Three commentaries on N.C. that are far more moral than Billy Graham’s cruel embrace of ignorance

Each of these commentators also offers a far better understanding of the Bible than you’ll find in Billy Graham’s shameful, pandering advertisements. …

Leonard Pitts Jr.: “Don’t Blame the Bible

Sometimes, people hide inside the Bible.

That is, they use the Christian holy book as authority and excuse for biases that have nothing to do with God. They did this when women sought to vote and when African Americans sought freedom.

They are doing it now, as gay men and lesbians seek the right to be married.

… Many in North Carolina — many around the country — are swimming against the tide of human freedom and blaming God for it. Again, this is not a new thing. We saw it back when God was for segregation and against women’s suffrage.

How convenient it must be to lay your own narrowness and smallness off on God, to accept no responsibility for the niggardly nature of your own soul.

… You don’t go to the Bible to hide. You go there to seek.

Jeffrey C. Pugh: “Who Amendment One is aimed at

Most people who plan to vote for this amendment will do so out of religious convictions. Because of the way that they interpret the Bible they have arrived at a particular abhorrence about homosexuality that they don’t have about divorce, something Jesus addressed directly.

The supporters of this amendment have been told that the family is under attack and must be protected, but from where I sit the only family under attack is mine. From my lesbian aunt, who took her own life in the 1940s because societal pressure was so harsh, to my daughter, my loved ones are the ones who are under attack. People like my daughter are no different than you or I, save for their sexual orientation. They have the same hopes, fears and dreams that the rest of us have.

The people this amendment is aimed at work hard in their communities, seek to live their lives with integrity and hope they will be appreciated for their contributions to society. They are our children, our friends, our brothers and sisters, our parents, and they find it hard to understand why they are so hated, so vilified, that special oppression must be placed on them and their lives. I’m a bit mystified myself.

How is it that those who use the rhetoric of “freedom” so strongly are the same people who are eager to deny civil freedoms to others not like them? Or perhaps freedom belongs only to those who believe they are on the side of the righteous? If this is the case then “freedom” has acquired a very narrowly defined meaning.

My daughter and others like her wish they lived in a world where they weren’t so hated and feared, a world that didn’t work so hard to deny them the freedom to live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, they don’t live in that world; they live in one that restricts the meaning of families to relatively recent norms. If the supporters of the amendment really knew what families looked like in the Bible they would realize that family is a very fluid term, not as fixed as they think.

Alvin McEwen: “NC pastor created lies about gay sex because of his ‘religious views’

Pastor Wooden of Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, NC has been very vocal in his support of the amendment.  In  past interviews, he claimed that gays engage in so much anal sex that they have to wear diapers and also they use instruments such as cell phones as sexual aids: “I know of a case where in a hospital a homosexual male had a cellphone lodged in his anus and as they were operating on him the phone went off, the phone started ringing!”

… Wooden did not supply any evidence of his claim because there was none. Wooden admitted that the only reason he made the claim  was to create an image of the gay community which is conducive to his religious beliefs that gays are immoral sinners.

In other words, Wooden lied. Deliberately and unashamedly.

Wooden was not interested in giving logical reasons why Amendment One should be passed. In fact, Wooden has never been interested in defending Amendment One through logic at all. He has only been interested in pushing Amendment One through any means, even if it meant demonizing the gay community through fear tactics and ugly stories of sex, diapers, and cell phones. And why did he do this? Because his religious beliefs dictated that homosexuality is a sin.

Where in the Bible does it say that Christians should lie in accordance to their beliefs?

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Kotsko on the consequences of a 'moral trump card'
Concordance-ism backfires for anti-gay preacher
Shaking the dust from our feet
White evangelicalism is white nationalism.
  • EllieMurasaki

    Where in the Bible does it say that Christians should lie in accordance to their beliefs?

    Exodus 20:16

  • ReverendRef

    Where in the Bible does it say that Christians should lie in accordance to their beliefs?

    Exodus 20:16

    No . . . Ex. 20:16 says you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor — don’t lie.  Unless I’m missing the point of what you’re saying.

    And on another topic, I’ve said more than once that the only threat to the institution of marriage and families isn’t gay marriage, it’s heterosexual men who can’t keep their pants zipped up.

    Maybe instead of focusing on teh evuls of gays, the religious right ought to focus on keeping women out of the workforce so they can’t tempt men through their wily . . . oh, wait . . . right . . .

    Dear Lord, please make these people go away.

  • EllieMurasaki

     Yeah, you missed my point.

  • ReverendRef

    I kind of thought I might have been . . . There are days when I really shouldn’t try to multi-task; this appears to be one of them.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Yes. “false witness against your neighbor.”

    The definition of just what or who a neighbor is can be, shall we say, very elastic.

  • http://www.joshbarkey.com/ Josh Barkey

    It’s all about the Inscrutable Logic of Literal Interpretations of the Holy Writ: 
    http://www.joshbarkey.com/2012/05/all-hail-bible-down-with-garriage.html

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    That’s not simply lying. Stating that a person/community does something abhorrent when there are no actual facts in evidence simply to vilify said person/community sounds to be like ‘bearing false witness’.

  • supsupersayian2

    Just concerning Pastor Wooden: am i the only one that thinks a man who clearly hates gay men (and, probably any one in the {i think its called} QUILTBAG community) is talking a little too much about what gay men like up the ass? I mean, my gay friends dont talk about it like this. And, the detail. He really seems to be trying to go into as much detail about gaping anus as he can.

    Anyone besides me think the pastor has something to hide?

