In that specific instance he’s referring to the rule that circumcision was necessary for salvation, something which is irrelevant to redemption in Jesus.
I don’t know about them being freely defined or redefined. The Bible in its present state is the most reliable historical document in the world, having the most reproductions and the fewest errors when compared to older versions of itself (incidentally, the next closes are Homer’s epic poems). These things don’t change with the wind.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1542 hrs
If you don’t believe in God, then why do you care if He sees things as
black and white, or monochrome, or shades of gray, or Technicolor?Can you be serious?
God’s perception of right and wrong cannot and will not extend to the way we govern ourselves and others.
If only that were really true.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1545 hrs
I should begin by saying that I’m by no stretch of the imagination a biblical scholar. On the other hand, I’m profoundly grateful that I was raised in a home where we went to church every week and I was expected to do my homework for Sunday school. The things I learned there, and more importantly, the way I learned to think, continue to inform and shape the way I live my life, especially my political beliefs.
I think what this whole discussion boils down to is whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin.
What I’m about to say is going to put me crossways with the people who are totally behind the concept of biblical inerrancy, but just because Paul says we shouldn’t associate with sexually immoral people, drunkards, etc., that doesn’t necessarily make it so. Let’s not forget, prior to his conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul was a notoriously intolerant Pharisee (or Sadducee, I forget which). His conversion didn’t make him perfect; it just made him a Christian. He didn’t automatically lose his long-held prejudices.
Let’s also not forget who Jesus himself associated with during most of his time on Earth. He famously hung out with sinners; Mary Magdalene was by all accounts one of his best friends.
Homosexuality is barely even mentioned in the Bible, except in Leviticus, next to the parts where farmers who grow different crops in the same field are to be stoned to death and widows are to marry their brothers-in-law on pain of death. Homosexuality is simply part of the fabric of life, like left-handedness, or being tall or short, or heterosexuality. It’s not a choice, it simply is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1640 hrs
Wouldn’t the church be doing a disservice to those who hold true to it’s tenants by holding services for someone who didn’t hold to it’s tenants.
The rest of the debate is specious. I’m sure the church is broken hearted that Scott will never stop foot inside it. I’ll never step foot inside an abortion clinic.Posted by rusty on August 13, 2007 at 1642 hrs
just because Paul says we shouldn’t associate with sexually immoral people, drunkards, etc.,
You misread it. Read it again:
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1706 hrs
On a related note, check this out from the High Point Church in Madison, WI:
You are looking at the website of High Point Church in Madison, Wisconsin, which has no affiliation with the High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. The church in Arlington has been involved in recent days in controversy over the cancellation of a previously scheduled funeral service. Our sympathies go to the family of the deceased that is grieving their recent loss. Posted on behalf of the Elder Board and Rev. Ridley N. Usherwood.
Posted by Jed on August 13, 2007 at 1720 hrs
k2aggie07,
It’s interesting that you mention that Homer’s epics are the second and third most reporduced ancient texts with the fewest errors. You know what else those three documents have in common? Neither of them state whether they are historical documents or works of fiction (or somewhere in between). You know what else those three documents have in common? They obviously do contain many fictional elements.
How arrogant of you to state as truth that you know there’s a god and that he’s “not in the same class as us.” Whatever that means. How arrogant of you to state as truth that “God doesn’t make ethical decisions. He simply is.” Whatever that means. We can’t base policy on mythology. Since we don’t know these things, they shouldn’t enter into the calculus we use when making policy decisions at all. We should set policy based on what is good for real people. Scott has been totally right on this thread.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1723 hrs
Wouldn’t the church be doing a disservice to those who hold true to it’s tenants by holding services for someone who didn’t hold to it’s tenants.
The rest of the debate is specious.I think the word you’re trying to spell is “tenets.” But in any case, you’re right. I actually think the liberal churches who try to make out that the Bible loved homosexuals and that Christianity is perfectly compatible with it are fooling themselves and doing more harm than good. Fundamentalists are, in my opinion, the truest Christians around. Sometimes I wish all Christians would follow their scriptures to this degree. Then the people of the world might step back and make a choice not to participate. That would be a very good thing. Liberal Christians muddy the issue, glossing over the inherent incompatibilities between the Christian tradition and modern life.
I’m sure the church is broken hearted that Scott will never stop foot inside it.
Actually, I would think they really are heartbroken. It is their stated mission to convert as many people as possible. Someone like myself who holds them in such contempt can only be disheartening.
I’ll never step foot inside an abortion clinic.
And, conveniently, you could never need to. I’d give even odds, though, that your mother, your wife or your daughter will have need of such services at one point in their lives. At least the numbers say so. (Don’t be surprised if they don’t tell you about it.)
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1731 hrs
apc - I am not offended but I do disagree with the assertion that Paul said anything. Rather, the Holy Spirit used Paul as a mere scrivener. But I think you are absolutely correct in highlighting Biblical infallibility as the frontline in the debate.
Your statement that Jesus hung out with sinners loses all of its intended impact once you remember that everyone is a sinner – that is the point. If Jesus had become man only congratulate the righteous his death would have been a waist. Also, Jesus did not excuse Mary Magdalene sins, instead he instructed her stop sinning and repent - “go, and sin no more.” (John 8:2-11 KJV). And that is the point of the gospel. Jesus has forgiven our sins and all we have to do is repent and we will be forgiven.
Homosexuality makes a couple of appearances in the New Testament so the old argument of trotting out Leviticus does not really carry the day either. e.g.:
“Do 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
But the bigger problem with trotting out Leviticus is the failure to acknowledge the three types of law in the Old Testament. The ceremonial, political and moral. Only the ceremonial and political laws were abrogated in the new testament. The moral law survived and the moral law condemns unrepentant homosexual behavior.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1732 hrs
Why anyone thinks it’s a good idea to base one’s moral decisions and laws upon the writings of ancient, barbaric middle-easterners is beyond my comprehension in the first place. Every author of the bible and every person named in it were shockingly ignorant about the world compared to your average modern sixth grader.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1737 hrs
Also, it’s totally arrogant to state that “we’re all sinners.” I’m not a sinner. For all we know, sin is a figmant of some nutjob’s effing imagination.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1740 hrs
Scott - I am truely sorry that you will never step foot in a church.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 1744 hrs
I never said that, Joe. I’ve been in many churches. I don’t agree with the “lifestyle” of any of them, but I can overlook it. What I said was that I don’t patronize organizations that whose discrimination is hurting people. That church discriminates against gay people. Knowing that, I would not go there for any reason.
Posted by scott on August 13, 2007 at 1748 hrs
Actually, scott, the church is one of the least discriminatory bodies on the face of the planet. We say that we’re all equally guilty and equally wrong, that none of us is more or less worthy than any other of God’s grace or His love. Also, there’s no action or standard of living that is required to make it into heaven. All that is required is an acceptance of Jesus as your Savior and an acknowledgment of His role as your Lord. Not too much to ask, eternity considered—especially when, as a religion, it really wants you to do nice things, as opposed to Islam which wants you to blow up innocent people (and yourself in the process).
