What dominionists would do with gays, part 2 – Enter Bryan Fischer

Right Wing Watch first reported that Bryan Fischer today answered my question from yesterday asking what dominionists would do with gays.

Fischer: Both of the cases that went to the United States Supreme Court that dealt with the issue of whether states should criminalize sodomy, and of course they still ought to be able to do it, every state in the union criminalized sodomy until 1962 and then forty nine states until 1972, then they began to fall like dominoes. But by the time of the founding until the late 20th Century, homosexual activity was a felony offense in the United States of America, there is no reason why it cannot be a criminal offense once again, absolutely none.

I think the Supreme Court would object to Mr. Fischer’s assertion that homosexual activity could be recriminalized.

See also:

See also Part 1 and Part 3 in the series about what dominionists would do with gays. Part 1 examines the differences between New Apostolic Reformation dominionists and the Christian Reconstructionist variety. Part 3 examines what one thread of dominionist (theonomic Christian Reconstructionists) would do with anyone who failed to keep Mosaic law – e.g., adulterers, blasphemers, idolators, disobedient children, etc.

  • Jamie O’Neilll

    Dr Throckmorten, what you say here isn’t really true. The SCOTUS has thus far given two contradictory answers to the question of criminalizing sodomy: Bowers 1986 (allowed to be legal) and Lawrence 2003 (not allowed to be legal, with exceptions). Lawrence overturned Bowers, of course; but there is nothing to say that that ruling can’t or won’t be overruled again. Lawrence was ruled 6–3. All a change in the constitutional law would require is two new justices, and a new case. Mr. Fischer’s assertion is not impossible at all. It hangs, as he well knows, on a 6–3 thread. 6–3 is the chance, even in America, of freedom.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Jamie, Well if you are looking at rolling things bck let’s not stop with sodomy, let’s roll all the way back, re-institute Jim Crow laws. Every single court case that is within the last 2 years based on DISCRIMINATION against United States Citizens who are, gay, lesbain, bi-sexual or transgender has been WON by the gays. Take the hint. I cannot adequately express how angry your comment hs made me.

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Jamie, Warren

    Realistically, how much of a threat to democracy are these ‘dominionists’? They make a lot of noise, and clearly have a following, but are they ‘serious players’? (Over here, most of us Brits tend to see them as cranks and nutcases – are we underestimating them?)

  • http://www,comingout4christians.net Dave

    @ Jamie … The Supreme Court reversing itself is not typically an easy thing to do. Legal precedent comes into play here.

    At any rate I don’t think that is the main point of the post. The main point is that folks like Fischer would apparently be totally happy with criminilizing/recriminilizing this. Makes one wonder how they view the mess in Uganda. It also makes one wonder why they aren’t equally motivated to make other things that they consider to be sexually immoral illegal as well.

    As a Christian I find the whole push to codify into law what certain Christians believe a bit disturbing. It is not IMO the focus that Christianity should have.

    Dave

  • Ken

    Jamie O’Neilll# ~ Aug 30, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    “Lawrence overturned Bowers, of course; but there is nothing to say that that ruling can’t or won’t be overruled again.”

    Except history. To my knowledge the SCOTUS has never restricted rights by overturning a previous ruling that expanded them, as you suggest.

    The closest it has come to that is allowing restrictions on abortion, but it still hasn’t actually overturned Roe v. Wade.

    The probability that a future court would overturn Lawrence v. Texas and allow anti-sodomy laws (or just those targeted at same-gender couples) is low enough to be effectively 0%. Anyone who thinks otherwise is as delusional as Fischer is.

  • http://www.goodasgay.com Jacob Woods

    Fischer continues to be a right wing nut job!

  • Mary

    Well if you are looking at rolling things bck let’s not stop with sodomy, let’s roll all the way back, re-institute Jim Crow laws. Every single court case that is within the last 2 years based on DISCRIMINATION against United States Citizens who are, gay, lesbain, bi-sexual or transgender has been WON by the gays

    Seriously, let’s not confuse the Black Codes or Jim Crow laws with being gay, transgender, or whatever. Secondly, these battles were not won by gays – they were won by Americans who stand for freedom. With that said, some people do really believe in freedom and that means freedom to practice a religion even if you don’t agree.

  • Teresa

    Mary, I don’t understand your latest comment on this thread. I understand that reversal of Jim Crow Laws or Black Codes were not won by ‘gays’, per se; but, by many Americans … however, the caveat must be given that SCOTUS is NOT many Americans or even most Americans, at times.

    But, what does your comment mean about “some people really believe in freedom and that means freedom to practice a religion even if you don’t agree”?

    Is someone here saying Bryan Fischer shouldn’t have the freedom to practice his religion? Is that what you’re implying?

  • Richard Willmer

    Some might argue that Fischer is failing to practise the religion he professes. I certainly would.

    Is he ‘free’ to behave as he does? Yes – but that freedom should be curtailed were he to become a threat to civilized norms as shaped through democratic processes.

  • stephen

    And Goebels would do with jews?

  • StraightGrandmother

    Yes Theresa, me too waiting for Mary to come back and clarify. I didn’t get what she wrote.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Teresa, sorry to mispell your name frequently I have a sister in law named Theresa, oops!

  • Mary

    Teresa,

    I am saying that of course the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes were horrible. they cannot be compared to gay and lesbian rights because they occurred over a different issue, in a different period of history, and specifically by the Southern States. I happen to be a Yankee and proud of that heritage.

    The other part that gay rights have been won by all americans is a statement that says not only did gay and lesbians benefit from those laws they were not fought and won ONLY by gays and lesbians. Obviously, many who are not gay and lesbian had to be supporters of these new legislative movements to even pass.

    And I am so amazed that a straight grandmother would be angry that Bryon Fischer and whomever – even though – we may disagree with them – are even telling him about American History incorrectly and further amazed that they are angry that he assumes his right to try and practice his religion.

  • http://www,comingout4christians.net Dave

    Bryan Fischer can believe whatever he wants ..but when Bryan Fischer practicing his religion/beliefs involves ciriminilizing someone else for practicing their beliefs then .. yes .. people are going to be angry with him.

    I think you might be forgetting here that there are indeed Christians who are fully affirming of gay marriage and gay sex. Now I may not agree with that but I don’t know that a political rampage is neccessary. There are many things that Christians disagree about without declaring political war ..

  • Mary

    Dave – I don’t like what what’s his name stand for either. And I would use the system to try and prevent criminalization of homosexuality. But get angry – no. I would being doing what he is doing.

  • http://aebrain.blogspot.com Zoe Brain

    Every single court case that is within the last 2 years based on DISCRIMINATION against United States Citizens who are, gay, lesbain, bi-sexual or transgender has been WON by the gays.

    Gays yes. Trans and Intersex – no, the last victory was Schroer, over two years ago (though that was a biggie).

    Unbroken losses since then for them, the last one the Araguz case in Texas, invalidating the marriage of a TS woman.

  • stephen

    Mary = Maazi.

  • Mary

    Seriously? That’s just silly.

  • Richard Willmer

    Mary has, I believe, made clear that she is opposed to the criminalization of consensual sexual relations; ‘Maazi’ is in favour of (selective, of course) criminalization.

  • http://www,comingout4christians.net Dave

    Mary# ~ Aug 31, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    Dave – I don’t like what what’s his name stand for either. And I would use the system to try and prevent criminalization of homosexuality. But get angry – no. I would being doing what he is doing.

    What exactly is he doing that you would be doing? .. Would you be vilifying a group of people.? Would you be telling lies about them? Would you falsely connect them to Nazi’s and stir up fear against them?? I don’t think you would do any of these things .. but this is what he does. Don’t you think people have reason to be angry at him for this? Anger is a normal human response to a real or perceived threat. If I were gay I would most certainly rightly feel threatened by this individual. As a straight Christian I still feel threatened at the misrepresentation of Christ that I see here. Based on this I think there are things to be angry about here.

    So your response puzzles me .. and I am hoping you will take the time to clarify what you mean.

    Blessings and peace,

    Dave

  • Richard Willmer

    I agree with Dave that Fischer’s misrepresentation of Christianity is something that needs to be robustly opposed; it certainly appears that he (Fischer) wants to use his ‘religion’ to advance a narrow and insidious agenda, and not just on this particular issue, of course.

  • Ken

    Mary# ~ Aug 31, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    “they cannot be compared to gay and lesbian rights because they occurred over a different issue, in a different period of history, and specifically by the Southern States.”

    Odd, I thought I had responded to this comment already.

    the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar. You need only compare the arguments against gay marriage with those against inter-racial marriage to see that. while there are certainly some differences, to say that they can’t be compared indicates a lack of understanding about the causes for both movements.

  • Joe

    -the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar.-

    In what way are skin color and sexual behavior similar?

    -You need only compare the arguments against gay marriage with those against inter-racial marriage to see that.-

    All human beings are equal regardless of skin color Vs redefining marriage as simply romantic feelings?

    -while there are certainly some differences, to say that they can’t be compared indicates a lack of understanding about the causes for both movements.-

    Again, a skin color Vs. a sexual activity…causes?

  • Pingback: What dominionists would do with gays (disobedient children, sabbath breakers, etc.), Part 3 — Warren Throckmorton

  • Pingback: What Would Dominionists Do With Gays? — Warren Throckmorton

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    Joe,

    We’re not talking about “sexual activity.” We’re talking about a segment of humanity that falls in love with those of the same sex instead of those of the opposite sex and, like their straight counterparts, seek to build lives with those with whom they fall in love. That’s a part of someone’s being, not an activity with which to partake when bored.

    All human beings are equal regardless of skin color Vs redefining marriage as simply romantic feelings?

    funny, i thought marriage was already defined as such, or something similar.

  • ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 1, 2011 at 11:34 am

    “In what way are skin color and sexual behavior similar?”

    that isn’t what I said. The movements were similar because both groups were fighting similar types of problems based on discrimination and bigotry. I can elaborate if you like, but I get the impression you really aren’t interested in learning about them.

    “-You need only compare the arguments against gay marriage with those against inter-racial marriage to see that.-

    All human beings are equal regardless of skin color Vs redefining marriage as simply romantic feelings?”

    Again not what I said. the same arguments that were used against inter-racial marriage where also used against gay marriage: “It is against God’s will”, “It is bad for children”, “it will destroy marriage and society” etc. the only argument I know of that was actual different (in fact the opposite argument) was: “they can’t have children” vs. “they CAN have children”

  • Joe

    Emily K,

    “We’re not talking about “sexual activity.”

    Sure we are…I think you missed the point.

    The truth is, skin color is not a moral category, but demanding unquestioned public affirmation of certain sexual behaviors from society is an inescapably moral issue.