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ JarredH

    The thing is, this seems to be very common among a lot of anti-gay people.  The number of anti-gay folks who found it necessary to describe my alleged sex life during debates with me in more excruciating detail than I ever have (and I write erotic fiction for fun!) is frightening.

  • EDB

     I’m going to go with “A cell phone”.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    No, you’re not the only one.
    Not by scores.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

    The banner ad at the top of this site right now advertises a book where “Billy Graham answers questions about Heaven.” I think there are some more pressing questions he could answer.

  • WingedBeast

    I’ll bring up the example of Vorbis again*.  The whole “deeper truth” “surface truth” thing, I think, is the very stuff of the difference of opinion we have with Pastor Wooden about what “truth” really is.

    You see, for him, the truth is that God hates homosexuality and anything done to stop it is good.  That is the only truth, to him, or at least the only relevant truth in this context.  Therefore, anything said, whether technically accurate or not, to make homosexual people look bad is “true” for that value of truth.

    You can’t shame such people by calling them liars.  In their own mind, saying these things, even when they outright know them not to be true, aren’t really lies.

    This is where it becomes important to lie.  It’s endemic to any obedience based morality, in that there isn’t reallyl a morality to be had.  There is only what the commanding entity wants and the achieving of that thing.  To suggest it would be immoral to achieve what the commanding entity wants would be self-contradictory to that mindset, regardless of what is done to achieve the commanding entity’s desires.

    *Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett, in which the bad guy, Vorbis, extols to Brutha, the good guy, the virtues of the “deeper truth”.  The “surface truth” is that Vorbis sent out a missionary to convert a city of non-believers.  When the missionary came back a horrible failure, Vorbis had him killed.  The “deeper truth” that he told the rest of his theocratic realm was that the people of that city had killed the missionary.  So, a lie had to be told in order to convince people of the “deeper truth”.

  • Mary Kaye

    I’d guess this is related to the monomaniacal “gay romance is only about sex” theme we hear from many opponents. I don’t know if their heterosexual relationships are in fact only about sex, but it seems unlikely (gods, I hope it’s unlikely)–yet there’s a substantial number of voices arguing that there’s no such thing as gay emotional bonding, commitment, romance, long-term partnership.  And working hard to *make* this true.

    Someone in this debate is obsessed with sex, and despite claims to the contrary, it’s generally not the QUILTBAG side.  “I want to be able to visit my partner in the hospital” is not about putting tab A into slot B, and it’s really deeply offensive to pretend that it is.  (This one hits home for me as my dad has spent a lot of time recently visiting his gay friend in the hospital.  That is not a sexual relationship at all–they are life-long friends but not lovers–but it’s a relationship that shows the kind of love Christianity ought to involve.)

  • Tonio

    Sounds like they’re motivated by simple misogynistic resentment. Plenty of men joke about “the old ball and chain” as if marriage and fatherhood are social obligations. They probably perceive gay men as living the ultimate single life that they wish they once had – one-night stands with no chance of getting their partner pregnant and no expectation of having to relate to women as real human beings.

  • Tonio

     To clarify, I’m not suggesting that these resenters are secretly gay or wish to be gay. That may be true in some cases. I’m suggesting instead that they see homosexuality as a form of slacking or goldbricking.

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

     “I know of a case where in a hospital a homosexual male had a cellphone
    lodged in his anus and as they were operating on him the phone went off,”

    What slanderous rot.  “Phoning it in” doesn’t put anyone in the hospital.  You just need a little bit more lube than you do for vanilla old fisting is all.  None of the lingering internal welts you get from hamster play either.  Never going back to those little scratchy bastards I can tell you. 

  • JustoneK

    poor hamsters.  I’d always hoped that was just a rumor.

  • http://jesustheram.blogspot.com/ Mr. Heartland

    Yeah,  it never did feel right by me, to tell the truth.  I mean going to the vegan rally in the morning and than at night…

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    A whole lot of straight men like stuff in their butts too. So do a whole lot of women. This anal sex obsession among homophobes is therefore off in more ways than one.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    I used to have a link to a forum where emergency room workers traded stories about the weird things that happen in an ER. Always popular are the ones about what people needed removed from various orifices and the excuses they gave as to how it got there. It’s certainly not exclusive to any particular orientation.

  • Korz53

    i want to marry a horse.   it is not  about hate. but reality of what marriage  is  and is not.  there are other laws that one can make for cohabitation with out making marriage in to a sexual lie.

  • JustoneK

    So you’ve found a horse that can consent?

  • Korz53

       I read of a man that wanted to sex a horse and the horse kicked  him and he died; obviously a horse can consent or not and that was a not. No? I’m still looking for one that will not  not consent  and that will be a consent.  i do not want to tie the animal down , that will be rape. don’t be a bigot now , animals have family needs too, and i love  horses . big !~.

  • EllieMurasaki

     So you’ve found a horse that can sign the papers to get married?

  • Korz53

      People who did not know how to write , placed a X or their mark on the paper  with witnesses,  and a legal document was legal. (how smart are you  that you do not know that?)  a horse can mark it with it’s hoof  . 

  • EllieMurasaki

    I am aware that an X or a squiggly line counts as a signature, assuming the person who put the squiggle on the paper knows that the squiggle counts as a signature. (There is a reason why all the documents that come through my employer’s office are required to have the signatory’s name typed or otherwise legible alongside the signature.) But the key part remains “assuming the person who put the squiggle on the paper knows that the squiggle counts as a signature”. Let’s say horses are people (just for sake of argument, you understand). Does your horse understand that signing this paper means becoming, legally, your closest family? Does your horse understand that if you are ever incapacitated without a living will, the doctors will turn to your legal spouse (the horse) to determine your wishes re medical care? Does your horse understand that you and your horse will be able to pay taxes at the married-filing-jointly rate? Does your horse understand a single fucking thing?