Do gay folks go to heaven? I am 100% certain that some do. Do alcoholics, or liars, or cheaters, or any other of the myriad types of people that exist in this world go to heaven? Most definitely.
Anyway, scott, your notion of relative sophistication is pretty primitive. Aristotle and Plato were “barbaric” by modern standards. Indeed, in terms of worldly knowledge most 6th graders are better off than Locke. Should we ignore all of them, too?
I don’t see why you consider it arrogant of me to humbly proclaim that my God Is or to describe Him. I don’t find it particularly arrogant of you when you talk about how He isn’t. It doesn’t really offend me, either.
As I said, my politics are based on my religion…but the idea of utilitarianism comes from a concept of absolute wrong and right. That idea comes from religion, because without absolutes you get nihilism, or liberalism, or moral relativism, in which you can’t tell wrong from right, which is a sort of religion of its own.
So don’t lecture me about keeping my religion out of politics unless you’re willing to do so as well—in which case you don’t have much of a point for “helping” people as, again, that is a religious idea. A more secular line of reasoning would be to advance yourself and your society, consequences be damned.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 1903 hrs
....What I said was that I don’t patronize organizations that whose discrimination is hurting people. That church discriminates against gay people. Knowing that, I would not go there for any reason.
Now scott…just out of curiosity…which way do you want it? You say you DO NOT patronize organizations whose discrimination is hurting people.
And yet you attended or are attending Marquette University, and they are a CATHOLIC university.
It seems to me that as a Catholic based school that they are in your words “discriminatory” I’m just asking….I have no motives here…
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on August 13, 2007 at 1951 hrs
k2aggie, Like I said, I’m no biblical scholar, and I just took the most obvious examples off the top of my head. I’m obviously in no position to go verse to verse with you. It isn’t just on that single verse we’re going to have inerrancy issues. But I have to say, none of the translations I looked at said “homosexual offender.” Effeminate was the most common. I ran across a really interesting site regarding the way that word has been translated:
www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
Don’t get me wrong. The Bible contains universal truths. It is a valuable historical document, with the flaws inherent in all historical documents. But it also contains allegory and fable and poetry. And words get translated differently. Words (like in this case, possibly) get made up out of thin air. I can’t go along with you on complete inerrancy. Sorry.
I still maintain, though, that the crux of the argument is whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Obviously, the current consensus, among most churches at least, is yes. As scientific consensus continues to build that it’s genetic and not a choice (and they’re pretty sure right now), then maybe the churches can rethink their policies.
Left-handedness used to be suspect, you know. It was thought to be a sign of the devil.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 13, 2007 at 2119 hrs
Imagine a funeral for a veteran that included a multimedia presentation about his life in the service, and church said “we can’t condone a memorial that talks so much about killing.”
They would be within their rights to refuse, as in this case.
Somehow I don’t think the response would be so much “well of course that is their right to condemn what they believe to be immoral.”
Just sayin’
Posted by Zendo Deb on August 13, 2007 at 2207 hrs
Heh. apc, my hang up wasn’t over sexual immorality vs homosexuality. It was the fact that Paul urges us to stay away from people who engage in those practices while claiming to be Christians, not to stay away from those people entirely. He (correctly) states that to get away from bad folks you’d have to leave the world. Instead, he says, be extra careful around people who are “Sunday Christians” because they’re dangerous in their hypocrisy.
I read a really good book called “Misquoting Jesus” on the subject of literary mistakes in copying the Bible. I recommend it. Essentially the author who has spent his life a Biblical scholar asserts that though there are literally thousands of mistakes (transcription errors for the most part) in the Bible, none of them change the message. Changing the word “scholar” above to “student” would be a transcription “error” but would not, essentially change the meaning. Anyway, its a good read. Shoot me an email and I’ll loan it to you if you like.
We left-handed folks are a bit suspect.
It should also be noted that there is no scientific evidence of genetic links to homosexuality. That doesn’t mean that I necessarily think that it is a conscious choice homosexuals make to be the way they are. But to imply that there is a science-supported link between genes and homosexual behavior is a little bit disingenuous.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 13, 2007 at 2244 hrs
“...but the idea of utilitarianism comes from an absolute wrong and right. That idea come from religion…”
You’re insane. The idea of religion comes from the idea of right and wrong, not the other way around. Why do you think almost all religions agree about what is fundamentally right and wrong? Religion was [probably] invented to foster preconcieved ideas of right and wrong. It’s that simple. Given what we know, the odds that any religion is “right” are very very slim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0015 hrs
Excellent debate, and we never even touched the point of moral relativism, which is the favorite point of non-believers.
k2aggie07 relegated scott to a simpering incompetent that used vitriol as a response. Scott got served no matter how you slice it.
But not to emphasize scott, k2aggie07 made the point cogently and debunked the entire gay argument.To the point at hand though, that church is allowed to accomadate any ceremony it wants. If it chooses to not recognize a lifestyle it refutes then so be it. This would not even be an issue if it weren"t for the GLAAD people being involved.
I have to say this. Nowhere in any scientific periodical that I have ever read has a definitive correlation between homosexuality and heredity, DNA, or brain function been proven. To say that this science is proven, that it is biological, and not learned behavior is folly. That community has studied this issue for over 40 years and has yet to substantiate that argument.
Good try though, that worked 5 years ago. Now all have access to papers that prove the theory that your born to be gay is false. Stick to that though, your obsolence is cute.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0202 hrs
It doesn’t matter one iota whether being gay is genetic. The question is whether is hurts anyone and the answer is that it does not. It also doesn’t matter that a church has the right to discriminate. This debate is not about rights. It’s about whether the church is being an asshole. And it obviously is.
Also Chedhead, if you think K2Aggie is “winning” this debate, you have been duped.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0538 hrs
JJAWM - I am not trying to be rude (sometimes typing adds a harshness that I don’t mean), but I think you miss the point. For a Christian the point is not is whether other guys behavior hurting me. The point is, is that other guys behavior hurting him and his eternal salvation and as his brother I have the obligation to try to help him.
I will be the first to admit that many so-called christians would rather condemn the sinner and leave it at that but Christians are called to help each other repent and correct the sin through what we call in the Lutheran Church Christian Love. We will point out the error/sin and offer to help the other work through that issue until such time as they are ready to repent or correct the behavior. This applies to all sin - not just the hot-button stuff.
Also I see your point that moral codes are similar in all societies differently. You claim that it proves religion is just made up to support the common ideas of right and wrong. I think you have it backwards. I think it proves what the Bible says. That the moral code of good is incribe on our hearts and that all men know it, even if they don’t know it perfectly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0823 hrs
I’m sort of torn on that Joe. I think that absolute Right and Wrong exist, as a standard outside or unrelated to our own understanding of them. I’m not sure as to whether man is born with a moral conscience or not. Morals may be an extension of the individual will to survive—societies with successful morals being “the fittest” because they come closer to the correct standards of Right and Wrong.
Obviously a society of thieves, murderers, and rapists wouldn’t be all that successful. That’s why you don’t see any culture that values those three actions. Societies who value courage, honesty, kindness, etc have been historically successful.