    Ken said

    ” the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar.”

    I disagree…Two very different starting points with two very different conclusions.

    The comparison is apples to sea monsters—a PR ploy— which unfortunately, has fooled many.

    Once gender is removed from the equation, marriage as an institution will be dramatically different. It would not be hard to image the number of persons allowed to marry also being legally challenged. In fact, any and all challenges to marriage could rightfully be presented on the grounds of Equality.

    Incestuous marriage , Polygamous marriage, Nonsexual marriage- why not marry a roommate. Insert whatever you want, some people love children, some people love animals. I think you get the point.

    Again Ken said,

    “to say that they can’t be compared indicates a lack of understanding about the causes for both movements.”

    I would agree with the lack of understanding. There is no comparison.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Many thanks to all contributors wh felt my igdanation, I am actually still on firre with these HATEFUL comments.

    Joe= Ken said

    ” the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar.”

    I disagree…Two very different starting points with two very different conclusion

    StraightGrandmother= Joe the specific DISCRIMINATION may not be “exact” but the PREDJUDICE and BIGOTRY is EXACTLY THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Blacks are (fill in the blank) Lazy, stupid whatever RACIST comment the mostly Southern whites conjured.

    Gay,Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgender = Disease, bad parents, promiscous, diseases etc. etc.

    PREDJUDICE is when you JUDGE people by being a member of a certain class. VAST generalizatins are made and attributed to individuals based on them being a member of a designated class. Civil CONSTITUITIONAL rights are denied them because they are a member of a minority class. It doesn’t matter how you are as an individual, the majority denies you EQUAL Rights based on your member class.

    Oh yes we as a country passed DISCRIMITORY laws against black American Citizens in our History, and today in 2011 we ARE DISCRIMINATING against citizens who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender. And I am very ANGRY abut it. Make no mistake, the bullet point discriminatory laws for Black Americans in our history is not EXACTLY the same as for citizens who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender, but God Dammit the DISCRIMINATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME and I am VERY ANGRY about it. Right now in 2011, in 33 States, it is PERFECTLY LEGAL for a restaurant owner to tell a gay couple, “Sorry we don’t serve fags here” THAT IS LEGAL IN 33 STATES IN OUR COUNTRY. Tell me you don’t see the exact same PREDJUDICE and DISCRIMINTION towards gays in 2011 as towards Black Americans in 1960??? It is the God Damn SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • StraightGrandmother

    And it is NOT God Damned Sexual “Behaviour” . Using the word “Behaviour” as in a person has good behaviour or bad behaviour, is bogus. It is a persons inate Sexual Orientation exactly as in a persons skin color or national origin. People DO NOT chse their skin color, national origin OR their sexual orientatin. Comments like yours is saying, “Oh they simply “choose” to be bad and be gay, they should “choose to be heterosexual instead. as if! Like tell me when you personally “choose” to be hetersexual. Yeah you want to call it a behaviour, it isn’t a behaviour, it is part of a person’s core identity. Yeah loose the word “behaviour” and we’ll talk.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Straight Grandmother is on fire tonight. I hate the PREDJUDICE and DISCRIMINATION, I just have zero tolerance for it. Gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and transgender citizens are simply a sexual minority that we as a country are DISCRIMINATING against. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  • Richard Willmer

    I have to admit, having seen all this ‘dominionist’ nonsense, I am at the very least ‘smouldering dangerously’ – not least because of the rampant heresy involved!

    StraightGrandmother

    Your point about the wrongness of reducing human sexuality to ‘sexual behaviour’ is well made. This kind of demeaning trivialization is indeed, as you suggest, part and parcel of homophobia. As for transgendered people: this very often has nothing to do with ‘sexual behaviour’ at all. Keep blazing, I say!

  • Richard Willmer

    On the matter of capital punishment: let’s take a quick look at the Church’s teaching (apologies for resorting to Wikipedia) …

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of extreme gravity. The Church teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the “guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined” and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party.

    However, if there are other means available to defend people from the ‘unjust aggressor’, these means are preferred to the death penalty because they are considered to be more respectful of the dignity of the person and in keeping with the common good.

    Because today’s society makes possible effective means for preventing crime without execution, the Catechism declares that ‘the cases in which execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if practically nonexistent.’

    “In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae published in 1995, Pope John Paul II removed this public safety qualification and declared that, in today’s modern society, capital punishment can scarcely ever be condoned.”

    So the dominionists obsession with executing people for not doing what they (dominionists) want can be regarded as outright heresy.

    The Church’s position on same-sex relationships is more nuanced. However, she is opposed in principle to criminalizing consensual relationships:

    1.http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_u.n._delegation_calls_for_end_to_unjust_discrimination_against_homosexuals/

    2.http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=a9849daa-dd60-4028-adc0-2dfa024cb3a9

    It s worth noting that Archbishop Vincent Nichols refused to opposed the introduction of same-sex civil partnerships in the UK, saying that he accepted that there could be place for such provision in civil law. Meanwhile, in Uganda, Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga has stated his opposition to “the death penalty and imprisonment for homosexual acts”, and said the bill introduced by ‘dominionist placeman’ (and funded?) David Bahati is “at odds with the core values of the Christian faith”.

  • Pauliji

    For those who do not think the fight for equality for sexual minorities is similar to the African American experience in the fight for equality, I suggest the following experiments:

    #1) Take any statement about the Black civil rights movement and substitute “race” with “sexual orientation”, and “black, negro, african-american” with “gay, fag, lesbian, homo” etc. You will notice that the statement remains exactly the same, has the same validity and import, regardless of the subject. Works every time

    #2) Buy yourself a gay rights tee-shirt, or a rainbow themed tee shirt (not the deadhead type, though), put it on, and walk through the food court of your local mall at lunch time on Saturday while holding hands with someone of the same gender, and close to your age. Gauge your level of discomfort. Does it feel weird? Do you think that people are looking at you? Worried about what people might say? You’re not gay, so what difference does it make? It just points out the internal levels of homophobia which reside in all of us, inescapably, since we were raised in America, in a culture which devalues, dehumanizes and disenfranchises anyone who doesn’t outwardly display the standard signs of sexual orientation.

    Those who think that the struggle for gay rights isn’t a civil rights struggle just because sexual orientation is a “choice” can ponder this:

    Since when is religion not a choice? And yet it’s protected specifically by virtually every constitution in the country. Choice is at the heart of freedom. What point in being free if you’re not free to choose who to love? Since when does the government get to choose for you? Imagine if you were told you were bad, sinful, damned to hell, doomed to die young, fired, evicted, denied a restaurant meal, all because of something in yourself that you first noticed when you were four years old, like me.

    LGBT’s are the canaries in the coal mine. We’re the last group in this country to achieve parity. We’re the ones whom it’s still acceptable to vilify and deride publicly, and in fact it seems a necessity to do so if you wish to gain the GOP presidential nomination.

    All because of some bronze aged myths written by semi-nomadic goat herders in a barely literate part of the middle east, involving an invisible father in the sky who sends a copy of himself to earth to be tortured to death so we can be released from a debt that was incurred by someone else (who didn’t even exist). Oy.

  • Ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 1, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    SGM also pointed out the similarities between rasicm and homophobia. Frankly, your inability to see past the “icky sexual stuff” and recognize gays as human beings deserving of the same rights as you, is no different than other peoples inability to see past skin color and recognize blacks as human beings deserving of the same rights as well.

    “Incestuous marriage , Polygamous marriage, Nonsexual marriage- why not marry a roommate. Insert whatever you want, some people love children, some people love animals. I think you get the point.’

    Yes, you have no real argument about denying gays marriage so you try to link it to other unrelated topics. Again, the same tactic was tried in the arguments against inter-racial marriage.

    And to be clear, no one here is saying the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement (or that racism and homophobia) are EXACTLY the same, but they are very similar. And perhaps when you can get past the icky sexual activities and see gays as complete human beings you’ll recognize that.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Pauliji- Where is the thumbs up button on this site? If I could I would give you a thousand, no make that a million, thumbs up!!! I never saw anybody say it the way you did, GREAT Job, Superb! I copied what you wrote and saved it in a file to use the very next time anyone tries to state that the fight for Civil Righs for black Americans is not the same as the fight for civil rights for citizens who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender.

    Richard Willmer & Ken many many thanks for your inspiting words and research also.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Ken-

    And to be clear, no one here is saying the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement (or that racism and homophobia) are EXACTLY the same, but they are very similar

    This is a very good way to state it. I looked up homophobia in the dictionary, “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” The only thing I think that could be fine tuned is the ending “but they are very similar”

  • Ken

    Pauliji# ~ Sep 2, 2011 at 8:21 am

    ” We’re the last group in this country to achieve parity. ”

    gays are the latest group to be ostracized in the US. Sadly, they are not likely to be the last. Currently it looks like Muslims are becoming the new minority to hate as the gay rights movement is making it less acceptable to hate gays.

    I do agree with the other arguments in your post. A few years ago I saw a t-shirt that read:

    “Gay is the new Black”

  • Richard Willmer

    @ Pauljii

    Your ‘canary in the coal mine’ comment is most apt.

    @ StraightGrandmother

    You’re most welcome; I enjoy your ‘fire’ – thanks for that!

    @ Joe

    Apologies if you already appreciate this, but one must point out clearly there really is widespread and genuine anger among many Christians at what they regard as the betrayal of their core values and beliefs by this ‘dominionism’-type nonsense. Even the Vatican (not noted for ‘liberalism’!) has been deeply shocked by recent events in places like Uganda.

  • Joe

    Wow…slow down people.

    Like I said the starting points are different.

    “Skin color (or national origin) is not a Moral Category, but demanding unquestioned public affirmation of certain sexual behaviors from society is an inescapably moral issue.”

    You don’t like the term sexual behavior, you prefer sexual orientation and sexual minorities. We can use your terms but they do not stop with homosexuality. You would also have to include bestiality. pedophilia, polygamy, incest, necrophilia,

    all I assume innate sexual orientations.

    @Ken “you have no real argument about denying gays marriage so you try to link it to other unrelated topics.”

    How are these unrelated?

    @ Pauliji

    “All because of some bronze aged myths written by semi-nomadic goat herders in a barely literate part of the middle east, involving an invisible father in the sky who sends a copy of himself to earth to be tortured to death so we can be released from a debt that was incurred by someone else (who didn’t even exist).”

    Like I said the starting points are vastly different. When you throw out theism (God) that leaves only naturalism-nihilism. Like Dostoevsky said “Without God everything is permissible”.

    For some reason you guys think sexual desire is its own justification. Are we not all born with a selfish orientation. Should we just then give in to it?

    @Richard

    “dominionism’-type nonsense.” You’re correct, total nonsense, liken to Jim Jones, David Koresh and more recently Warren Jeffs.