    No?

    Didn’t think so. Sorry, you can’t marry your horse.

  • Korz53

       What do some people understand?   about sex that qualifies them to marry or do sex.  They  do not  Know the difference between  fantasy and reality,  placing sperm in to places that will make one sick as with STDs that  can  kill you,  but the sex feeling is more important;   &  or getting   one pregnant   that  nether one wanted; they did not want a   pregnancy, but placed the sperm there anyway.  Than having an abortion or crying that they have a baby that they do not want. Lucky if the child is wanted after the unexpected  pregnancy,[( what a surprise   sex getting one pregnant) dispite the delusion that started the pregnancy  but was not intended by having sex that has the purpose  for  pregnancy .] a horse has more cents ,( have you heard that one,   cents referring to   intelligence ,  horse  has more intelligence than people) . So your are wrong about  the horse!   my  sex partner.

  • EllieMurasaki

     They  do not  Know the difference between  fantasy and reality

    Gee, I wonder who else around here doesn’t know that.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    No surprise that the horse kicked him.  They tend not to like being prodded in the junk in general. 

    But the idea of consent is that it must necessarily be informed.  Does the one offering the consent understand what it is consenting to?  With an adult human, you can establish that, you can talk and communicate, such that both partners understand and agree to what is being done.  But with a creature that lacks language, you cannot make that confirmation.  Of sure, you can ask if it understands and it can make happy noises, but does is that really consent?  Maybe it is just happy that you are paying attention to it? 

    That is why beastiality does not work as an argument in a debate about marriage.  A beast cannot understand what kind of contract it would be entering into. 

  • Korz53

    the horse did know do give a violent no to the intrusion.  i would think it was a no consent in horse language ; gave warrning that the man was not able to understaned .  the horse had horse cents , and that man did not have any  horse cents.

  • JustoneK

    You are a v. silly troll and I am not going to interview you.

  • Tricksterson

    Well, if Mr. Ed was still alive…

  • WingedBeast

    And, the reality is that what marriage is and is not has changed, not just recently but throughout history.

    It has changed from women being chattle and a status symbol that you use to display your superiority via number of wives.  It then changed from being a purely business arrangement where one purchases a primary home-management personelle.  It then changed to a voluntary union of domestic worker/submissive and income-based worker/superior.

    The idea that we have to freeze the laws of marriage so that they are exactly what they are, including any related injustices, for fear that other changes may happen is not only a futile attempt in the first place, but cowardly on the face of it.

  • P J Evans

     And for a while, in the upper classes, it was about politics and mergers: who had property you could marry, or money, or even men-at-arms. Marriage wasn’t romantic, it was business.

  • Korz53

         You are ridiculous. Cleopatra was never chattle,  and she was a woman 1000 yr a go in Egypt,   (you are spurring the  NOW organization’s  sexist  propaganda  ) ; and  she was considered a goddess ; that is far far away from chattle.       and their were many women as she .  Chattle was a class  reference and not sexist one; men were chattle too, to the people  in the  social class  as Cleopatra.

  • Korz53

        Marriage is marriage as 1+1=2 ; and not a debate ; there is nothing to debate about . If you are  who practices what is called gay sex  , See a lawyer and do a contract with your partner on sharing  a home as you like, with some kind of power of attorney clause and you have a  social economic contract  as good as a marriage,  with out the  sexual lie.  Homosexuality is sex  with Man; Man male and Man female. There is no other kind of sex in Mankind! or marriage nor can there be.

  • WingedBeast

    In your mass of posts, 2 responded to me.

    To respond to the first.  You have found one example of a woman who was not treated as chattle.  Yet, you have many examples in cultures including ancient Egypt and ancient Isreal that considered the number of wives to be a status symbol.  “Oh, but there are incidents of this not being true!” misses the point.  There are also many incidents, in fact for the time frame many many more incidents, of this being true.  Thus, marriage has, in fact, changed throughout history.  And, in fact, it’s going to change further whether we acknowledge this in law or not.

    To respond to the second.  You seem to be saying that, by your view, the only sex that counts as sex is 2 person heterosexual sex.  This is your view and your view alone.  Otherwise, homosexual sex and orgies (as we know the word today) would be nigh-impossible to describe.  What’s more, you seem to be saying that marriage is about sex, not love, not a commitment to share lives together in a romantic partnership, just sex.  Again, this only your worldview.

    Rest assured, Korz53, that your worldview does not proscribe anything upon either reality or law.

    Also note that the contracts you imagine working just as well as marriage do not get the same benefits as marriage.  Meaning, a hospital can still deny visitation rights, one member of such a contract can still legally bare witness against the other, etc.  So, in terms of law, which are not terms of either God ordained or Korz53 ordained, it won’t be as good as marriage.

  • Korz53

      Marriage is social and society as a society  decides what its good to  the society to cultivate sexually and or with sex, and what is to be tolerated; and  not for a special interest groups  as you represent , to  impose on the  society your interests  especially  if there will be  costs to society that society will need to   absorb . Sorry. (and that is not hateful)  you need to back off! on this issue.

  • WingedBeast

    1.  What you’re suggesting is that the rights of the minority are thoroughly up to majority vote.  So, you’re pretty much saying that, at any point, you’re philosophically okay with the majority voting your own rights away.