I do, however, believe that there is no excuse for evil or wrongdoing due to ignorance. Paul (again) writes
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
JIJAWM:
I don’t necessarily disagree with you that this wasn’t handled in the appropriate way. I just think the church is well within its bounds to deny the use of its facilities to a unrepentant person, no matter what their sin of choice is.Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 0842 hrs
Sigh. We’re just talking past each other at this point. I’m afraid we’re just going to have to disagree. I just can’t go along with the idea that idea that homosexuality is a sin. I believe it’s simply a part of the great mosaic of life, not immoral, or amoral, or anything to do with morals, until one causes harm to another. If a homosexual commits adultery froma committed relationship, then maybe you’ve got a case for sin, but homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin. Just my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0843 hrs
Scott - I guess I read someone else’s statement that you would not set foot in a church and attributed it to you. I think that is twice in this thread alone that I imputed something to you that you did not say. Sorry about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0858 hrs
Actually, scott, the church is one of the least discriminatory bodies on the face of the planet.
That just makes me giggle.
there’s no action or standard of living that is required to make it into heaven. All that is required is an acceptance of Jesus as your Savior and an acknowledgment of His role as your Lord.
Actually there doesn’t seem to be universal agreement on this point among Christians.
as a religion, it really wants you to do nice things, as opposed to Islam which wants you to blow up innocent people
I find very little difference between the level of barbarism, intolerance and violence in the canonical texts of an of the monotheistic religions. What is different is that Christians in the west have largely learned to ignore and otherwise discount the nastier bits of their scriptures. Muslims, as a worldwide group, have not learned to do this. Thus, the differences in the levels of modern violence have more to do with their stunted culture rather than the documents upon which they base their faith.
Do gay folks go to heaven? I am 100% certain that some do. Do alcoholics, or liars, or cheaters
This just makes me angry. How do you not hear yourself? The rapidity with which you sanctimonious assholes compare gay people with “liars,” “cheaters” and worse is as breathtaking as it is disgusting.
Aristotle and Plato were “barbaric” by modern standards. ... Should we ignore all of them, too?
I’m not for ignoring any of it. As I said before, I majored in religious studies as an undergraduate (even got Theta Alpha Kappa!). I’m not ignoring anything. Jesus and Aristotle should both, however, be looked at critically. When I do this I find very little in the Christian bible that I wish to drag into 2007.
As I said, my politics are based on my religion…but the idea of utilitarianism comes from a concept of absolute wrong and right. That idea comes from religion, because without absolutes you get nihilism, or liberalism, or moral relativism, in which you can’t tell wrong from right, which is a sort of religion of its own.
See Jesus’ comments above. This is just ridiculous.
So don’t lecture me about keeping my religion out of politics unless you’re willing to do so as well—in which case you don’t have much of a point for “helping” people as, again, that is a religious idea. A more secular line of reasoning would be to advance yourself and your society, consequences be damned.
Helping people is a religious idea. Heh. Did jesus invent breakfast, too? How about eating in general? Breathing? And the idea that I have a “religion” is a favorite bit of nonsense put forth by the genuinely religious in order to equate their nonsense with more rational approaches.
And yet you attended or are attending Marquette University, and they are a CATHOLIC university.
Marquette University has a lovely anti-discrimination policy that I can really get behind. (http://www.mu.edu and click the link in the bottom right of the page.) And it’s not a church, man, it’s a university with a real live secular board of trustees. We don’t get marching orders from the pope. I think you misunderstand what it means to be a religious-affiliated university.
k2aggie07 relegated scott to a simpering incompetent that used vitriol as a response. Scott got served no matter how you slice it.
Whoa! There’s something wrong with the comments here, because I’m missing some!
For a Christian the point is not is whether other guys behavior hurting me. The point is, is that other guys behavior hurting him and his eternal salvation and as his brother I have the obligation to try to help him.
For a utilitarian-minded secularist, the point absolutely is whether or not the other guy’s behavior is hurting anyone. The idea that we need to factor in his “eternal salvation” or other fairy-tale nonsense is immoral in the extreme.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2007 at 0859 hrs
Hey JIJAWM, I am not sure K2aggie has won any thing either, the thing about philosophical debate of this nature is that, with such different preconceptions both views are only valid with the requisite subset of beliefs. The only huge loser I have seen so far is you when you were commenting about arrogance and policy decisions. The post is about church policy so you would be remiss to NOT base your policy decisions on your beliefs and it is not arrogance to state ones beliefs. They are facts for K2aggie and others and he did take care to mention that he felt no animosity and took no offense that others do not share his beliefs. How arrogant of you to condemn others for not ascribing to your beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0901 hrs
“They are facts for K2aggie…”
I don’t think you understand what a fact is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 0933 hrs
The rapidity with which you sanctimonious assholes compare gay people with “liars,” “cheaters” and worse is as breathtaking as it is disgusting.
You mean the rapidity with which I compare them to myself? I’m a liar, a cheater (in both senses of the word: once on a test, once on a girlfriend), I suffer from lapses of conscience, I can be mean or cruel, I get angry without provocation sometimes. I never claimed to be perfect. And I wasn’t condemning anyone for their actions because I’m in the same boat.
I find very little difference between the level of barbarism, intolerance and violence in the canonical texts of an of the monotheistic religions.
The Christian book—that is, the Gospels and Epistles, are pretty much barbarism and violence free.
Thats because Christianity is pretty much nonviolent and non barbaric.
Helping people is a religious idea. Heh. Did jesus invent breakfast, too?
It is. I didn’t say it was a uniquely Christian idea, but the idea of altruism has no contextual basis in ancient Greek philosophies, for example—a similar word doesn’t even exist. I would suspect that most preliterate societies would place much more value on advancement of self, or earning praise / glory (kudos). Helping others is only usually viewed in ancient religions for the immediate value to self. Eastern religions take it as far as filial responsibilities, but even that isn’t helping others for helping’s sake; its a duty.
The concept of humility as a virtue would be a much more interesting study than the concept of altruism or helping others.
If you majored in religious studies you must have either come in with a large amount of bias that prevented you from learning, or you simply ignored things you didn’t like. You don’t seem to know much about Christianity or how it compares to other religions.
Lastly, since there’s not a lot about Jesus’ teachings that you would apply to modern life, which parts do you object to? If I may ask?
Giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s? Helping the poor? Casting the first stone only if you’re innocent? Being a cheerful giver? Being humble? Being joyful and at peace rather than worrying about life?
Jesus seems to me to be pretty easy to get along with. The only point of contention I can see a non-believer would have is when He gets to the whole “I am the Son of God” part. Contrast his teachings with, say, Mohammed, who raped a 6 year old.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 0952 hrs
Christianity is mostly “violence free” is it? As long as you say “mostly” you can get away with that statement, because the history of Christianity is most assuredly not violence free.
Northern Ireland. Protestants versus Catholics.
The recent Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo and particularly Srebrenica is the story of Christians exterminating Muslims.