    Reading over Dr Throckmorton’s site, even he makes a distinction in claiming an identity for one’s self.

    You have an orientation in which you DID NOT choose, so what are you going to do about it? What should you do about it?

    Well, what does the goat herders manual say about it?

    That was the manual William Wilberforce used against slavery and the one Martin Luther King, Jr. used against segregation, and if memory serves correct the founding fathers used it as a basis for equality.

    So, what am I missing here?

  • StraightGrandmother

    Joe,

    You have an orientation in which you DID NOT choose, so what are you going to do about it? What should you do about it?

    SGM- It is none of your business what other people do relativ to their private sexual life, it is not your business nor is it the governments business.

    Joe-

    You don’t like the term sexual behavior, you prefer sexual orientation and sexual minorities. We can use your terms but they do not stop with homosexuality. You would also have to include bestiality. pedophilia, polygamy, incest, necrophilia,

    all I assume innate sexual orientations.

    SGM- let the animals make their case if they want to fool around with humans. Yes all you are doing here is trying to create a diversion. Doesn’t work.

    Joe,

    That was the manual William Wilberforce used against slavery and the one Martin Luther King, Jr. used against segregation, and if memory serves correct the founding fathers used it as a basis for equality.

    SGM- Oh yes our real nice slaveholding founding fathers.

    Twelve American presidents owned slaves and eight of them, starting with Washington, owned slaves while in office. Almost from the very start, slaves were a common sight in the executive mansion. A list of construction workers building the White House in 1795 includes five slaves – named Tom, Peter, Ben, Harry and Daniel — all put to work as carpenters. Other slaves worked as masons in the government quarries, cutting the stone for early government buildings, including the White House and U.S. Capitol. According to records kept by the White House Historical Association, slaves often worked seven days a week — even in the hot and humid Washington summers. CNN

    Seems to me you are saying that the Bible should be the basis for our laws. Funny you should mention MLK using the Bible, as the white slave holders and segragationalists claimed that their actions were also Biblically sanctioned. Our laws are built on a foundation of Human Rights, not your interpertation of the Bible.

  • Zarron

    Joe said:

    “That was the manual William Wilberforce used against slavery and the one Martin Luther King, Jr. used against segregation, and if memory serves correct the founding fathers used it as a basis for equality.”

    I’m afraid this argument leads nowhere, since it’s had the distinction of being uwed to justify anti-semitic beliefs by the Nazis, was used to instigate the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, and was used by white Southerners to justify slavery. That’s right. The same book Wilberforce used against slavery was used to justify it as well. It’s worth mentioning that both the new and old testaments explicitly condone slavery, as well. No less than Jesus commanded slaves to obey their masters.

    What does this show? It shows that people use the Bible to justify their own predisposed beliefs. It’s rather astonishing to see that whenever someone talks about God, God always seems to believe exactly what the speaker does.

    FYI, your memory does not serve. Some of the founding fathers were, in fact, men of faith, but they were also secularists; if you’ll notice, the constitution makes NO reference to religion of any sort, and the Declaration of Independence has only a reference a ‘Creator’, rather an explicitly Christian god. The founding fathers were quite aware of how religion can be subverted very easily, because it is based on ‘divine authority’. They knew that the nation they waged a war against was based on the idea that God had anointed their King to be the ruler. This is just part of the reason that the Constitution is a secular document.

    If you didn’t know, many of the Founding Fathers were actually deists, and Masons. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote a version of the New Testament with all the miracles and references to Jesus’ divinity removed, turning it into a story about a jewish man with some good ideas who gets punished by an authoritarian society whose power he threatens with his message of social justice and universal redemption. It’s quite blasphemous, and an interesting take on the story.

    Anyway…off of the Bible. You are baselessly linking homosexuality to things like bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and necrophilia. Your only argument is that homosexuality is ‘not normal’, so let’s group it with these things I don’t consider normal either. Your refusal to see homosexuals as human beings is nothing short of disturbing.

    You cannot seem to understand that homosexuality is, quite simply, a harmless behavior that does not affect you in the least. Two men walking down the street holding hands is not going to unravel the fabric of society. What they do in the bedroom together, with the blinds closed, is not going to affect you. Even if you believe it is ‘wrong’ (which is ridiculous, by the way), it’s not like they are forcing you into the behavior as well. Remember: Judge not, lest ye be judged.

    Your assertion that morality is impossible without God is ridiculous as well. Atheists can be just as moral as Christians. I would argue more so; theistic morality is a sham, because the only standard for morality becomes what you believe God says. And we all know just how wobbly that is. I would actually argue that belief in morality coming from God is a sign of moral weakness, indicating that the person in question believes that morality cannot exist without an omniscient God out to punish you for bad behavior. You are leading us to believe that people who ‘fear God’ only abstain from rape, murder, and lies because of fear of God’s punishment. That certainly seems like moral weakness to me.

    Most atheists have a morality based on the venerable Golden Rule, which does not need a God in order to operate. Only a bit of logic, and the assumption that other people like to be happy, just as oneself does, among a few other simple, uncontroversial things.

  • Richard Willmer

    Joe

    It is so dirt-shovellingly typical of some people to lump bestiality and paedophilia with consensual same-sex relationships. It’s that tired and dirty propaganda line loved by homophobic people everywhere. Really!

    The is a fundamental moral and jurisprudential difference between the first two and the third. It’s called ‘informed consent‘ – which doesn’t apply in the first two cases, but does in the third.

    As for questions you asked (well, the ones I understood) … SGM is correct: it’s none of your business.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Joe ..

    You asked what you are missing … well first of all bringing up your rant on pedophilia and the like seemed pretty bigoted to me. Its a common trick .. I have seen it before .. It might be good to consider that “heterosexual” is also an orientation so if you are gong to make the leap that when we start talking about an orientation then all of these terms come up .. well .. then perhaps you should reconsider (since heterosexual is an orientation too). Furthermore .. organizations such as PFLAG keep their distance from any pedophile affirming organizations .. they have done so for at least 14 years if not more. Its part of their guidelines to do so. Pedophilia and some of the other things you mentioned are not oreintation specific but can be found with heterosexuals and homosexuals. So please stop smearing the terminiology. Like I said .. I have seen this trick before .. not very impressive.

    And yes there is a distinction between a person’s orientation and their seuxal activity .. Thats not a PR trick .. thats a reality. This distinction appplies to heterosexuals and homosexuals. So there is a problem when we start saying we are against people who are gay / homosexual .. Does that mean disagreemeent with certain sexual activity or does that mean we mean disagreement with an orientation? Again .. there is a need for clarity.

    As for your talking about incestuous marriage and the like .. if you are not bringing that up with heterosexual marriage why bring it up here?? … Again .. this is a typical trick .. I have seen it before .. not impressed. Gay folks are not talking about persuing those kinds of marriages .. They are talking about gay monogamous marriage. So again .. lets skip the smear campaign of smearing definitions together.

    For someone who by inference .. claims to be guided by scripture ..I find it interesting that you haven’t quoted any and have resorted instead to a smeary political approach that border on slander. Quite frankly .. thats not very impressive either.

    As for William Wilberforce’s use of scripture yes .. very impressive ..and a very inspiring story .. of course what you forget is that others .. and in fact many in the Christian church were using the same scripture to uphold slavery for centuries. So .. I think a deeper work is needed here beyond your spin campaign.

    Blessings,

    Dave

  • Richard Willmer

    Dave

    You put it rather more gently than I did!

    I take the view that paedophilia has nothing to do with sexuality – it’s really about (the abuse of) power … as is rape.

    By the way, didn’t King Solomon have rather a lot of wives?! Maybe our ‘dominionist’ friends should hire a time capsule and go and sort out that little situation!

  • Joe

    @Dave

    “I think a deeper work is needed here beyond your spin campaign.”

    If that’s not calling the kettle black I don’t know what is.

    @Zarron

    “I’m afraid this argument leads nowhere, since it’s had the distinction of being uwed to justify anti-semitic beliefs by the Nazis, was used to instigate the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, and was used by white Southerners to justify slavery. That’s right. The same book Wilberforce used against slavery was used to justify it as well. It’s worth mentioning that both the new and old testaments explicitly condone slavery,”

    You’re kidding ,right?

    Slavery was never condoned; laws were given to govern it, because of the hardness of men’s hearts, nothing more.

    This thread was about the Dominionists misrepresenting the scriptures, which is exactly what happened with the anti-Semitic beliefs by the Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, and the white Southerners who justified slavery.

    I think you forget that Wilberforce and King eventually won the day ‘Truth Prevails’.

    “SGM- It is none of your business what other people do relativ to their private sexual life, it is not your business nor is it the governments business.”

    My point exactly! I don’t care what you do. I’ll say this one more time,

    “Skin color (or national origin) is not a Moral Category, but Demanding Unquestioned Public Affirmation of Certain Sexual Behaviors From Society IS.”

    It’s when you bring it out in the public square and ‘demand’ that I affirm it, that’s when my feathers get ruffled, that’s when it becomes my business.

    @Zarron again, “You are baselessly linking homosexuality to things like bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and necrophilia. Your only argument is that homosexuality is ‘not normal’, so let’s group it with these things I don’t consider normal either. Your refusal to see homosexuals as human beings is nothing short of disturbing.”

    What’s disturbing is your refusal to see a link between homosexuality and other sex acts. Being human is a given, what we as humans do and is it right or wrong, is the subject.

    The Golden Rule was mentioned, where do you guys think that came from. You do remember that for the past two thousand and eleven years we have been steeped in the premises that Christ taught, (charity, forgiveness, mercy, and justice) we have never known anything else. We think they are natural, they’re not. These are not concepts we picked up from trees or birds, they did not come from nature.

    “SGM- let the animals make their case if they want to fool around with humans. Yes all you are doing here is trying to create a diversion. Doesn’t work. ”

    No the diversion was already there.

    “These are people just like you, who only want to marry the person they love, but they are being discriminated against just like the black people were.”

    The diversion (which I did not create) is the false comparison, skin color to a homosexual orientation?

    We need a correct comparison, another type of sexual orientation. What someone is sexually oriented toward: the opposite sex, both sexes, children, more than one person, a brother, sister, mother or father, and yes, I have heard that some people are sexually attracted to animals.

    Really, who are you or I, to say that any of these things are wrong? Are for that matter to say that they are right, as is the case with homosexuality.

    Nobody…

    I for one just happen to believe that the bible is an accurate record of the history of the world, it’s my starting point.

    What is yours?

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    I for one just happen to believe that the bible is an accurate record of the history of the world, it’s my starting point.