    2.  I’m curious as to what these “costs” to society you imagine are.

    3.  Special interest is meant to suggest that homosexual persons who wish to enjoy pledges of monogamy with the same benefits that heterosexual couples get.  How is that “special interest” not a part of sciety?

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
    And no one can get consent from a horse of course
    That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.  

  • hapax

     “Willlllburrr!  Surely you’rrre not serrrrious!”

  • Korz53

    it was his wife;  Mr Ed  was not homosexual.

  • Tonio

    Don’t be too sure. That was the era when Rock Hudson and Raymond Burr and Tab Hunter pretended to be straight for the moviegoing public while their true orientations were fairly well known inside Hollywood.

  • Tricksterson

    Oh come on, what do you think he and Wilbur got up to when the cameras were off?

    So folks, I think we’re being Poed here what do you think?

  • VMink

    Can the horse consent?  Is it capable of saying ‘I do’ in a manner that is consistent with someone who is self-aware and not under coercion?  If so, then that’s quite surprising, seeing as only humans have exhibited that level of sapience.  Sadly, though, no: A horse — or any animal — is not capable of this sort of granting of consent.  B-2.

    So let’s cut you off at the pass since I BET you’re going to say something about pedophilia and incest!  Those and bestiality are always the three gatling gun barrels the opponents of marriage equality try to take aim with.

    Children and relatives are sapient and self-aware, unlike a horse.  But can a child consent?  Depends on the child, but in general, until they’re about 18-ish, children aren’t generally considered capable of making their own decisions — certainly not life-changing decisions like marriage or sex. At which point, of course, they’re not longer a child.  B-3.

    With incest there is almost invariably a power disparity which renders moot any ability of one party to say that they are capable of making a decision without coercion.  Especially if they are blood family — one is older or has a superior role in the family, for example.  It is impossible to have what we consider to be a healthy relationship when there is such a power disparity inherently in place.  (In addition there are generally concerns about the progeny if the couple is capable of producing any, but let’s leave that be for now, since marriage isn’t always about makin’ babies/having sex, right?  Side-note: OM NOM acknowledged this in the recent Prop 8 court case.)  B-5.

    Finally, marriage isn’t about sex (necessarilly.)  It is about power of attorney.  It is about visitation rights.  It is about health insurance coverage.  It is about being able to say that you are with someone you love.  It is about being able to take care of your loved one in case something happens to you and you can no longer support them, through life insurance and survivors’ claims.  It is about a hundred-plus things that the state allows for married couples by the simple expedient of saying ‘I do,’ and signing on the dotted line — stuff that most jurisdictions conveniently ignore for anything other than heterosexual couples, or grant people only after going through virtual death marches of bureaucracy.

    B-4.  I sank your battleship, jackwagon.

  • Korz53

       Animal do consent as they do  also deny sex to one another , some consent  and are sex partners  for a life time. you are just a bigot to Animal intelligence and their sexuality.  you jumped the gun on children;  did not come to that idea , and for pedophilia, they say as homosexual say that they are  pedophila and that is who they are , and it is natural to them,   that  they were born that way ….. etc. etc. etc. ,,,,…..;  like the proud  MBLA.   need children to LOVE .  not love; perversion with sex , not sex they masturbate them. ( if they loved the child , the children; they would not sodomize them!) sin and sinning with out repentance on the child.   We will have if not already  beside MBLA , man boy  love association; have also – MGLA  man girl love association and WBLA woman boy love association  and WGLA  woman girl love assosiation too . Oh ! it will be so gay !!!.    so much LOVE and LOVING! and my favorite group man animal love association!~MALA.~  and not forgeting WALA. woman animal love assosiation.

  • JonathanPelikan

    It took me a bit to figure out what your comment was intended to say because it was written and crafted poorly.

    Get the fuck out.

  • Korz53

     good idea; as Abraham and Lot; you go and i go the other way;  so they whent and there was no more fighting. you fuck to much anyways.  fuck is your word i give it;  the word back to you , you keep it.   But do not think that people are as smart as Abraham and separate.   they will hold to sin instead and not be as he and Lot. tobad. God will provide a way out as with Abraham despite ourselves and our sin nature By his Lamb the Christ.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira


    with out making marriage in to a sexual lie

    What? No, seriously, what is this supposed to mean? I’ve puzzled and puzzled but cannot figure this out. Are you saying people should not marry people they’re sexually attracted to? 

  • VMink

    Of course not; people should marry people they can dominate or submit to, as appropriate.  What is this ‘love’ you speak of, hew-mon?

  • Korz53

          Are you serious?  or just do not know what a marriage is.  Marriage is a social sexual legal contract , that is inforced by law the obligation of the marriaged people to one another and  to the society that licensed them; for the security  and to  the well being of the parties of that marriage  and there institution that they engaged in as a marriage that society cultivates for it’s nations well being. 

       You  are stating ” Are you saying people should not marry people they’re sexually attracted to? ” .  It is a requirement to marry one you can have sex with,  pleasant sex will be even better ; and a marriage  requires sex or it is not a legal marriage.  it was once a requirement and may still be in some places  , that  a marriage is not legal untill it is consummated .     

        Sex is important to a marriage do to marriage is mostly  about sex.   To love and have a good friend in your partner will be even better,  but not a requirement. Marriage  is not a feeling , prostitute or their   clients do not look to  marry one another  , do to sexual  attraction , the  prostitute want only the money;  and  clients  want the attraction  sexual.   Children masterbate and so do adults , and that is not a possible marriage do to it has  not a possible consummation. 