The Holocaust got some of its justification from the writings of Martin Luther, who after he broke from Rome was incensed that the Jews didn’t embrace Christianity.
The Pogroms in Russia in the 19th Century.
The Spanish Inquisition
Posted by Zendo Deb on August 14, 2007 at 1015 hrs
History doesn’t guarantee a faithful adherence to dogma. I don’t recall anywhere reading Jesus giving His blessing to genocide or torture, terrorism or crusades.
Show me a philosophy with a widespread following and I’ll show you a philosophy that has been manipulated or perverted by purported followers for self-gain. Man is not free from sin or fault.
Implying that the Holocaust got its justification from Luther is a pretty impressive feat since Hitler was rabidly anti-Christian; why lean on the writings of a religion that you have denounced over and over to justify attacking a different religion?
Is the history of those abusing Christianity for their own ends ugly? Yes. Can I assert that I don’t think it was moral, or religious, for them to do so? Undoubtedly.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1020 hrs
“I don’t recall anywhere reading Jesus giving His (sic) blessing to genocide or torture…”
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)
That sounds EXACTLY like Jesus calling for the killing of those who don’t accept him. I realize it’s from a parable, but I think it’s disengenuous to discount its violence for that reason. Here are a few more.
“Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” (John 15:6)
“The Son of man [Jesus] shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42)
Also, “Implying that the Holocaust from Luther…”
Hitler talks about Christianity and Martin Luther all the time in Mein Kampf. He was educated as a Christian, which fostered his antisemitism. He greatly admired Martin Luther, who was also an anti-semite. He quoted Luther quite often in his speeches. He had veto power over who Pope Pius could make a bishop in Germany. He worked closely with Pius and sermans in Germany embraced National Socialism. Hell, the swatsticka is a religious symbol.
He wrote, “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.”
and
“The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1053 hrs
Altruism is a Christian concept…. not.
Altruism in ancient Greek Culture. It was expected that people would provide for beggars and strangers - the justification was that the gods would occasionally disguise themselves as beggars to test humans. Consider the appearance of Odysseus at the end of the Odyssey - Athena disguises him as a beggar so that he might gain entrance to the feast and not be known to anyone.
A lot of the stories of things going wrong in Greek Mythology involve rulers ignoring the good of their people to concentrate on their private good. And being appropriately punished. Minos and the White Bull of Poseidon for example, which is an instruction to everyone, not just rulers of nations. The responsibility to family, nation (or King) and community is fairly common.
In Japan, Guan Yin is typically portrayed in as a symbol of compassion, she is associated with motherhood, fertility and altruism. Actually she can be found all over Asia.
In the Old Testament Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because the city elders were failing in their responsibility to show compassion to the poor. Not for wild living as most people believe.
Indeed, the entire idea that the village elders are wise stems from a social need to justify compassion for the old and the infirm. Which in all but societies that are perennially faced with famine, seems to be universal.
Posted by Zendo Deb on August 14, 2007 at 1057 hrs
JIJAWM, if you know its from a parable then why even use it? He wasn’t calling for a jihad.
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. ‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
A story, get it? He’s also talking about the judgment in the end times, not any sort of action required now, on Earth, by Christians.
Your second quote isn’t much better, as you chop off the end of the statement. He continues:
For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’Which is a prophetic quote from the Old Testament. This whole section is Jesus explaining to his disciples that the life of a Christian is not always easy or peaceful—that even those in your own family may hate you for your faith.
That passage from John 15 is one of the most loving and inspirational passages from the entire Gospel. The fact that you use it to imply some sort of violence is funny. Here’s the verse in context:
I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful…No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you…As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love…This is my command: Love each other.
Again, the next quote is explaining a parable…of the end times.
As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Put it in context. Christians aren’t called to cull the evil from themselves. Jesus takes care of that—we’re called to love each other, as the passage you chose earlier shows.
Hitler was a great orator and manipulator. Germany was strongly Christian. He appealed to those roots to gain power. However, this does not make him a Christian. Instead, look to his private (as opposed to public) conversations about Christianity recorded by his secretary:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.
Nice guy, eh? Luther never called for genocide. Sorry.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1119 hrs
Mythology is not philosophy. And again, I never said altruism was a uniquely Christian concept. In fact, here is what I did say:
I didn’t say it was a uniquely Christian idea, but the idea of altruism has no contextual basis in ancient Greek philosophies, for example—a similar word doesn’t even exist.
Your example of about Sodom and Gomorrah is wrong. The Bible mentions sin and wickedness:
The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.
It mentioned no particular evil other than their desire to rape the travelers that visited Lot.
I stand by what I said. In the ancient world, altruism as we understand it today, being kind for kindness’ sake, out of love as opposed to duty or obligation, didn’t exist.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1127 hrs
In the ancient world, altruism as we understand it today, being kind for kindness’ sake, out of love as opposed to duty or obligation, didn’t exist.
I don’t buy it. Jesus may have brought a few ethical advances to first century Jews, but even then there was nothing new under the sun. People elsewhere had some of the exact same ideas.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2007 at 1136 hrs
“Luther never called for Genocide…”
You’re right. Here is exactly what he called for:
“What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them…“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed….
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them…
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb…
“Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home…
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping…
“Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
I guess robbing and enslaving does fall a little short of genocide. You’re right, Luther was a real nice guy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1137 hrs
I don’t buy it. Jesus may have brought a few ethical advances to first century Jews, but even then there was nothing new under the sun. People elsewhere had some of the exact same ideas.
Believe what you like. Or, better yet, prove it by finding examples. I’ve had several scholars of the Classics explain this to me.
JIJAWM: Good thing I’m not Lutheran, eh? That’s why I stick to the Bible.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1150 hrs
As for the Parable of the Talents, I think the point of the story is to show how much it can cost for an underling to expose the truth about injustice in society. The nobleman represents God/Jesus. He is a prick. According to the story, the nobleman rewards those that produced “fruits” but brutally punishes the third man. The third man, in effect, blew the whistle on the nobleman and was excomunicated. The nobleman then delivers the line about people that don’t want to play by his rules being brought before him and killed. This tells those that hear the story that if they don’t jive with JC, they will be killed. I think that’s pretty violent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1159 hrs
The parable you picked is a very interesting one. I’m not going to pretend I know enough to really get into it. There’s a good article on it here. There are historical and metaphorical elements to who is the nobleman. And there is also a reminder of the sovereignty of God involved.
And the “killed” used here has nothing to do with physical death.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1257 hrs
Then what does “killed” mean in the parable? And how do you know?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1259 hrs
“That’s why I stick to the bible…”
Do you think Luther pulled those ideas out of thin air?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1309 hrs
Too busy to read the link? Jesus is the nobleman. He leaves to prepare his kingdom, which He’s done now that He died and resurrected. When He comes back, it’ll be for the end times—see Revelation. The servant doesn’t die, he just loses what he had. Only those who opposed the nobleman are killed. In this parable, it represents those who oppose God not making the cut for heaven. Judgment. Hell. That sort of thing.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1311 hrs
How could you even base antisemitism on the Bible? That doesn’t even make sense.