    Well, if that’s your starting point, it’s also your ending point. Since I do NOT believe “the bible” to be a history textbook, it’s moot. Thank goodness our government has a secular basis (no matter what david barton tries to say; expertly refuted by the author of this blog).

    Honestly, people get so obsessed with our sex lives. We want equal protection for ourselves and our spouses under the law, not permission for public sex orgies.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Joe, “I’ll say this one more time,

    “Skin color (or national origin) is not a Moral Category, but Demanding Unquestioned Public Affirmation of Certain Sexual Behaviors From Society IS.”

    It’s when you bring it out in the public square and ‘demand’ that I affirm it, that’s when my feathers get ruffled, that’s when it becomes my business.”

    SGM- As Ronald Regean famously said, “There you go again Joe” tyring to substuite the words sexual behaviour (a choice we all have)for sexual orientation (not a choice). I don’t think citizens who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender are looking for your affirmation, actually my guess is that they probably could care less what you think, as long as they are treated Equally under the Law as any other citizen they would be satisfied.

    Joe,

    “The diversion (which I did not create) is the false comparison, skin color to a homosexual orientation?

    We need a correct comparison, another type of sexual orientation. “

    SGM-Okay I’m game, let’s compare people who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender to people with a heterosexual orientation then. Both the gays and the hetros fall in love and wish to create a family and marry. Not every heterosexual couple wants children, same with some gays, not every heterosexual couple is able to bear children, all gay couples cannot bear children, some heterosexual couples create families though adoption or with the help of fertility aid, some homosexual couples create families though adoption or with the help of fertility aid.

    The romancing and falling in love for gay couples is no different than the romancing and falling in love for heterosexual couples. People of both sexual orientations, heterosexual and homosexual have the same human needs wants and desires. Hey Joe you asked for it you said you wanted to compare sexual orientations…

    Joe, “It’s when you bring it out in the public square and ‘demand’ that I affirm it, that’s when my feathers get ruffled, that’s when it becomes my business”

    SGM- Tough sh*t if your feathers are ruffled, it is STILL… none of your business This is what we call the pursuit of happiness. It is not up to you to boss everybody around, MYOB. United States citizens who are a sexual minority, do not give up their Individual Constituitional rights just because it is not your cup of tea. I am uncomfortable around (insert any minority class here), should we take away their Constituitional rights also?

    And I noticed you failed to repond to the many substantial assertions made by Pauliji. You took a swipe at his closing thoughts where he was washing his hands of you, the fluff. I would be most interested to see you respond to the many other points s/he made.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Here Joe why don’t I just shorten up this discussion. I will state what your position is, correct me if I am wrong.

    I Joe, believe in the Bible and in my interpertation of the Bible it says that anything other than heterosexuality is a sin, therefore we should make our civil laws penalize people who are anything other than straigt heterosexual.

    Joe have I stated your position accurately? Once we cut away all the surpurfoulous yadda yadda yadda, isn’t this really your core beliefs?

  • StraightGrandmother

    @Zarron- thanks, I learned a lot from your comments.

  • Mary

    You don’t like the term sexual behavior, you prefer sexual orientation and sexual minorities. We can use your terms but they do not stop with homosexuality. You would also have to include bestiality. pedophilia, polygamy, incest, necrophilia,

    all I assume innate sexual orientations

    Joe, As an ex gay I would not put homosexuality into the same category as some other sexual interests. I do put it in the same category as adultery, casual sleeping around, etc… etc….. Bestiality and pedophelia are not between consenting human beings.

    Honestly, I am tired of people who without experienced knowledge sort of lump “all of those people” into “that” category.

    There are many, many places from where a sexual interest or abuse arrive. And you are so far off the mark that it makes me cringe. I don’t think you’re a bad guy but your understanding needs to be deepened or broadened or something besides narrowly defining people.

  • Richard Willmer

    Mary

    Why should ‘homosexuality’ per se be in the same ‘category’ as adultery? Or casual sleeping around? (I don’t get it – surely each ‘human relationship’ situation should be judged on its own merits?)

  • StraightGrandmother

    I re-read these comments from the top and I guess maybe I should respond to Mary’s earlier comment,

    And I am so amazed that a straight grandmother would be angry that Bryon Fischer and whomever – even though – we may disagree with them – are even telling him about American History incorrectly and further amazed that they are angry that he assumes his right to try and practice his religion

    SGM- Mary yes I am angry, still angry. The right of one to practice one’s religion without boundries. Specifically the right of Bryan Fischer to practice his religion ends right where he starts interferring with the rights of others to live their lives as they damn well please (obviously not harming others).

    What if the gays started a movement to outlaw all ex-gay organizations on the basis of the harm they do. It is their belief that ex-gay therapy, retreats and organizations are harmful to them. In this example gays would be trying to control the lives of others through the force of civil law. Thank God we have the Constituition which protects our individual rights against the tyranny of the majority. Where would it end? I don’t want to live in a country where the government tells us who we may love and who we may marry. That is an intrusion. Yeah Mary I bet if there was a highly orgnized and well funded attack on ex-gay groups and ex-gay therapies with State Constituitions being amended to make ex-gay groups illegal you might work up a little anger yourself.

  • Mary

    What if the gays started a movement to outlaw all ex-gay organizations on the basis of the harm they do

    LOL! They are trying. And that is their right.

  • Mary

    Why should ‘homosexuality’ per se be in the same ‘category’ as adultery? Or casual sleeping around? (I don’t get it – surely each ‘human relationship’ situation should be judged on its own merits?)

    Richard, my view is for myself. I personally think adultery and sleeping around as in casual sex are not good for people. And homosexuality was not good for me.

  • Mary

    Ooops.

    However, I certainly do not put those ( Homosexuality, adultery, casual sex) in the same category as beastiality, pedophelia, or other non consenting adult human sexual interest.

  • Richard Willmer

    Mary

    Are ‘they’ trying to outlaw (as in criminalize) ‘ex-gay organizations’? Or are ‘they’ merely putting their case – i.e. that such organizations are harmful. There is a difference.

    In your ‘defence’, I would say that I am not aware that you wish to outlaw organizations? Is my understanding correct?

    Now a question: what precisely do you mean by ‘homosexuality’? (‘Homosexuality’ is a very broad term; ‘adultery’ and ‘sleeping around’ refer to fairly specific actions or behaviour patterns.)

  • Richard Willmer

    Apologies – my second paragraph should have read as follows:

    “In your ‘defence’, I would say that I am not aware that you wish to outlaw LGB civil rights advocacy organizations? Is my understanding correct?”

  • Mary

    Correct. I support GLBT rights, marriage equality.

    Homosexuality = same gender sex

  • Richard Willmer

    Thank you, Mary.

    Re. the ‘criminalization’ issue: it is as I supposed.

    Obviously, I regard your definition of ‘homosexuality’ (assuming that, by ‘sex’, you mean ‘sexual activity/intercourse’) as narrow and devoid of ‘moral context’. A situation where someone leaps uncaringly from bed to bed is, morally-speaking, surely poles apart from a committed, loving partnership (which is very different again from an unhappy marriage where both partners torment each other)?

    (Yes – I am a ‘situation ethicist’ by inclination!)

  • Mary

    Are ‘they’ trying to outlaw (as in criminalize) ‘ex-gay organizations’? Or are ‘they’ merely putting their case – i.e. that such organizations are harmful. There is a difference

    By saying that they are harmful , yes, they are tr

    yinh to outlaw such organizations, groups, therapy etc…

    Personally, I think, and have seen some (in my opinion) outrageuosly (sp?) strung together groups and ideas on being ex gay that it makes me just shake my head. Some of the expectations are unrealistic for people with same gender attraction. And sometimes there is no “solution” except to deal with it between yourself and God.

    A person need not do anything except find support and friendship however their decisions and goals are met.

  • Joe

    To StraightGrandmother, I do not have the time to address each and every one of the issues brought up here. I was trying to pick the highlights and stay on point. And no, you have not stated my position accurately.

    @Emily K “Thank goodness our government has a secular basis”

    Have you never heard of LEX REX? It is the philosophy of government our country was founded on, and it’s anything but secular. Google it.

    If the Bible is not your starting point, then what is? You?

    If we make ourselves the basis for moral truth then none of us could ever be mistaken in our moral opinions, for whatever we believe must be true. If right is what each person thinks is right, then nothing can be wrong. Can we conclude that Martin Luther King Jr. and the Ku Klux Klan were both correct about civil rights? Is abusing children okay simply because the abuser thinks it is? (he does) If some things are just plain wrong, which seems obvious, then the basis would have to be something other than ourselves. What is it?

    If there is no God, no divine lawgiver, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no real right and wrong.

    The founding fathers recognized that moral values need a ground and justification beyond mere culture. According to the Declaration of Independence, individual rights are grounded in the divine Creator who transcends culture.

    If that’s the case, if God exists, then we cannot ignore what He has to say about the subject. And if God determines what is right and wrong, I’m interested in learning what He has to say.

    I use the extremes of Bestiality and Pedophilia because there seems to be a common consensus that these things are wrong. But if you talk with someone who practices these things you will get the same arguments that you get from the homosexual;

    I have all ways felt this way.

    It is perfectly natural to me.

    I see nothing wrong with it.

    If God is taken out of the equation then who am I to say anything different.

    In the case of marriage, if we change the standard of one man one woman to accommodate the homosexual, how could we not also change the standard to accommodate the bisexual who wants to marry both one man and one woman. If gender is no longer the standard then why should a number be any different?

    In Loving v. Virginia it was a race issue argued and won from the biblical perspective of equality. The same with slavery, and segregation.

    The Bible was used to win these battles. Homosexuality is a different matter. It is nowhere condoned in the Bible, quite the opposite actualy.

    The right to love someone? There are no restrictions, in fact we are commanded to do just that. Sex on the other hand comes with all kind of bounders, we can pretend otherwise but the evidence is all around us; broken hearts, diseases, dead children.

  • Richard Willmer

    Mary

    You say

    By saying that they are harmful , yes, they are trying to outlaw such organizations …

    but I don’t agree. Of course, ‘they’ wish to discredit (at least some of the claims of) ex-gay organizations, but that it not the same as calling for their criminalization.

    Joe

    Please tell us: what’s the connection between a loving, committed same-sex partnership and “broken hearts, diseases, dead children“? Sounds suspiciously like another ‘bestiality propaganda line’ to me.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Joe, here is what I wrote above that you say is incorrect,

    Here Joe why don’t I just shorten up this discussion. I will state what your position is, correct me if I am wrong.

    I Joe, believe in the Bible and in my interpertation of the Bible it says that anything other than heterosexuality is a sin, therefore we should make our civil laws penalize people who are anything other than straigt heterosexual.