       Sex is two parts of Man coming together  Man male and Man female  in a biological union that  marriage call  a union to a one body.  like a puzzle piece it must click together and make one piece.  There are people who find animals sexy ,  but that is no marriage even if    it is sexually attracted to them;  same as for what is called homosexuality; do to   homosexuality can not click in to  a biological sexual  union .( to call it a marriage will be a lie, a sexual lie) .

  • EllieMurasaki

    It is a requirement to marry one you can have sex with,  pleasant sex will be even better

    Oh, so you support gay people getting gay married, because gay people can’t have pleasant sex with members of the opposite sex. Gotcha.

    marriage is mostly  about sex

    If you are married, or ever do marry? I pity your spouse. I truly do.

  • Korz53

      if it was sex you will be right; but it is only pleasant masturbation  and not sex.  masturbation is not a marriage .

  • EllieMurasaki

     If it involves two people and at least one set of genitals, it’s sex. Masturbation is by definition a solo act.

  • Korz53

      no. half a cookie may be a cookie , and you can eat it ; but half a car is not a car , it won’t go for a ride!  Weeeeeeeeee!!!   no. Weeeeeeee! won’t go.  Masterbation has some weeeeeeee ! but it will not go. not sex. something to do with sex as a organ but not the act. the act is the sex .
    .

  • EllieMurasaki

    no. half a cookie may be a cookie , and you can eat it ; but half a car
    is not a car , it won’t go for a ride!  Weeeeeeeeee!!!   no. Weeeeeeee!
    won’t go.  Masterbation has some weeeeeeee ! but it will not go. not
    sex. something to do with sex as a organ but not the act. the act is the
    sex .

    If you’re going to insist on absurd metaphors, gay sex is more like cookie dough. Better than cookies or het sex. (But then I’m bi leaning lesbian. The hell do I know.)

  • JustoneK

    but you run into bacterial problems with cookie dough.

    this whole analogy thing is getting gross.

  • EllieMurasaki

     http://www.grouprecipes.com/66660/ok-to-eat-raw-cookie-dough.html

  • JustoneK

    THE LIBERAL MEDIA HAS BEEN LYING TO ME.
    I wonder if that’s about the same as what’s in those movie candy cookie dough bite things.
    …great now I crave more sugar.

  • Tonio
  • VMink

    You want I should sink your destroyer, too?  Okay, fine, but only because you asked nicely.

    During the Prop 8 case, NOM attempted to assert that marriage is solely for the puprose of procreation and therefore homosexuals shouldn’t marry because they can’t make babies.  Under cross-examination, the expert witness that NOM called to make this assertion, admitted that people do marry for reasons other than procreation — for example, women after menopause (D-7), men and women who enter into marriage with known fertility issues (F-7), women and men who have had surgical birth control entering into a first or second (or later) marriage (E-7, BOOM.)

    Bonus Round: Your Patrol Boat.  In addition, the expert witness admitted under cross examination that there is no difference in quality of care between a child raised by same-sex parents and a child raised by opposite-sex parent (A-3).  In fact, he admitted that in some cases, a child raised by same-sex parents can have better quality of care than opposite-sex parents (A-2, BOOM.)

    Your fleet is looking rather shaky there, Admiral.

  • Korz53

       Do to Man is Man male and Man female ; it is only natural for the two halfs to unite to a one unit in marriage , usually it is to have a family with children; but not required by law that one is to reproduce, no such law but only in your silly unnatural arguments of fiction base arguments for  the unnatural union.  Sin is under the Law, not reproduction;  and the penalty of sin is death.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

     Your words are meaningless drivel, the insane ramblings of a ridiculous, second-rate intellect. I would rather burn in Hell than spend an eternity trapped in Heaven with creatures like you worshiping the sick, Monster-God you choose to grovel before.

  • Korz53

        God I Am That I Am  is Just and Holy in righteousness .  Wonderful ; wondeful beyond my understanding.  You can vilify that what is Just  & righteous,  but it will not change righteousness of God. God will not be on the cross again for a lie from the devil.  Man is out from under the law and is in  hand with the Lamb.  they that do not want to be with God  are free to go  their way but the law is out there as a lion  looking to kill under the law .  God can not go against  someone’s will and desires ; God only can plead with them that do not repent from sin; But to seek God and know God , choose life. The law will see only sin and the penalty of sin is death to it.  Choose life.   One groveling before the Devil and all the addiction and tyranny the Devil imposes in the lie. God is Love, and Loving.  Spoiled children have bad manner as to hold their breath and turn blue in the face   so as to make a loving parent to do what is not to be done;  and saying  in their tantrum ” ma me ma me !!! you don’t love me!!! .    silly children , love can not be used as a tool to get what is not good to get. Sorry.

  • VMink

    Oh, please.  ‘The penalty of sin is death.’  Come on!  Poe or not, if you’re going to get all Gothic and threatening at me, at least say something other than reworded Bible verses and inchoate rambling.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    You know, you really are coming across like a Poe.  Not so much because of your view, but because of the way you present it.  Your words ramble in a way that makes it difficult to understand what you are trying to communicate, other than some very vague ideas about homosexuality and sin.  I can only assume that such incoherence is deliberate, because any earnest attempt to argue your point would necessarily have to be clear enough to get that point across. 

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Of all the stupid and absurd attempts at a “gotcha”, you come up with marrying your freakin’ horse?

    Why not get creative and talk about marrying your bacterial colony or something?

    News flash:

    Members not of the species homo sapiens above a designated age are not deemed capable of consenting in any meaningful way.