Anyway this is super derailed, sorry I got so long winded and stuff. JIJAWM, I’ll be glad to continue this discussion on my blog or via email. I’ll stop clogging up the recent comments section now.
Cheers all.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 14, 2007 at 1315 hrs
No. I read the link. Its nothing I’ve never heard before.
“Judgment. Hell. That sort of thing.”
Are you suggesting that God’s Judgment and Hell are not as bad as being killed? Now, I don’t subscribe to the idea that there is a god that judges us and sends us to Hell, but don’t you people that do believe in this stuff also believe that Hell is really bad? Like worse than death? And if this god is real, didn’t he give us these big brains that allow us to process all of the [obviously false] evidence of his nonexistance and come to the conclusion that he doesn’t exist? And if he did, isn’t he punishing us for something he did? Let’s face it, if your god is real, he’s a total motherfucker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1325 hrs
How could you even base antisemitism on the Bible? That doesn’t even make sense.
Yeah. Ludicrous! Only.. it sure made a lot of sense to every single anti-semite who ever walked the earth including Nazis, the Catholic Church, and pretty much all of Europe for most of the last two thousand years. You may have a different understanding of the scripture than they did, but it’s pretty silly to deny that for a long, long time it was the bible itself which was the primary justification for and source of Christian anti-semitism.
Posted by scott on August 14, 2007 at 1354 hrs
Isn’t ironic that with all this talk of historical anti-semitism, the best friends of Israel these days are Evangelical Christians?
Bad shit happened in both the name of religions, all of them, and atheism (communism). Historically, human beings are pretty ruthless bastards. However, today, the muslims are trying to kill us, so - I’ll stick with the Christians on this one.
But, lets try to focus on today and the topic at hand, shall we?
Today - the views of homosexuality are as diverse as society itself. Those on the extreme of both sides and those in the middle, that really aren’t sure what to think. One side wants to go as far as promoting the life style to those that may not be so inclined. One side believes that unrepentant homosexuals are damned for eternity.
Most of us just aren’t sure what to think or feel and need to find our way through the issue, which is increasingly difficult to do without both sides calling you the equivalent of either a wimp or a racist.
Personally, I am a Christian. I know many homosexuals - like them even. I neither condemn, nor condone them. I think they should be able to have civil unions but not religious marriages. I recoil when the issue is forced on me by the activists. The “Gay Pride” parades in San Francisco are repulsive. I don’t want my first grader forced to read a book about somebody and their 2 moms or dads. The other extreme - like the wacko church that protests the funerals of soldiers is equally offensive.
In the case at hand - this was an honerable man who service his country and obviously garnered love and respect. If they wanted to keep that respect, the family shouldn’t have asked the church in the first place knowing its beliefs. All that has been accomplished here is the subjugation of a good man’s life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1544 hrs
One side wants to go as far as promoting the life style to those that may not be so inclined.
What drugs are you on??
I think they should be able to have civil unions but not religious marriages. I recoil when the issue is forced on me by the activists.
What constitutes a “religious marriage” has always been and will always be determined by your church. If you feel “activists” breathing down your neck for your church to change this, I suggest you look to your own membership for the culprits. Nobody as far as I know has ever suggested mandating that churches perform or recognize marriages that are against their beliefs.
I don’t want my first grader forced to read a book about somebody and their 2 moms or dads.
Why not? Why should the first-graders who actually have two moms not see their own family structure represented in children’s literature? Must we actively prevent this from happening? Also, suppose I didn’t want my first-grader to be exposed to the concept of bi-racial marriages. What then? Should I expect everyone to just accommodate my view of what constitutes a normal family? Don’t the existence of such families in the first place pretty much make it okay for them to be represented in popular culture such as books, films and television shows?
Posted by scott on August 14, 2007 at 1615 hrs
Ah - Scott’s tolerance of those that disagree with him is showing again.
I shouldn’t have expected anything more than ridicule instead of cogent debate.
But, fine, I’ll regret it, but I’ll bite anyway.
Yes - there are those on the extreme that would promote everyone to try homosexuality - Note that I said the “extreme”.
I should have inserted a paragraph between the second set of disputed sentences. I did mean to link the statement about marriage with the “activists”. The activists are those that want to tell all of us how awful we are as people because we aren’t carrying rainbow banners around (like you for instance). Those that are as “in your face” as possible - like the costumed freaks in some of the parades you see.
Lastly, because no first grader needs to be thinking about “sexual orientation”. My children will learn about the complexities of society and sexuality when I feel they are emotionally mature enough for it. That is F’ing MY decision as a parent. Not GLAAD or you. I didn’t tell you how to raise your kids, kindly extend the same courtesy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1639 hrs
One side wants to go as far as promoting the life style to those that may not be so inclined.
What drugs are you on??
Scott are you saying no one IS promoting the homosexual lifestyle?
I could be totally wrong on this, but didn’t the state just not pass something allowing ‘gay marriage’? Had it been ‘civil union’ I would have voted for it.
The difference in your last comparison is that it is not against a majority of religions that people follow in the USA to have bi-racial marriages, but it is to have homosexual relationships. While there is an aggressive push in the US to ban all things overtly religious from public schools it is still relatively new ground to add overt anti-religious symbolism in to mainstream public school curricula. If you are a representative of mainstream liberal thought in this area and I think you are, there may well be an even greater mass exodus of public schools in the future. That is not a negative judgement on you, just an observation.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1656 hrs
I don’t think anyone is promoting the “homosexual lifestyle.” People may be promoting that idea that, if you are a homosexual, you should be able to live your life how you want. Gay people shouldn’t have to hide it. Things like that.
It’s not like all them gays are saying, “hey man, you should totally try being gay.” I don’t think it works like that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 14, 2007 at 1714 hrs
Ah - Scott’s tolerance of those that disagree with him is showing again.
I shouldn’t have expected anything more than ridicule instead of cogent debate
Would you care to point out where I have shown intolerance or ridicule in my last comment? k thx.
there are those on the extreme that would promote everyone to try homosexuality
Where?! Who?! And who does anyone suppose would listen to them? Would you try being gay? This discussion is descending to a depth of ludicrousness that I would not have thought possible…
no first grader needs to be thinking about “sexual orientation”.
Sensible. Are there books about sexual orientation being read to first graders? Or are there just simple stories being written that actually -gasp - depict gay people as actually existing?
didn’t the state just not pass something allowing ‘gay marriage’? Had it been ‘civil union’ I would have voted for it.
You support civil unions? Then why did you vote to outlaw them? Inquiring minds want to know.
it is not against a majority of religions that people follow in the USA
Is that our new criteria for who gets to be depicted in books and movies and television? Whatever the majority of religions think is acceptable to their membership?
Posted by scott on August 14, 2007 at 1826 hrs
I wrote in a post before that referendum that I would support civil unions, but not gay marriage and nobody wrote that the vote was for civil unions not gay marriage. (The messages on my home phone certainly used the term gay marriage)Either you are wrong now or you missed a golden opportunity to be smugly pedantic then, one of your favorite things.