    Joe have I stated your position accurately? Once we cut away all the surpurfoulous yadda yadda yadda, isn’t this really your core beliefs?

    SGM- Well if that is not correctJ oe please give me a short paragraph, a couple of sentences of you position. Thank you.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Joe, let’s go look at what the Supreme Court wrote In Lawrence vs Texas in 2003 striking down the sodomy law in Texas. This is in part what the Supreme Court said and I think it is worthwhile for you to read and understand this.

    “for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. “Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”

    This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

  • ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 2, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    “@Ken “you have no real argument about denying gays marriage so you try to link it to other unrelated topics.”

    How are these unrelated?”

    Others have already addressed this question, but since it was directed at me I will simply add to what they said: because these topics are no more related to gay marriage than they are to inter-racial marriage.

    Joe# ~ Sep 2, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    “It’s when you bring it out in the public square and ‘demand’ that I affirm it, that’s when my feathers get ruffled, that’s when it becomes my business. ”

    No one is demanding that you affirm anything. However you may not (through laws and other government policies) discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as you may not discriminate based on skin color.

    “What’s disturbing is your refusal to see a link between homosexuality and other sex acts.”

    That is because there is no such link. You only think there is because you do not understand that orientation refers to far more than sex acts.

    “The diversion (which I did not create) is the false comparison, skin color to a homosexual orientation?”

    No, this was not the comparison that was being made. The comparison is that DISCRIMINATION based on skin color is very similar to DISCRIMINATION based on a person’s sexual/affectional orientation. And that the movements (Civil and Gay rights) to end this discrimination are also very similar.

    Your attempts to introduce other issues (bestiality, pedophilia etc) only serve to highlight your ignorance about the topic of orientation and your unwillingness to address the issue that was brought up. This tactic is hardly new, and isn’t fooling anyone here.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Ken, yes what you said,

    No, this was not the comparison that was being made. The comparison is that DISCRIMINATION based on skin color is very similar to DISCRIMINATION based on a person’s sexual/affectional orientation. And that the movements (Civil and Gay rights) to end this discrimination are also very similar.

    SGM- However I think I would go even further than you and say the DISCRIMINATION IS exactly the same. It is the same exact DISCRIMINATION to say to a black couple, “sorry we don’t rent to blacks” as to say to a gay couple, “sorry we don’t rent to gays.” We changed our laws so that black citizens may not be denied housing based on their race and we are far past the time we should have passed laws to end this same DISCRIMINATION against United States Citizens who are, gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender.

  • Teresa

    Mary stated: Homosexuality = same gender sex

    No, Mary, often times homosexuality means the condition of being a homosexual. It seems it can bear two meanings.

    Please, for the same of some of us who happen to be homosexuals, is it possible to use the words homosexual behavior. That is much clearer, at least for me.

    You consider yourself ‘ex-gay’. That has many meanings; but, Mary, you have only one meaning in mind when you use that term for yourself. You mean … Mary is no longer ‘same gender sexually attracted’.

    Does ‘heterosexuality’ mean heterosexual sexual behavior?

  • Teresa

    @Joe,

    Please see my prior comment about the term ‘homosexuality’, and ‘heterosexuality’.

    Also,

    ken stated: you do not understand that orientation refers to far more than sex acts.

    Joe, this can’t be stated too often. One can be same gender sexually attracted, live with someone of the same gender, and never indulge in sexual acts. Is this so hard to understand, Joe?

    Why are you, Joe, and many others of your same belief … only interested is seeing homosexuals as depraved?

  • Joe

    @Teresa “Does ‘heterosexuality’ mean heterosexual sexual behavior?”

    I think when sexual is attached-Homo. Hetero, or Bi, behavior is implied.

    Or was that a rhetorical questions?

    It’s when you bring it out in the public square and ‘demand’ that I affirm it, that’s when my feathers get ruffled, that’s when it becomes my business. ”

    No one is demanding that you affirm anything. However you may not (through laws and other government policies) discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as you may not discriminate based on skin color.

    Someone here said that we needed to clarify between activities and orientations…yes we do. The lines are getting a little blurred.

    I am to blame, because I flippantly changed the terms from behavior to orientation to accommodate SGM. Huge mistake on my part. The terms are not interchangeable, however, reading back over this post they appear to be used synonymously.

    First…. Nobody is demanding anything? Hello? If that were really the case, then this would not be an issue, and we would not be having this discussion.

    They are demanding that the definition of marriage be changed to accommodate them. (to genderless)

    They are demanding that Christians change there views and practices to accommodate them. (if you don’t let us get married at your church or B&B etc. we will sue you)

    They are demanding the right to adopt just like any other couple.

    They are demanding that any and all contrary and dissenting opinions be classed as hate speech.

    (in Canada, a sign with only this bible verse written on it, Lev. 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination- classed as hate speech fined $5000.00)

    They are demanding that society at large affirm their relationship as equal to, or even in some cases better than, the standard heterosexual couple.

    If this were simply two consenting adults doing things in the privacy of their bedroom- you would be correct, this would be nobody’s business.

    But, that is not the case.

    And then to take it a step further and say that it is the same or very similar to the civil rights issues of the 60s is mind boggling.

    @Pauliji

    For those who do not think the fight for equality for sexual minorities is similar to the African American experience in the fight for equality, I suggest the following experiments:

    #1) Take any statement about the Black civil rights movement and substitute “race” with “sexual orientation”, and “black, negro, african-american” with “gay, fag, lesbian, homo” etc. You will notice that the statement remains exactly the same, has the same validity and import, regardless of the subject. Works every time.

    Your substitutions.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-Discrimination on the basis of one’s race (sexual orientation), religion, sex, national origin and color (sexual behavior).

    Now, the comparison is doubly flawed, because it’s really not (or should not be) a skin color Vs orientation issue, and skin color Vs. behavior more specifically Homosexual behaviors is a bad analogy.

    Unless you tell me, or in some overt way show me, there is no way for me to know your orientation. Orientation, in and of itself is not wrong, or bad. It just “is”.

    One can have a homosexual orientation and never have sex with another man.

    I said somewhere in all of this, that it’s what you do about it, the actions, that count.

    This is were our second disconnect comes into play. (please don’t bring up Boswell, he has been discredited)

    Joe

    “What’s disturbing is your refusal to see a link between homosexuality and other sex acts.”

    Ken

    That is because there is no such link. You only think there is because you do not understand that orientation refers to far more than sex acts.

    Frankly, your inability to see past the “icky sexual stuff” and recognize gays as human beings deserving of the same rights as you, is no different than other peoples inability to see past skin color and recognize blacks as human beings deserving of the same rights as well.

    “Incestuous marriage , Polygamous marriage, Nonsexual marriage- why not marry a roommate. Insert whatever you want, some people love children, some people love animals. I think you get the point.’

    Yes, you have no real argument about denying gays marriage so you try to link it to other unrelated topics. Again, the same tactic was tried in the arguments against inter-racial marriage.

    In the list of forbidden sexual relations from Lev.. Homosexuality is listed along with incest, bestiality, adultery, etc.

    Yet, you say there is no link. Why do you take homosexuality off of the list? I ask this in all honesty, because it’s really what I do not understand.

    And, not only do you take it off the list, but you add oreintation to it and turn it a special catogory.

    You make the statement that there is no link, but that’s totally illogical. The topics are linked because they are all on the same list.

    And I really don’t know where you got the impression that I think gays are less than human, or that I am in favor of denying anybody their basic civil rights.

    (Basic)

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    In the case of marriage, with minor exceptions: You can’t marry someone below a certain age, more than one person, a close blood relative, or someone of the same gender. These laws apply equally to everyone.

    This got really long I apologize, but I would like to address one other comment.

    Zarron

    Most atheists have a morality based on the venerable Golden Rule, which does not need a God in order to operate. Only a bit of logic, and the assumption that other people like to be happy, just as oneself does, among a few other simple, uncontroversial things.

    Your Golden Rule:

    You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Lev. 19:18 The Great Commandment.

    This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule, which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative. It is one of the earliest written versions of that concept in a positive form.

    On happy people:

    Some people have no personal problem with say, theft, murder, tax evasion, and heroin distribution. They are free spirits who just want to be left alone as they pursue these and other worthwhile activities that bring them so much personal fulfillment and happiness.

    We gotta have boundaries. The only question is On What Basis, and With What Limits?

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    There is no good reason someone can’t marry someone of the same gender. None.

    The “best” witnesses that were brought out at the Prop 8 trial couldn’t make a case. Nobody can make a case without trotting out tired old things like “think of the children” and “it’s for reproduction” and “think of the children.”

    It’s a good thing that the law is finally catching up. By the time I’m the age of most of the commenters here, same sex marriage will not just be accepted, but be a given.

  • Mary

    Please, for the same of some of us who happen to be homosexuals, is it possible to use the words homosexual behavior. That is much clearer, at least for me.

    Sorry T. I was looking strictly at the word sexual meaning in the act of. Two lesbians whose names I should never forget but have Del Martin and Phyllis something coined the term homophile. That means loving the same gender. I really liked that term a long time ago. And still do. To find terms that satisfy all of us is unending. Sorry and I do understand. I was even thinking of you when I wrote that and wondering how you would respond.

  • ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 4, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    “First…. Nobody is demanding anything?”

    That isn’t what I said. You have a nasty habit of ascribing statements to me (and others) that I never made. You quoted what I said yet you twisted it into something else entirely.

    Gay rights groups ARE demanding equal treatment under the law. Just as civil rights groups did.

    “They are demanding that Christians change there views and practices to accommodate them.”

    Who has demanded that christians change their views? Perhaps you can cite me an example of what you are talking about?

    “. (if you don’t let us get married at your church or B&B etc. we will sue you) ”

    No church (in the US) has ever been sued to perform a wedding in opposition the church’s religious views. Nor would such a suit even make it to court. This is just a typical scare tactic used by those opposed to gay marriage.

    Now as to a Bed & Breakfast (or other place of public accommodation), then yes, such businesses may not deny service to gays, just as they cannot hang a “Whites Only” sign in the window, they cannot hang a “Straights Only” sign. At least in certain states However, Gay rights groups ARE working to extend that to all 50 states.

    “(in Canada, a sign with only this bible verse written on it, Lev. 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination- classed as hate speech fined $5000.00)”

    That is because Canada has a “Hate Speech” law, which applies to far more than orientation. Although, I suspect there is more to this case than you have said here.

    And in Uganda there is a bill that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by DEATH.

    Neither of these cases would occur in the US.

    “In the list of forbidden sexual relations from Lev.. Homosexuality is listed along with incest, bestiality, adultery, etc.

    Yet, you say there is no link. Why do you take homosexuality off of the list?”