    I could say, “Hello, my pet dog, would you like to get married?” and the “arf” in response could be for any reason at all. That’s not consent, especially when the dog has no grasp of the human concept of marriage.

    It’s not like getting a pleased bark when you say you’re taking your dog for a walk, because that concept, the dog can grasp. “Walk” is a sound they associate with being able to go outside and run and play and do stuff. That’s a far cry from “married”.

    tl;dr: Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    I actually encountered a homophobe who insisted loudly and repeatedly that cats can and do consent to sex with humans, in order to call people stupid for using consent in their arguments. 

    WHen someone is willing to go around shouting about how his cat consents to sex with him as part of his argument against gay rights, I think logic has given up and gone home (Ironically, he was a hardcore aristotelian, who kept falling back on the idea that homosexuality was wrong for teleological reasons)

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    I observe that most people are far more disturbed by the idea of someone having sex with an animal than the idea of someone killing and eating that animal.

    I infer that most of that disturbance is due less to ideas about consent, and more to ideas about sexual purity. After all, it’s not like the animal consents more to being killed and eaten.

    It does not surprise me, therefore, that to someone who also sees queer sex as a violation of sexual purity, the two seem very similar, and consent feels like a red herring.

  • Tricksterson

    But it was a female cat!  That makes all the difference!

  • Korz53

       How stupid are you?  a dog is not human to understand human marriage! you are the human , the smart one. Go to Australia and or Africa study the wild dog packs and court the dog the dog’s way . Did you ever have a dog on your leg  trying to sex it , but you will not let it; let it have some sex and then dog  court it as you will see in the wild  how the pack  looks for a mate , mostly with smell, and it will accept you as it’s mate (consenting in a dog way  ; you need to study dog ) , than you can adopt some puppies  and the dog will have a family and soon you will have a pack of your own!  

  • EllieMurasaki

    a dog is not human to understand human marriage!

    Precisely the fucking point.

  • Korz53

       Go to Australia and or Africa study the wild dog packs and court the dog the dog’s way . it will understand and  consent &   mate as it would with the other dogs .  dogs do give consent to one another  before sex ; if you understand ; you can get a consent too .  Animals are not as dumb or stupid  about sex as you think . They give and refuse sex accordingly;  i prefer horse ; big big !  have not been lucky yet.

  • Tricksterson

    At least he didn’t go with goat.  For some reason they always seem to go with goat.

  • friendly reader

    I especially love Jeffrey C. Pugh’s final line there, because I’d say a large part of the reason I hold the views I do is because my parents fulfilled their baptismal vows of, when I can of age (8), placing in my hands the holy scripture. I started in the middle (Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes) but then moved to Genesis, and one of the first words I had to learn there was “concubine.”

    Really changes your perspective on the permanency of the institution of marriage.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

    The problem with Wooden isn’t that he’s a liar or that he bears false witness.  It’s that he’s not really a Christian. He is what Jesus would have referred to as a false prophet, a “whited sepulcher.” He’s what the Apostle John was talking about when he said “antichrists.” Until Christians who actually think the world “Christian” should mean “Christ-like” instead of “Pharisee-like” will stand up and denounce the Woodens of the world as the false Christians and agents of Satan that they are, there will be no hope for mainstream Christianity in this country.

  • swbarnes2

    “The problem with Wooden… it’s that he’s not really a Christian.”

    As, so this is apparently how all Chrsitians roll… declaring that people who believe that Jesus is the son of God and died on the cross to redeem the sins of man aren’t “Real True Christians” unless they also hold one political stance or another.

    I thought based on my readings of the’ Left Behind’ critiques that that was frowned on here. But the ‘likes’ argue otherwise, so I guess I was wrong.

  • EllieMurasaki

    As, so this is apparently how all Chrsitians roll… declaring that
    people who believe that Jesus is the son of God and died on the cross to
    redeem the sins of man aren’t “Real True Christians” unless they also
    hold one political stance or another.

    Here I thought ‘Christian’ meant ‘follower of Christ’. Kind of hard to follow Christ while failing to do everything he said to do and doing everything he said not to.

  • WingedBeast

    To an atheist or any other non-believer it doesn’t strike us as saying “this person doesn’t really follow Christ” so much as saying “As far as the reputation of how belief in Christ affects one’s behavior, I’m editing this guy out in order to make the whole appearance pristine.”

    It may work if you’re within a Christian only audience and they all accept that Christianity is following Christ’s desires, rather than a statement of belief.  But, even there it assumes that everybody agrees on what Christ’s desires are.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *shrugs* I am an atheist.

  • WingedBeast

    My mistake for assuming, then.  Sorry.

    But, the point reads the same.  The statement of who is or is not a “true Christian” just has too much baggage associated with it to solely mean “this person isn’t acting in accordance with what Jesus of the bible said.”

  • VMink

    How is an issue surrounding the rights of a minority considered a ‘political stance’ and not one of compassion or lack thereof?