“Is that our new criteria for who gets to be depicted in books and movies and television? Whatever the majority of religions think is acceptable to their membership?”As school primers, I think religious morals are a better choice than than what you apparently think. And yes, suggesting that first graders should be taught that in effect ‘gay is normal and grand’ is promoting homosexuality. You don’t have to say ‘try it you’ll like it’ to be promoting it. I don’t think it should be vilified in a public school, but neither do I personally believe it should be depicted as equally mainstream as heterosexuality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 0901 hrs
“School Officials Black Out Photo of a Gay Student’s Kiss” (But not the straight kids’ smootches.)
Posted by John Foust on August 15, 2007 at 0944 hrs
The referendum was to ban gay marriage and civil unions. If you were in favor of either of these things you would naturally vote against it. Why didn’t you?
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 0945 hrs
It’s not like all them gays are saying, “hey man, you should totally try being gay.” I don’t think it works like that.
I can only speak from my own personal experiences but I strongly disagree with you.
I have a friend (female) who had always had heterosexual relationships and was pursued for a LONG time by a lesbian acquaintance of hers.
Ultimately she did end up going that direction. Now it was of her own free will, and I have no problem with it, she’s still my closest friend whatever relationship she happens to be in at the moment.
BUT absolutely homosexuals ‘try’ to promote their lifestyle to others. WHAT BETTER way to feel embraced then to have others try it too.
Its as basic as the peer pressure of your friends trying to get you to drink when you were younger, or people trying to convert people to their religion, or of people trying to persuade people to follow their particular political beliefs.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been approached by a gay male who is interested in ‘something’ from me, and when i inform them that I’m happily straight, more than once there has been a subsequent attempt to see if there is any curiosity on my part.
To say that homosexuals don’t promote their lifestyle is absurd. I won’t comment on wether there is, or is not anything wrong with that… it is human nature to try to get others to do as you do. It makes you feel better about yourself. Noone wants to be the odd ball. Noone wants to be in the minority…
The best way for homosexuals to feel accepted is to get others to ‘try it’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1039 hrs
Gay people aren’t “recruiting.” What you’re describing is exactly the same thing as a guy approaching a girl in a bar and trying to get her number even though she’s not really very interested. They’re not encouraging everyone to “try it” - they’re encouraging a particular someone to “try ME.” Same thing everyone else does. The implication that there’s a group somewhere advocating that straight people “try” homosexuality is absurd.
There are, however, plenty of straight groups advocating that gay people try to be straight.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 1052 hrs
Xx - And when straight guys repeatedly ask a girl to dance, it’s not “trying to get others to try it”? Do straight people “need to feel accepted” too? Is the best way for you to “feel accepted” is by finding a girlfriend?
As for your particular anecdotes, some call it love, some call it persistence, some call it stalking.
Posted by John Foust on August 15, 2007 at 1052 hrs
When women ask metaphorically why (straight) men use such stupid lines, I tell them it’s because it might’ve worked once and they believe that it might work again. One hundred refusals are nothing in the face of one success.
Posted by John Foust on August 15, 2007 at 1113 hrs
My personal experiences aside… Because there is a bigger concept I’m suggesting…
If gay people don’t think that what they are doing is wrong (and I don’t have a problem with it either) but if they don’t think what they are doing is wrong, why wouldn’t they be promoting it?
It defies logic that if a homosexual relationship has brought them happiness, that they wouldn’t promote the concept or the OPTION of being gay to other people (if those other peolpe so choose).
Xx - And when straight guys repeatedly ask a girl to dance, it’s not “trying to get others to try it”? Do straight people “need to feel accepted” too? Is the best way for you to “feel accepted” is by finding a girlfriend?
You’re missing the point completely and your comparison isn’t valid.
If a guy continually asks a girl to dance HE’S TRYING TO GET HER TO DANCE.
If a gay guy propositions a straight guy, and upon finding out the guy claims to be straight he pursues and offers his own positive experience of being gay he’s promoting the concept of homosexuality to the straight guy.
he’s trying to get the guy to ‘give it a try’
and again, you’re talking to a guy (me) who has no problem with people being straight, gay, bi, whatever.
But I think for gay people to suggest they aren’t promoting the homosexual lifestyle with the hope of others doing the same… I don’t think they are being honest with themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1140 hrs
I’ll further submit this from the pridefest website:
Mission Statement
The mission of PrideFest is to advocate, celebrate and educate the general community and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community with regard to all aspects of LGBT culture.
http://www.pridefest.com/about/mission.htm
Now you are REALLY trying to tell me that they aren’t trying to promote homosexuality?Just what does advocating ‘all aspects’ of LGBT culture mean then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1256 hrs
I think by “advocate” they mean something other than “try to convince straight people to be gay.” This is just awkwardly stated mission-statement-speak for “we’re going to try to convince people that we shouldn’t be discriminated against.”
Really, this is too funny. You’re seriously sticking to this juvenile paranoia about gay people trying to steal away your straightness? Christ!
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 1303 hrs
xx,
You’d have to ask Pridefest about that.“How do you know if you haven’t tried” could be considered promotion, I concede to you on that, but earlier you were looking at one or two isolated instances of pursuit by persons of the same sex and drawing broad generalizations from them, and that’s where you err. It’s simple—whether straight, gay, or bi, people pursue those to whom they feel attracted. Centuries of romantic stories foster the attitude that persistence will pay off, so some people make pests of themselves.
Also consider this: because they don’t fit into the dominant (heterosexual) culture, lots of gays and lesbians attempt to deny their true sexuality by engaging in relationships with the opposite sex. So, they have “tried” going one way and know that, despite societal drawbacks, they prefer the other. Therefore it makes sense to them that others might benefit from such experiences.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1323 hrs
They’re contaminating our precious bodily fluids, Mandrake!
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 1327 hrs
Why does it always have to boil down to the sex act itself, for cryin’ out loud? Maybe they’re just saying, “Go to a drag show sometime, you might like it.” Just like I hear gearheads say all time, “If you once go to a NASCAR event, you’ll be a fan for life.” I’m not a particular fan of drag shows or NASCAR, but that doesn’t give me the right to blatantly discriminate against the people who are just because they’re different than me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1331 hrs
Really, this is too funny. You’re seriously sticking to this juvenile paranoia about gay people trying to steal away your straightness? Christ!
Scott, don’t put words in my mouth… You’re way off base.
I am not paranoid about gay people stealing my straightness. I just think that its a big lie for gay people to claim that they don’t hope for the proliferation of homosexuality. ie, more people doing it. Just like republicans hope for more republicans, and for more people to become republicans, democrats hope for more people to become democrats.
NRA members like myself hope for more people to become NRA members.
I don’t even have a problem with homosexuals promoting the lifestyle or getting others to ‘try’ it.
I don’t mind if half the country becomes homosexual. Really I don’t.