    Because I have no interest in YOUR particular interpretation, of YOUR particular version of YOUR particular religious text. However, I do know that polygamy and pedophilia are not listed in Leviticus. YOU added those on your own.

    “And I really don’t know where you got the impression that I think gays are less than human, or that I am in favor of denying anybody their basic civil rights.”

    I got it from your statements here. From you inability to see gays as anything other sex acts you don’t approve of. From you arguments against giving them the same rights as straight people.

    And the issue of same gender marriage has been brought up on this blog many times. I’m not going to rehash it here. Simply search on “gay marriage” and it will link you to the many threads that have already discounted your arguments about it.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    polygamy wasn’t prohibited in leviticus – rather, it was celebrated in the Torah!

  • Richard Willmer

    … and King Solomon, for example, had lots of wives – lots and lots and lots (c.700, it seems)!

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Ken .. nice post .. I was going to take the time to respond to Joe but your response pretty much took care of that.

    Blessings,

    Dave

  • Teresa

    Mary said: Sorry T. I was looking strictly at the word sexual meaning in the act of. Two lesbians whose names I should never forget but have Del Martin and Phyllis something coined the term homophile. That means loving the same gender. I really liked that term a long time ago. And still do. To find terms that satisfy all of us is unending. Sorry and I do understand. I was even thinking of you when I wrote that and wondering how you would respond.

    Thanks for the update, Mary. I was a bit surprised by your comment; since, this blog has debated endlessly what the term ‘ex-gay’ means … and you’re being ex-gay. The same hullabaloo could surround the term ‘homosexuality’. It seems there’s a natural propensity to be sensitive to words that have special experiences for us.

    @Joe … I’m assuming you’re not gay, homosexual … whatever the word du jour is … however, if you’d like to be taken seriously … please take what we homosexuals have to say, seriously. Live in our shoes … the old First Nations’ quote … walk a mile in my moccasins. Let go of your internal judgment monitor for a few moments, and just listen. I’m not asking you to give up your religious views; but, it would be nice if you could shut off the voices in your head for just a few moments … and listen, just listen, to others. It’s an enlightening experience … really.

  • Joe

    Ken

    ken“First…. Nobody is demanding anything?”

    That isn’t what I said. You have a nasty habit of ascribing statements to me (and others) that I never made. You quoted what I said yet you twisted it into something else entirely.

    Ken# ~ Sep 2, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Joe# ~ Sep 1, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    SGM also pointed out the similarities between racism and homophobia. Frankly, your inability to see past the “icky sexual stuff” and recognize gays as human beings deserving of the same rights as you, is no different than other peoples inability to see past skin color and recognize blacks as human beings deserving of the same rights as well.

    And perhaps when you can get past the icky sexual activities and see gays as complete human beings you’ll recognize that.

    And I am the one with the nasty habit of ascribing statements I never made.

    Your Logical Fallacies in Propaganda-being human was never at issue.

    I actually stated the exact opposite.

    Being human is a given, what we as humans do and is it right or wrong, is the subject.

    Nothing like side-stepping the issue.

    Because I have no interest in YOUR particular interpretation, of YOUR particular version of YOUR particular religious text. However, I do know that polygamy and pedophilia are not listed in Leviticus. YOU added those on your own.

    That statement in no way answers the question of how you removed homosexuality from the list.

    This in a nutshell, is the diversion!

    From you inability to see gays as anything other than sex acts you don’t approve of. From you arguments against giving them the same rights as straight people.

    The comparison is that DISCRIMINATION based on skin color is very similar to DISCRIMINATION based on a person’s sexual/affectional orientation. And that the movements (Civil and Gay rights) to end this discrimination are also very similar

    That I believe is called a red herring.

    The discrimination is about homosexual behavior (specific sex acts) forbidden in the above mentioned list. NOT an orientation or civil rights, that’s nothing more than a brouhaha.

    That my friend is the real issue.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    From your inability to see gays as anything other than sex acts you don’t approve of. From your arguments against giving them the same rights as straight people.

    This bears repeating, and is not a red herring at all. it’s how you are treating us.

    People look at us and suddenly all sorts of porn videos start playing in their heads. there are straight people (and “straight” people) out there who think more about gay sex than *I* do. We want legal protection for our spouses. We want to be left alone.

    If straights (and “straights”) didn’t treat us with such disdain, pity, condescension, and Christian “love,” we would need to do things like “Gay Pride.” If people weren’t so dead set on erasing us from the human spectrum, legally or otherwise, we wouldn’t have to be “out loud and proud.” Thanks to the behavior of straights like Joe and otherwise, gays have to have these parades and movements just to remind ourselves that we are people of worth and dignity. If WE don’t remind ourselves, Lord knows nobody ELSE will.

    a straight person kisses his spouse sweetly in Central Park, it’s a romantic image. A gay person does it, he is “shoving their lifestyle down my throat.”

    (and too often, if two women do it, they’re just assumed to be providing entertainment for straight men leering on.)

    A man and a woman hold hands walking down the street, it’s a loving act.

    Two men do so and it’s an affront to nature.

    A man and a woman adopt a child, it’s a saintly act.

    Two men or two women do so, and it’s as though they were committing ritual slaughter with the child – even if said child were being taken from horrible circumstances with the chance at having a loving family and home.

  • Mary

    Lord knows nobody ELSE will.

    You are right that you have to care about yourself. But I do think others care, too.

  • ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 5, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    “I actually stated the exact opposite.”

    AFTER I made the statement you quoted. I posted Sep 2, 2011 at 8:48 am your post was at: Sep 2, 2011 at 9:01 pm, yet you conveniently left that out when you made it sound like I ignored what you said.

    “That statement in no way answers the question of how you removed homosexuality from the list.”

    1st, because it isn’t my list.

    2nd, the Levitican codes are nearly 3000 years old. They have NOTHING to do with our current SCIENTIFIC understanding of sexuality.

    3rd, YOUR list, isn’t the Levitican codes. As has been pointed out to you polygamy (and pedophilia) wasn’t against the Levitican codes. Seems a bit hypocritical you of you chastise me for editing a list (which I don’t even believe is relevant) when you did the same.

    “The discrimination is about homosexual behavior (specific sex acts) forbidden in the above mentioned list.”

    The discrimination is AGAINST PEOPLE. Nor does US law allow for discriminating against groups based on personal religious beliefs. Now if you don’t want a gay person or a black person to be allowed in your church or home, that is your right. However, when you say they aren’t allowed the same rights, privileges, and protections you are, that you cannot do. And THAT is what both the gay rights AND civil rights movements are about.

  • ken

    Emily gave some excellent examples of how discrimination is about PEOPLE not BEHAVIOURS, and keep in mind her examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

  • Joe

    Ken,

    You really are the king of deflection…it really was just a simple question.

    Everyone seems to know exactly what list we are talking about here, and also what is on that list.

    Yet, no one seems to be able to tell me how or why homosexuality was removed from that list.

    2nd, the Levitican codes are nearly 3000 years old. They have NOTHING to do with our current SCIENTIFIC understanding of sexuality.

    That is so lame…

    The issue of choice as regards to mere feeling or impulses (orientations) is irrelevant to the question of determining morality since all behavior, at some level, can be traced to differences in brain structure and process. Most men are “polysexual” but that doesn’t validate polygamy for society (at least we don’t yet issue marriage licenses for 3 or more persons).

    Pedophiles have as little choice as homosexual persons in their impulses (orientations) but that doesn’t validate the behavior in question.

    People may not be responsible for what they feel but they are responsible for what they do with what they feel.

    Homosexual unions are considered immoral irrespective of choice as regards to the mere experience of an impulse(orientation).

    Most sinful impulses, in fact, are innate; the innateness doesn’t make it any less sinful.

    Emily gave some excellent examples of how discrimination is about PEOPLE not BEHAVIORS,

    No, she gave some examples of REACTIONS to “peoples behaviors”. It has more to do with affirmation (not getting any) than it does with discrimination.

    I can value you as a human being, but that does not mean I have to approve of everything you do. People on both sides of the spectrum have a really hard time with this concept.

    Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior in any context, and there is no getting around it.

    Not my interpretation, the church has held this view for over 2000 years, (I’m not Protestant or Catholic) and I simple see no valid reason why I should say they were wrong.

  • Richard Willmer

    Joe says:

    Pedophiles have as little choice as homosexual persons in their impulses (orientations) but that doesn’t validate the behavior in question.

    I thought we’d all agreed that drawing such parallels was totally inappropriate – which it surely is: morally and philosophically.

    It’s cheap, it’s nasty, and it’s riddled with intellectual flaws.

  • StraightGrandmother

    @ Joe, THIRD Request, Please state your position including justification for your position on people who are homosexual, inclding homosexual sex. How should our civil laws treat them? Please use a few short sentences to explain. Above I paraphrased what I thought your position is and you said it was wrong. For the third time, please state your postion.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Joe,

    You continue to use this pedophile argument. Perhaps you are unaware of this but accusing gay folks of being pedophiles is .. unfortunately .. a common practice among several political Christian groups. So .. your continued use of it as an example is rather offensive and uncalled for Additionally, I could use this offensive argument for any form of sexual expression I didn’t agree with. It may provide some shock value but it really does not do much in terms of having an intelligent discussion. If your intention is to slander others by using this argument then you might consider that slander is on several lists in the bible .. in fact it is on many of the same lists that condemn sexual immorality (Romans 1 , I Corinthians 5, and I Corinthians 6 for example).

    You say you are neither Protestant nor Catholic yet you are using scripture. So just what denomination are you? Are you a Christian or are you simply using the bible because you believe it agrees with what you believe on this point?

    Dave

  • Jayhuck

    Joe,

    Pedophiles have as little choice as homosexual persons in their impulses (orientations) but that doesn’t validate the behavior in question.

    The big, BIG difference between the two is that when it comes to same-sex couples, we are talking about TWO CONSENTING ADULTS!

    Homosexual unions are considered immoral irrespective of choice as regards to the mere experience of an impulse(orientation).

    Immoral according to whom exactly? Different people, different Christians even understand the Bible differently when it comes to this issue.

    Most sinful impulses, in fact, are innate; the innateness doesn’t make it any less sinful.

    Of course this all comes back to how you interpret things.

    Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior in any context, and there is no getting around it.

    You are absolutely wrong here. Its not the Bible itself that is negative toward all same-sex behavior but how it is interpreted.

  • Jayhuck

    Joe -

    Do you really want to go down the road where we begin pointing out all the ridiculous and contradictory verses in the Bible? If you take the Bible literally, or if you attempt to use it as a textbook for science or history, you will be sorely disappointed. The Bible is none of these things.

  • ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 6, 2011 at 1:20 am

    “Yet, no one seems to be able to tell me how or why homosexuality was removed from that list.”