    Moreover, if it is a political stance (and you should be ashamed for trying to frame it that way) then what is a priest doing  pontificating on a political issue from the pulpit?  Or are you just going to admit that you don’t believe in the Establishment Clause?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

    I am not a Christian. I consider myself an agnostic because I cannot exclude the possibility that there is a Supreme Being who created our universe for purposes of Its own, even though I categorically reject the idea that any of the world’s religions have a clue what It is all about or what It wants for us. In my post, I merely noted that if one considers a particular course of action to be
    grossly contrary to how one thinks a fellow Christian should act, one should probably make a bigger show of saying “This is not Christian behavior!” than to link to someone else’s blog post if one wants to move the religion as a whole in the direction of one’s own beliefs. Certainly, those on Rev. Wooden’s side of the fence don’t hesitate to condemn left-wing Christians as not being “Real True Christians” as you yourself have noted. Indeed, Patheos itself refuses to categorize this blog as an evangelical blog despite Fred’s repeated self-identification as an Evangelical, instead banishing it to the left-wing ghetto of “Progressive Christian,” a category that most Real True Christians lump together with the Atheists and the Wiccans. So I fail to see why anyone who is revolted by the hate-filled bigotry of the Wooden/Graham/Gallagher wing of the Church should hesitate to condemn them as being “anti-Christ.”  Certainly, I would never consider coming back to the Church just to sit on the periphery with all the other “not quite Real True Christians” and listen to bigots whisper behind my back about “apostasy” and whatnot, nor would I ever consider returning to the hate-ruled death cult that rules most Christian congregations today.

    As for why I keep coming back here, honestly, I’m just waiting patiently for the return of Left Behind.

  • Korz53

    ( i like agnostics;  They are honest to their beliefs and express it honestly)   

      They who you mentioned know what they are doing ; they are not dumb.  They want to stir the pot with stupid comments  as to get a desired political  response’ . They that respond in or with hate and or exaggerated animation    only   serve their purpose to that agitation ;  it is to provoke .   They do get under the skin;  they want that, and the response to it.

  • swbarnes2

    People should hesitate to call self-labeled Christians who hold different political beliefs “anti-christians” because that claim isn’t supported by evidence.  You’d rather score rhetorical points than be accurate?

    If amendment 1 passes, it will be because thousands and thousands of self-labeled Christians who sincerely believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he died on the cross to redeem the sins of mankind, and who do not believe that allowing equality is required, or even allowable in their belief system, voted for it.  That’s the hard truth, and defining away all those people and the advocates of that position as not Real True Christians is simply not honest.  There is no platonically pure or correct doctrine we can compare to to see what is “really Christian”, all we can do is look at what the body of self-labeled believers believes, and see what beliefs are held, and how widely.  Empirically, being anti-gay is a Christian position.    It’s a pointlessly cruel one, one that is not supported by the facts of human biology, or psychology, or sociology.  And all of that might make it very contrary to the way many people personally interpret Christian theology, but that doesn’t make it “anti-Christian”.

  • P J Evans

     Then they’re doing a piss-poor job of following Jesus. He said that the second most important commandment is to love your neighbor as your self, and passing that damned amendment is a shining example of DOIN IT RONG.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Alexander/502988241 Alan Alexander

     “People should hesitate to call self-labeled Christians who hold
    different political beliefs “anti-christians” because that claim isn’t
    supported by evidence.  You’d rather score rhetorical points than be
    accurate?”

    That’s funny. Because, ya know, Barack Obama is a self-labeled Christian who holds different political beliefs from the Christian Right. And the suggestion that he is literally the Antichrist has been widespread for the last three years, though mercifully, most of them are content to just deny his Christianity, his citizenship and his intellect, so I guess that’s all right.

    To answer your question, no, I don’t care about “accuracy” when attempting to express my hatred and hostility towards people I consider to be evil. If that means hurting the tender fee-fees of bigots by denying their claim to be Christians, then boo-hoo. If Christianity as a whole is fairly represented by the hate-filled bigots who just overwhelmingly voted to ban any recognition of gay partnerships in North Carolina, then we’d all be better off if Constantine had gone with Mithraism instead.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    As, so this is apparently how all Chrsitians roll…

    Of course, because clearly one person can speak for all Christians. /sarcasm

    Plenty of right-wing Christians would insist that I am not a Christian, because (for example) I don’t believe in the virgin birth, and am not a Trinitarian. But I certainly don’t think that they speak for all (other) Christians because I recognize that “Christians” are a massive and incredibly diverse group.

  • Dash1

    As is so often the case, Roy Zimmerman says it best. (Version with a rather nice slide show here.

    And, just a thought, if you ever need to borrow someone’s cell phone and the Rev. Wooden offers to let you use his–well, I wouldn’t.  

  • Charityb

    What I don’t get is why these people think that we all want to be a part of their bestiality fetish. If you want to bang horses or dogs or any other four-legged critter, that’s your thing. Stop dragging it into discussions about unrelated political and social issues. Really, you’re not contributing anything. There is such a thing as a time and a place.

  • ConservativeWhitebread

    It’s conflating adult humans with non-humans.  S’very othering, come to think.

  • Mary Kaye

    One of the reasons I enjoy roleplaying games is the opportunity to get inside the head of someone from a very different culture.  So I thought it would be interesting to ask my fantasy-Borgia player character what she thought about gay marriage.  (She is about to make a purely political marriage–she’s 19, he’s 58, and the extent of her affection is that she told a confidante “I know it might be expedient to kill him, but I’m fond of him so I’d rather not if I don’t have to.”)

    Her first thought is “Dynastic marriages are supposed to tie families together via shared bloodlines in the children.  No children, no point.  Just take a lover if you want a same-sex partner.”

    Her second thought, on more consideration, is “Well, same-sex marriage could work for making alliances, especially if one partner had pre-existing children the other could adopt.  If both are childless it would seem simpler to adopt one of them into the other’s family directly.”  (Her society practices adoption of adults, especially when someone lacks an heir.)  “But maybe if you didn’t want to go with adoption because both partners were more or less equally highly placed…hm.  I don’t see why not, actually.”  Followed by a burst of giggles as she imagines marrying her two chief political adversaries to one another.  She *is* nineteen and sometimes shows it.