I was just stating my opinion with regard to jijarwm saying that homosexual couples don’t wish for others to ‘try it’ or advocate the proliferation of homosexuality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1334 hrs
Maybe part of the problem here is that you see homosexuality as primarily a political movement. It isn’t. It’s a sexual orientation: you’re sexually attracted to the same sex. Politics follow afterward. Being gay is either you are or you aren’t. Nobody is going to be “convinced” to be gay. No straight people are going to like it once they’ve tried it. The whole idea that being gay is like an affection for mint chocolate chip is deeply misguided.
When gay people or organizations are “advocating” or “promoting” something, it’s the idea that gay people shouldn’t have to hide themselves, nor should they be discriminated against. They aren’t trying to convince straight people to become gay. (It’s surreal that I find myself even having to say that. Jesus.)
This fantasy that they’re on a mission to turn straight people gay is one of those ridiculous ideas that foster the very discrimination they do not want.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 1344 hrs
Also consider this: because they don’t fit into the dominant (heterosexual) culture, lots of gays and lesbians attempt to deny their true sexuality by engaging in relationships with the opposite sex. So, they have “tried” going one way and know that, despite societal drawbacks, they prefer the other. Therefore it makes sense to them that others might benefit from such experiences.
I agree completely. See my previous post. I don’t have a problem with homosexuals promoting what they have found satisfying to them.
But in the interest of having an honest debate about the subject its just my opinion that anyone who says that many homosexuals don’t ‘promote’ the lifestyle is kidding themselves.
I think they are afraid that acknowledging that they promote a homosexual lifestyle would be so viciously offensive to people who think its a ‘sin’ that they say they don’t.
Kinda like incremantal legislation. First they introduce a seatbelt law that was ONLY palatable because it wasn’t a primary offense.. then once they move the ‘common sentiment’ closer to acceptance they introduce legislation to move it a little further to a primary offense etc etc.
I think homosexuals are doing the same thing. I think first they try to tell people “hey, we just don’t want to be descriminated against” and then once they have people accepting that, then they push it closer to their REAL motive which is they wish that homosexuality was viewed absolutely equal to heterosexuality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1347 hrs
No kidding Scooter? It is your pathetic lack of understanding that is too funny.
You put ‘recruit’ in quotes earlier. No one ever used the word and that wasn’t the meaning of the words you were responding to unless you misconstrue. Now you put “try to convince straight people to be gay.” in quotes, no one used that phrase either. These would be MIS-quotes and mis-interpretation. It is easier to win an argument when you make your own ‘facts’ isn’t it?
The couple of times in my life I have been propositioned there were good natured appeals to my sense of adventure, never an ensuing discussion that I shouldn’t now discriminate against them. Were they promoting their lifestyle…yes, were they trying to steal my straightness or to convince me they shouldn’t be discrimanted against…no. That has been the point from the beginning and you have been exaggerating and belittling from the beginning. To use one of your favorite phrases “Shut the fuck up.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1348 hrs
they wish that homosexuality was viewed absolutely equal to heterosexuality.
Now you’re talking about something completely different. I thought we were discussing whether gay people are trying to convince straight people to be gay. Have we moved on to something different?
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 1349 hrs
They weren’t primarily interested in whether you identified yourself as straight or gay, big T. They just wanted to get into your pants, dog!
Woof!
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 1351 hrs
Being gay is either you are or you aren’t. Nobody is going to be “convinced” to be gay. No straight people are going to like it once they’ve tried it. The whole idea that being gay is like an affection for mint chocolate chip is deeply misguided.
How do you know?
My observation has been that what you describe is almost universally true with males.
But I see females consistently have a committed relationship with another female, and then when that ends go into a committed relationship with a male.
This fantasy that they’re on a mission to turn straight people gay is one of those ridiculous ideas that foster the very discrimination they do not want.
right… that’s why I think that they won’t admit that they hope for the proliferation of same sex relationships because they know it would foster discrimination (not from me) but certainly from religious zealots especially.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1355 hrs
I think first they try to tell people “hey, we just don’t want to be descriminated against” and then once they have people accepting that, then they push it closer to their REAL motive which is they wish that homosexuality was viewed absolutely equal to heterosexuality.
xx, I don’t see a difference between not being discriminated against and being viewed as absolutely equal. If you’re fully equal to someone else, how could you claim that someone is discriminating against you? But I agree with you that yes, full equality is the goal. Why wouldn’t it be?
Maybe some groups in the homosexual community have planned some sort of sneaky bait-and-switch with their message, but I have to argue that isn’t the case with normal everyday people. They just want what’s fair, and equal is fair. Even if equality were the law, it still wouldn’t mean that churches wouldn’t have the power to deny services to people with whom they disagree.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1403 hrs
Scott…alright that was funny, but yes xx feel free to butt in if I am wrong, neither of us were using the words promote or advocate to mean or infer that gays have any strategy to undermine heterosexuality, just that the propositions themselves and gay organizations in general are (rightly) promoting themselves in a positive light. You added that ‘recruiting’ interpretation and stuck to it for a while.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1444 hrs
Scott…alright that was funny, but yes xx feel free to butt in if I am wrong, neither of us were using the words promote or advocate to mean or infer that gays have any strategy to undermine heterosexuality, just that the propositions themselves and gay organizations in general are (rightly) promoting themselves in a positive light.
Yes
To say that homosexuals aren’t promoting same sex relationships in an effort to make it ‘the norm’ isn’t true imo.
And I don’t mean ‘the norm’ as in replacing hetero relationships, I just mean ‘the norm’ as in interchangeable/assimilated (sp?)
And there are ALOT of straight people who can accept homosexuals, but the concept of REALLY having them in equal stature (in textbooks, etc) is just utterly unnacceptable.
But having textbooks and education that assimilates it as normal… ya, that’s promoting it, and actually YES I do think it would proliferate homosexuality.
I think scott thinks it wouldn’t. I disagree. (however, I’m still OK with it if it does)
But for people who reject it in textbooks because they don’t want to proliferate homosexuality. I think they are right to think that. And for scott to discount that as a ‘won’t happen’ I think is kidding himself.
(and again, I personally don’t mind the proliferation of homosexuality, if it happens, it happens, I want people to be happy, whatever that entails)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1544 hrs
Xx, do you feel compelled, do you really think you need to “promote” heterosexuality as a lifestyle? It’s just what you are. When you flirt with a woman, you’re presuming she’s straight, but are you “promoting” heterosex?
“The proliferation of homosexuality”? You’re hilarious. A straight boy chasing a straight girl, swimming upstream with beer bottles in their hands, that’s not just sex between two people - it’s a promotional campaign for heterosex! And it’s not fair for those gay organizations to promote themselves in a positive light, like they were real people or something!
When you ask someone, anyone, about their sexuality, they’ll say they just knew who they were, what they were attracted to. Yes, there’s people who have always felt they were 100% straight or 100% gay. Yes, there are people who stay in the closet for a while. Yes, there are people who may identify one way or the other but who did not rule out a little experimentation. Who cares? Must you fit someone in a box? Is there something wrong with change and self-exploration? Indeed, watch some late-night TV commercials. Girls kissing is big business.
Read your Kinsey and many other studies since then, as well as human history. There are lots of men who will swear they’re straight, yet who have a history otherwise.