    I did tell you. You claimed it was “lame”. Once again, because not everyone accepts your list as valid. And more importantly because the current understanding of sexuality and orientation is very different than it was 3000 years ago.

    “Pedophiles have as little choice as homosexual persons in their impulses (orientations) but that doesn’t validate the behavior in question.”

    Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. And your repeated attempts to associate it to being gay, only shows your ignorance of the subject.

    “Homosexual unions are considered immoral irrespective of choice as regards to the mere experience of an impulse(orientation).”

    yes, some people feel homosexual unions are immoral. Some people feel inter-racial unions are immoral. However, just because some people feel that way, doesn’t give them the authority to deny the right to marry (or any other right) to those people they think are immoral.

    “Most sinful impulses, in fact, are innate; the innateness doesn’t make it any less sinful. ”

    I don’t believe in your religion or your concept of sin. And in the US you are not allowed to force me (or anyone else) to adhere to your religious beliefs.

    “No, she gave some examples of REACTIONS to “peoples behaviors”. It has more to do with affirmation (not getting any) than it does with discrimination.”

    Her examples have everything to do with discrimination. Because the underlying causes of those reactions are the same things that cause those same people to discriminate.

    “Not my interpretation, the church has held this view for over 2000 years, (I’m not Protestant or Catholic) and I simple see no valid reason why I should say they were wrong.”

    Which church? Certainly not those that have ordained openly gay ministers, priests and bishops. Many churches and other christians have interpreted the christian bible differently than you have. And once again, YOUR particular interpretation of YOUR religion has no place in deciding who is (and is not) entitled to received rights in the US.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    Joe is just one of those guys that won’t get it. He doesn’t get why it’s unproductive and stunted to refuse to see us as anything beyond the sexual acts he envisions whenever he hears the word “gay,” he doesn’t get that we’re the same as him, with a compass pointing a different direction.

    And in the end all he has is his little book to justify things he already believes without it, anyway.

    what a sad existence.

  • Richard Willmer

    I wonder when they’ll add homophobia to the list of psychiatric disorders? Soon I hope!

  • Joe

    Richard, Dave, and Jayhuck.

    For some reason you guys are misunderstanding the comparison. If you can see past the “icky sexual stuff” for just one second, you would realize, I am not accusing anyone of anything. Simply stating a fact.

    “Pedophiles have as little choice as homosexual persons in their impulses (orientations) but that doesn’t validate the behavior in question.”

    I thought that statement was clear.

    It was not a conscious choice on the Pedophiles part, to be sexually attracted to young children. The feelings and desires came quite naturally to them. Just like with the homosexual. Like I have said elsewhere, orientation in and of itself is not wrong or bad it just is, period.

    Hence, the next sentence: “People may not be responsible for what they feel but they are responsible for what they do with what they feel.”

    StraightGrandmother,

    In short, the notion that Paul or, for that matter, any other author of Scripture even Jesus himself would have been favorably disposed to same-sex intercourse in any context shows a great misunderstanding of the texts of Scripture in their historical context.

    “But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality”…He defined marriage (a man and woman) when talking about divorce.

    How should our civil laws treat them? I’ll do better than a few short sentences, I’ll give you a paragraph.

    “Whether or not men and women with same-sex attractions are struggling to resist engaging in erotic sexual activity, their civil rights, and the rights of their children in their care, must be guaranteed and safeguarded. Homosexual people must have the same access to housing, employment, police protection, legal justice, tax benefits, and visitation privileges at institutions that all members of society possess and enjoy. Those desiring to be joined in “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” for such purposes should be allowed to do so, with the social and legal benefits that are guaranteed by such arraignments. This is especially important today, when safety of homosexual people and their children largely depends on legal and social recognition and protection. It is also important because those in same-sex relationships, whether or not they are sexually active, almost always understand a denial of such public recognition and protection as an expression of hatred and contempt toward themselves and their families.”

    From a gem of a little book called “Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction: Eastern Orthodox Reflections” by Father Thomas Hopko. A member of my church.

    Immoral behavior doesn’t make anyone less-human.

    Ken,

    I don’t believe in your religion or your concept of sin. And in the US you are not allowed to force me (or anyone else) to adhere to your religious beliefs.

    Is it still okay in the US to voice my religious beliefs?

  • ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 6, 2011 at 10:24 pm

    “Is it still okay in the US to voice my religious beliefs?”

    Yes, or any other beliefs you might have. I’ve never said nor implied that you couldn’t.

  • StraightGrandmother

    @ Joe

    That is a very informative paragraph in response to my

    Please state your position including justification for your position on people who are homosexual, inclding homosexual sex. How should our civil laws treat them?

    I think you were clear on your position except for one part. What is your justification for these beliefs? How to you justify them, is the justification based on your religion?

    It appears to me that you do not practice what you preach though Joe. I noticed an absence of compring homosexuality with pedophilia in your statement of beliefs…

    Those desiring to be joined in “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” for such purposes should be allowed to do so, with the social and legal benefits that are guaranteed by such arraignments. This is especially important today, when safety of homosexual people and their children largely depends on legal and social recognition and protection. It is also important because those in same-sex relationships, whether or not they are sexually active, almost always understand a denial of such public recognition and protection as an expression of hatred and contempt toward themselves and their families.”

    Doesn’t this statement more or less say that you should treat homosexuals with dignity and respect? I do not believe even half of your comments live up to your stated beliefs. I await your explination of the Justification of your beliefs.

  • StraightGrandmother

    @ Joe

    I took the time to take a peak at Russian Orthodox Fr. Thomas Hopko

    Well why didn’t you mention this in your stated beliefs? This is Fr. Thomas Hopko position

    “Given the traditional Orthodox understanding of the Old and New Testament scriptures as expressed in the Church’s liturgical worship, sacramental rites, canonical regulations and lives and teachings of the saints, it is clear that the Orthodox Church identifies solidly with those Christians, homosexual and heterosexual, who consider homosexual orientation as a disorder and disease, and who therefore consider homosexual actions as sinful and destructive”

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HopkoHomosexuality.php

    Puzzling isn’t it? Or perhaps Fr. Thomas Hopko has evolved over the years? Maybe? Perhaps my quote from Fr. Thomas Hopko was made earlier in his carear and he has found religion so to say, and realized that his calling gays diseased was wrong. Well better late than never which shows that there is still hope for you to fully evolve as I am guessing here that your real beliefs are closer to as I have shown above.

  • Richard Willmer

    Joe

    My point was that your statement, as well being cheap, nasty and cliched, is riddled with intellectual holes – which it is (it ignores the fact that paedophilia is essentially about the abuse of power; it ignores the concept of informed consent; it ignores the fact that any sexual act takes place in a context, and that that context is a significant moral factor).

    I wasn’t talking about ‘icky sexual stuff’, was I? (If I was, please do quote me!) In fact I didn’t say a great deal – I think it best to keep comments as succinct as possible: much more effective. Jayhuck and Dave apparently share my view on this … and I don’t recall either of them talking about ‘icky sexual stuff’.

    On the matter of ‘icky …’: sex within the context of a loving relationship is not ‘icky’ as far as I’m concerned. The ‘ick’ is on your side of the house.

    Truth be told, it is you who are hung up on ‘sex’; you seem unable to understand that the context in which a sexual act takes place is also important, as is the motivation behind such any such act.

  • Richard Willmer

    Actually, it is completely wrong to view paedophilia as ‘sex’ – it is violence, surely?

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Joe,

    The article that SG quoted from is copyrighted 2001-2011. The book you quoted from is copyrighted from 2006. So it is hard to tell which is his more current view or if perhaps his view is a bit convuluted alternating back and forth between a very uncomplimentary view (‘homosexuality is an illness and a disease”) and perhaps compassion and empathy. ( I might add that the article SG links to also references ‘change’ authors whose theories this blog has already debunked.)

    But back to you.. You have spent an endless amount of time using your pedophile argument and trying to convince people it isn’t offensive despite what myself .. a straight minister of the gospel … and other people both gay and straight have told you. Do you really think that being obnoxious is going to help your argument along?? Do you really think that people can’t wait to hear what you have to say when you refuse to hear what is being said to you?? If you are only trying to be a loud gong or clanging cymbal (I trust you know the reference) then I guess you are doing pretty well. You could have easiy switched gears early on in this discussion and used a more palatable example such as straight people who remain chaste until marriage and do not act on their feelings. But you chose this other route.

    I have been in conversations on line between people who disagree where people actually grow and learn something. This .. unfortunately .. isn’t one of them.

    Dave

  • joe

    Unfortunately, regardless of what you or I might think, they have made the connection.

    In Baltimore, MD last month….Academic conference seeks to normalize pedophilia…

    http://b4uact.org/facts.htm

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Joe,

    Just who is “they”??? And how is this relevant to this discussion? There are all sorts of groups out there on the internet that support all kinds of things. And doubtless you could make all sorts of ridiculous connections with this.

    Lets look at what a well known organization that supports gay and lesbian people has to say about pedophilia..

    from PFLAG…

    Sexual Expliotation of Youth

    As a family organization, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. (PFLAG) strongly condemns the sexual exploitation of children by any individual, group, or organization, in any form and under any circumstance.

    Although the majority of sexual abusers of children are heterosexual men, and the majority of victims are young girls, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile organization whose sole purpose is to facilitate sex between adult men and young boys. PFLAG, therefore, repudiates NAMBLA and its aims.

    PFLAG opposes the inclusion of NAMBLA in any umbrella organization, coalition, event, or activity that is associated with the gay, lesbian, bisexual communities or their families and friends.

    (Adopted by the PFLAG Board of Directors in February 1997.)

    So yes there are organizations out there that support pedophilia .. PFLAG opposes them.

    I seriously question whether it is even worth my time and energy to respond to your posts.

  • Ken

    Dave# ~ Sep 7, 2011 at 9:53 am

    “And how is this relevant to this discussion? ”

    It isn’t, it is simply a way to distract from the topic of gay rights. For some a deliberate tactic to avoid addressing issues for which they have no real answers. For others an unconscious “strategy” they don’t really realize they are using. In either case it is more revealing about the people that do use this argument than about the issues at hand.

  • joe

    If you cannot dispute the argument, attack the person instead.

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    joe – If you cannot prove your argument, then claim you are being attacked instead.

  • http://wthrockmorton.com Warren

    joe – the reference to b4uact is incendiary. The conference did not seek to normalize pedophilia; rather it sought to generate empathy for people who are attracted to kids but do not want to offend. I think this is a good thing.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Joe,

    I went t that link also. It is an organization that tries to get mental health professionals to treat as they call it, people who are attracted to minors. This is to get mental health treatment for people so that they do not violate children. I am a bit worried about your obsession with pedophilia. It looks like there is help available if you live in Maryland Joe.