    Her third thought:  “The noble families are dying out as it is; our birthrate is too low and we kill each other off too often.  I’d hate to discourage childbearing, so this had better come with cast-iron contracts about having to produce and legitimate some kids.  Legal concubinage might be the way to go.  Given that, I’m happy to legalize it as soon as I become Mayor.”  Evil grin.  There are a lot of things she’ll do as soon as she becomes Mayor, most of them more alarming than this.

    Will it make people happy?  Will it contribute to their virtue?  What silly questions!

    In any case, her point is that in her social stratum–and it’s a fantasy society but real-world models are not far to find–marriage is not about partnership between individuals, it’s about alliance between families.  Obviously marriage rules and ideas that originated in her society would not fit well in ours or vice versa.  We barely mean the same thing by the word!

  • Tricksterson

    I don’t know whether to give you a standing ovation or suggest that you have way too much time on your hands.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I actually encountered a homophobe who insisted loudly and repeatedly that cats can and do consent to sex with humans, in order to call people stupid for using consent in their arguments.

    Cats can and do consent to sex with humans, huh?  I assume that this guy has rigourously tested this assertion, then?  After all, if one makes an argument, one must have something to back it up, right? 

    Of course they would, the argument would be hollow and stupid otherwise. 

  • renniejoy

    OT – Fred, thank you, thank you for taking away the stuff that made the blockquotes so hard to read!! :)

  • cyllan

    Can we please not respond to the troll? Pretty please? Or at least insist that the troll improve hir grammar and spelling before we respond?

  • JustoneK

    It’s a pretty weird syntax altogether, but I was genuinely curious as to the trolliness here at first.  First comment I thought was from a spambot.

  • Amanda

    You know, I really have never understood the “we shouldn’t have gay marriage because homosexual men are such slutty perverts!” argument.

    It seems to me like when horny heterosexual teenagers are having promicuous sex, conservatives seem to think the antidote to this is by promoting marriage. The antidote to things like STD’s and teen pregnancy is to get these kids married off earlier.

    But then when homosexual people are acting in a similar fashion, this is a reason to not have gay marriage? Why does it suddenly work in the exact opposite way?

    Besides, if they’re already shoving phones up their asses, then how is letting them get married going to make it so they do that MORE? If they’re so immoral and promiscuous and only care about sex, why do they even want to get married to begin with? Because isn’t marriage all about fidelity and monogamy and stuff? (At least according to them?)

    It doesn’t make sense at all. The only think I can think of is that they’re just trying to “other” homosexual people. I’m straight, but I have some gay friends, and as far as I can tell, their relationships are pretty much the same as heterosexual ones. I’ve known both gay and straight people who are really kinky, both gay and straight people who are not kinky at all, both gay and straight people who are polyamorous, both gay and straight people who are monogamous, both gay and straight people who want kids and those that don’t want kids.

    And I also think people are onto something when they say patriarchy has something to do with it too. In a marriage, you have to have a MAN, who is in charge, and a WOMAN, who is submissive to him. If you have two men, that means that one of the men has to be the woman, and that’s just wrong, and likewise if you have two women, then one of those women have to be the man of the house, and that’s just wrong as well. Same thing if you have a heterosexual couple where both partners work, or, Heaven forbid, the woman works and the man is a stay at home dad. That’s just NOT DONE.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    If they’re so immoral and promiscuous and only care about sex, why do they even want to get married to begin with? 

    As I understand the worldview, it goes something like this:

    I don’t actually want to get married.

    What I want, really, is to destroy the institution of Real True Marriage, and one of my many devious insidious techniques for doing this is to replace it with Fake Marriage and hope nobody notices. 

    More generally, I want to destroy everything in the world that exemplifies and demonstrates purity (like Real True Marriage does, but Fake Marriage doesn’t). This is because, being myself impure, I can’t stand to be reminded of purity at all. It’s also because, if I can trick all of you into impurity, then none of you will be in a position to condemn me.

    So by getting married, I’ve taken one small step towards destroying everything good and true and right about society.

    Of course, I don’t actually know that’s what I’m doing. I actually think that my relationship with my husband is something good and true and right. But that just shows how far gone into depravity I really am.

  • Korz53

       You are so silly. Most want to  get married  in the homosexual community do to it is a good social structure  with good benefits.    but a fish can be put in to a fish tank and not a salamander; that salamander will get out and fall down and dry up in the long run, and the fish do not like the company of none fish in the fish tank anyway. Birds of a feather flock together .   i’m a Cossack living in the city, and i do want a horse so bad! 

      There are some in politics and in science that do want to social engineer some Frankenstein society were the individual will be nothing more than a unit with no personal sexual authority   or meaningful sexual  privilege  do to all will  be in the hands of science and politician in the reproduction in something as  like test tubes; so there be no  need for  a traditional marriage then.

       Some of what you write is true; but nothing to do with Homosexual wants for  a traditional marriage.

  • ConservativeWhitebread

    Again with that insistence that a traditional marriage is what everyone else wants in the first place.

    You are incredibly bored, eh?

  • Dan Audy

    You need to up your game Fred.  The trolls and Poes we have been getting lately are seriously substandard, just the leftover bits from the butchering of a real troll.  

  • http://thoughtsonroleplaying.blogspot.com/ Sereg

    Oh, what a lovely troll. I was actually having a fairly depressed morning, but not after that  “Weeeeeeeeee!!” comment.

    Maybe I’ll get in my car and go for a drive. Weeeeeeeeee!!! And then masturbate.

    (Not at the same time; that wouldn’t be safe.)