Posted by John Foust on August 15, 2007 at 1548 hrs
Sheesh, another one! Foust, name the comment and paragraph you got the idea xx is saying or inferring that heteros need to be promoted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1606 hrs
Tuerq, Xx seems to think that by merely existing and living, homosexuals are somehow “promoting their lifestyle.” Yes, that’s what he said in 83, 93, 95, 99.
Posted by John Foust on August 15, 2007 at 1622 hrs
When in fact what they’re promoting is acceptance of their homosexuality, not homosexuality itself.
YES I do think it would proliferate homosexuality.
I think scott thinks it wouldn’t.
You’re right, I don’t agree. How would that work exactly? Walk me through that.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 1632 hrs
See, now in 83, for instance, I read that while continuing to ‘pick him up’ gays will promote their lifestyle in an attempt to get xx to do ‘something’ with them, anecdotes, etc. was my assumption based on my experiences. You can make the assumption that he MEANT that any guy trying to pick up a girl is therefore promoting heterosexualism to the girl, just don’t expect much of an argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1633 hrs
Yeesh - you guys are nuts…..
Homosexuality is not “mainstream”... Best estimates are that, at most, it is less than 10% of the population. Of the remaining 90% of the population, some people are like Scott and John that say - “so what, I don’t care if I see commercials with guys kissing, it makes them feel accepted”. Some are of the “I don’t want to see it because it is an endorsement of a sin” camp.
But the elephant in the room, to be blunt, is the “ick” factor. Sans the porn industry where guys get off on the girl on girl thing - most of “mainstream” or “mainstreet” USA don’t really care if people are gay, but seeing it - in person, or ads, etc - just makes them uncomfortable. ‘Cuz if you aren’t gay, you cannot understand it.
Right wrong or indifferent, homosexuals are a minority (I hate that term, but that’s another conversation) of the population. Outright discrimination for jobs or threats of violence are an embarrassment to society. But that also doesn’t mean that 10% of the population can dictate social agenda for the other 90%.
OK - feel free to eviscerate me now because I actually put what most are feeling in writing…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1637 hrs
At this point I personally would like to again affirm to the people who lost a loved one that though we have taken over this post for segue points unknown, I believe everyone still here does believe the church treated you badly in the way the affair was handled and please accept our condolences.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1640 hrs
by merely existing and living, homosexuals are somehow “promoting their lifestyle.”
sigh… not what i said…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 1640 hrs
Hmm, the “ick” factor. So you’re saying a homosexual might feel the same “ick” when faced with a hetero kiss in a commercial because it’s not their sexual preference, the same way a fundamentalist might object to such horrid blatant sexuality being promoted along with the toothpaste.
It’s a good thing there’s no heterosexual “ick” factors out there. Heaven knows all those heterosexuals are never flaunting it.
Or are we talking about other “ick” factors like the way some people love sushi but others think of it as bait? Commercials for mainstream near-water beers make me throw up a little in my mouth. What can we do about that social agenda?
Posted by John Foust on August 15, 2007 at 1711 hrs
The idea that anyone has a right to go through life pretending that other kinds of people don’t exist doesn’t strike me as a very compelling argument. These people do exist, they do kiss, and there’s no reason for them not to do so in any situation that the rest of us do. The fact that someone is made uncomfortable by it is really their problem. I see no reason why their feelings must be accommodated. In fact, it’s precisely because of the fact that gay people have been closeted so much in recent history that they feel that discomfort. Give it a generation and people will get over it.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 2139 hrs
Give it a generation and people will get over it.
And THAT - boys and girls - is why we get constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage and civil unions passing.
Thanks for the perfect example of pushiness Scott.
Maybe you should remember that the majority of society doesn’t WANT (60% in Wisconsin if I recall correctly) to be re-engineered just cuz you (and John) think it should be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 15, 2007 at 2156 hrs
Pushiness? Where? “Re-engineered”? Help me out here.
Posted by scott on August 15, 2007 at 2225 hrs
I think he means that they’d already engineered it once so homosexuals could be killed/beaten/subverted in other ways, that it’s against the natural order to let them out again.
Posted by John Foust on August 16, 2007 at 0050 hrs
Since when should equality for all require “re-engineering?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2007 at 0830 hrs
You guys are nuts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2007 at 0923 hrs
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why gay Americans are (still!) treated the way they are.
Posted by scott on August 16, 2007 at 0929 hrs
Sigh…..
“killed/beaten/subverted”
I don’t recall ever even coming close to saying that was OK. I honestly don’t care if someone is gay. They should get civil unions. There should be no job discrimination. There should be no threats of bodily harm.
But, since when is it OK for 10% or less of the population to determine social agenda? To require that the other 90% to do/accept what they want. I remember now, only 10% of the population is atheist too…..
In the world of minority rules…. Republicans are the minority of Congress right now - we should let them set the agenda, right?
Or is it just OK if it is an agenda that Scott, John, apc, kr, (insert any liberal here) agrees with? I believe we all know that answer already.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2007 at 0947 hrs
since when is it OK for 10% or less of the population to determine
social agenda?What does “determine social agenda” actually mean?
Posted by scott on August 16, 2007 at 1001 hrs
How about….
The 10% want it to be OK to have two guys making out on a toothpaste commercial (earlier example in the thread) because it will make the 10% feel “accepted” and they want force society to be Ok with looking at it. But there is say, for the sake of argument, 50% of the population that don’t want to see that type of mass media promotion because it is offensive, uncomfortable, don’t want to explain it to their kids, etc….... Before you get your undies in a twist, I have the same issues with overt heterosexual PDAs and the Viva Viagara commercials as well.
Little thinks like that….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2007 at 1015 hrs
The 10% want it to be OK to have two guys making out on a toothpaste commercial
I think the content of commercials is determined by the people who make them, not by some minority group’s “social agenda.” But I think you’re right about one thing. Gay people probably do want society to be OK looking at it. I want that, too. And there’s nothing sinister or underhanded about it. We have the same right as anyone to convince our fellow Americans to see things our way. But we have no more control over what goes on TV than anyone else does. Less, in fact. Gay people are in fact a minority after all.
I don’t see where “determining the social agenda” comes into it. The people with that kind of power aren’t the gays.
Posted by scott on August 16, 2007 at 1029 hrs
I don’t think gay people want to determine the social agenda, they simply want to be considered a part of it, like everybody else. I’m annoyed that poker is on ESPN all the time, but I’m not agitating that there be constitutional amendments to remove it from the social agenda.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 16, 2007 at 1043 hrs
Boy, this is going to get real confusing if someone suggests there oughta be a law about advertisements and kissing and “determining the social agenda” in toothpaste commercials and commercials for 36-hour Cialis and medicine for restless leg syndrome, because after all it’s the commercials where I get all my marching orders, and then there’s the freedom of speech and Fairness Doctrine and licensed use of the airwaves and all that, and the liberal MSM except for the networks where the conservative silent majority has freely expressed itself.
Posted by John Foust on August 16, 2007 at 1521 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 100
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 05:41 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).