  • David Blakeslee

    It is interesting to see a conference highlighting the lack of severe mental illness amongst pedophiles.

    I remember outrage in 2000 about an APA article which highlighted the lack of negative consequences for children who had sex with adults (can’t remember article link).

    The power of Taboo in every culture is misunderstood and mysterious.

    As we encourage a Taboo of Tolerance…we dismantle other taboos.

    Taboos are reinforced by creating false and repulsive information about the behavior…science is understandably curious about which information is actually accurate. As they explore that, and find false associations, they appear to favor the behavioral taboo.

    As a culture, taboos are always used; as we dismantle them in the name of tolerance and compassion and science, we have to be willing to face responsibly any of the negative consequences which the taboo helped the culture avoid.

    I don’t think we do that last part very well.

    Dominionists are taboo peddlers…encouraging lethal penalties.

  • Ken

    David Blakeslee# ~ Sep 8, 2011 at 9:24 am

    “I remember outrage in 2000 about an APA article which highlighted the lack of negative consequences for children who had sex with adults (can’t remember article link).”

    I believe this is the article you are talking about:

    Rind, B., & Tromovitch, P. (1997). A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(3), 237-255.

    The outrage was caused because NAMBLA tried to use this article to justify their stance. The whole thing got blown out of proportion because people (who likely never even read the original article) started accusing the authors of being NAMBLA supporters etc.

  • Pingback: Box Turtle Bulletin » Dominionism Is Not A Myth, Continued

  • Patrocles

    I understand that gays won’t be mixed with pedophiles nowadays (it was different in the good ol’ days of the sixties and seventies), but in fact there’s a lot of interspace between both concepts. A lot of acts which are here and now classified as pedophile (in particular so-called “pedophile” abuses of catholic priests) could and would elsewhere be classified as homosexual – first because they weren’t violent, secondly because they weren’t directed to boys before puberty, but to boys in puberty.

    But Joe’s argument could be rewritten in a way that leaves your tender feelings untouched. Take pedophilia away and replace it with another kind of irresistible, but antisocial inclination (like cleptomania) and look at Joe’s argument again: Peoples impulses may be innate and unchosen, but that doesn’t validate their behaviour.

  • Jayhuck

    Patrocles, or what was your other name again? -

    Peoples impulses may be innate and unchosen, but that doesn’t validate their behaviour.

    Wow! Just when you thought you had heard the end of this old and tired argument it just rears its ugly head again. Yes, there are pedophiles who abuse those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex. That has nothing to do with consensual sex, and relationships, between law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. LOL

  • ken

    Patrocles# ~ Sep 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    “Take pedophilia away and replace it with another kind of irresistible, but antisocial inclination”

    In addition to what Jayhuck said sexual orientation is neither an irresistible nor antisocal inclination. The only significant difference between straight and gay is the gender of the person the individual is primarily attracted to (both sexually and affectionally). And despite what certain people and organizations would have you believe, being gay is not a disorder and there is nothing wrong with someone simply because he or she is gay.

    And until you learn that, you (and joe) are doomed to continue to make foolish and insulting analogies about gays.

  • http://www.comingout4christians.net Dave

    Patrocles,

    Well lets see how this works … perhaps your decision to chime in with Joe and use worse case scenarios to describe other people is comparable to necrophilia. .. where you may not want to not have sex with dead people .. but you just can’t help yourself. Likewise here .. you would like to have an intelligent argument .. but you just can’t do it … and so you resort to insulting analogies.

    Or to put it in a “positive” way:

    Your impulse to slanderous and unrelated analogies may be inate and unchosen, but it does not validate your behavior .

    Dave

  • Joe

    On a personal note…the critters ( squirrels, opossums, armadillos, ???) are causes havoc at my place. Chewed water line, phone line and some electrical wires.

    So now back up and back to the subject at hand. I assume by “incendiary” you mean a person who stirs up strife, if correct, that was not the intention. Clarification was the intention.

    It has repeatedly been said here, that there is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. I beg to differ.

    ” Dr. Lisa Cohen (Albert Einstein College of Medicine) presented data on the psychological correlates of pedophilia based on forensic samples, and argued that use of non-forensic samples would help researchers separate factors related to feelings of attraction from those related to behavior, and support the development of improved diagnostic systems.”

    On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents.

    The event was to examine ways in which “minor-attracted persons” can be involved in a revision of the American Psychological Association (APA) classification of pedophilia.

    You don’t think this is a first step toward normalization?

    Similar lobbying, then by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM. As a result of the DSM declassification, debate regarding homosexuality and the many documented harms associated with the homosexual lifestyle has been all but shut down in academic psychological circles.

    SGM-I have no more interest in this than in any other sexual “behavior” that was once considered immoral, but is now not.

    “it is clear that the Orthodox Church identifies solidly with those Christians, homosexual and heterosexual, who consider homosexual orientation as a disorder and disease, and who therefore consider homosexual actions as sinful and destructive”

    Puzzling isn’t it? Or perhaps Fr. Thomas Hopko has evolved over the years?

    Not puzzling at all…the difference in how Orthodox and Protestant view salvation, is what you misunderstand. Protestants think in terms of a legal transactions where as Orthodox see God on a rescue mission, and the church as a hospital. This distinction however will spin the conversation in a different direction, this is not the thread for that conversation.

    You have given me pause though. I may have to rethink this one section “Those desiring to be joined in “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” for such purposes should be allowed to do so, with the social and legal benefits that are guaranteed by such arraignments.”

    This may have crossed the line into condoning certain behaviors. In thirty years when the argument is about similarities in the civil rights movement and the pedophile rights movement, specifically marriage…I will also have a problem.

    “And despite what certain people and organizations would have you believe, being gay is not a disorder”

    Says who?

  • Jayhuck

    Joe -

    Says who?

    So says all of the largest and most reputable scientific and medical associations in this country and around the world – here are just a few examples: American medical association, American Nurses Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers….. this list is hardly exhaustive, its merely a small sample, I just don’t have the energy to type all of the groups that say this. ;)

  • Jayhuck

    Joe -

    From a gem of a little book called “Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction: Eastern Orthodox Reflections” by Father Thomas Hopko. A member of my church.

    Immoral behavior doesn’t make anyone less-human.

    For the record, I am Orthodox. Antiochian as a matter of fact ;) I like Fr Hopko, and what he says is true, but what one person defines as immoral behavior another does not. I think he would agree we all behave immorally at times.

    Ken,

    I don’t believe in your religion or your concept of sin. And in the US you are not allowed to force me (or anyone else) to adhere to your religious beliefs.

    Is it still okay in the US to voice my religious beliefs?

    Of course it is okay to voice your religious beliefs, that isn’t really what is at issue here. The issue is you, or anyone else, trying to legislate your religious beliefs on those who do not agree with you.

  • Ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 9, 2011 at 11:59 am

    “It has repeatedly been said here, that there is no correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. I beg to differ.”

    To be more accurate, there is no more correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality than there is between pedophila and heterosexuality. Nothing you have posted or cited supports your implication otherwise.

    Why do you feel the need to associate homosexuality with pedophila Joe? Your attitude seems no different than when people would keep trying to associate drug dealers (and other criminal activities) with blacks.

    “You don’t think this is a first step toward normalization?”

    No. Do you not understand what the term “consenting adult” means Joe? it has been used here several times.

    “SGM-I have no more interest in this than in any other sexual “behavior” that was once considered immoral, but is now not.”

    I doubt that, I have yet to see you post about inter-racial sex. Or sex outside of marriage. Or masturbation (male or female) or a host of other sexual behaviours. I’d say you seem particularly focused on gays.

    “Similar lobbying, then by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM.”

    The lobbying was what got the APA to look at the issue, the science was what got them to remove it from the DSM. This issue has already been discussed here. I’d recommend reading through the whole thread, Jayhuck, William, and some others also had some interesting facts and points about the removal of homosexuality from the DSM.

  • Jayhuck

    Joe -

    “Similar lobbying, then by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM.”

    I agree, you need to explore this issue a bit more. The removal of homosexuality from the DSM involved so much more than just the activism of some homosexual groups. Its removal took nearly a year, and involved much debate and review of the scientific studies that had been done to that point regarding pathology and orientation.

  • Teresa

    @Joe:

    “Whether or not men and women with same-sex attractions are struggling to resist engaging in erotic sexual activity, their civil rights, and the rights of their children in their care, must be guaranteed and safeguarded. Homosexual people must have the same access to housing, employment, police protection, legal justice, tax benefits, and visitation privileges at institutions that all members of society possess and enjoy. Those desiring to be joined in “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” for such purposes should be allowed to do so, with the social and legal benefits that are guaranteed by such arraignments. This is especially important today, when safety of homosexual people and their children largely depends on legal and social recognition and protection. It is also important because those in same-sex relationships, whether or not they are sexually active, almost always understand a denial of such public recognition and protection as an expression of hatred and contempt toward themselves and their families.”

    From a gem of a little book called “Christian Faith and Same-Sex Attraction: Eastern Orthodox Reflections” by Father Thomas Hopko. A member of my church.

    Is this the current opinion of Father Thomas Hopko?

    If it is, is this your position?

    Also, please realize, Joe, that some of us on this Blog who are homosexual, choose not to engage in same gender sexual behavior. Your remarks, at least to me, lack sensivity or a certain sense of diplomacy … actually, at times they are offensive. That’s my problem; but, it also is yours as a Christian. Often, it is how something is said, more than the content, that is unpalatable.

    I don’t think anyone on this Blog is unaware of the traditional Christian view on homosexuality. You are not speaking to an unintelligent group of people here, Joe. Some of us choose to align our behavior with our faith beliefs. Others’ beliefs are different and they choose to act accordingly. We really get it, Joe. What’s your real point?

    Speak the gospel, always. If necessary, use words.

    St. Francis of Assisi

  • Joe

    I don’t think anyone on this Blog is unaware of the traditional Christian view on homosexuality. You are not speaking to an unintelligent group of people here, Joe. Some of us CHOOSE to align our behavior with our faith beliefs. Others’ beliefs are different and they CHOOSE to act accordingly. We really get it, Joe. What’s your real point?

    I think you just made my point.

    -the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar.-

    “The truth is, skin color is not a moral category, but demanding unquestioned public affirmation of certain sexual behaviors from society is an inescapably moral issue.”

    I get a choice in my behavior…my skin color… not so much.

    Was what happened on 911 really morally wrong? The Taliban, certain Muslim factions and those belonging to al-Queda don’t believe it. In fact, they have said it was an honorable thing? Are we simply talking about differing individual beliefs or are we really asking the question, “Is there anything in the universe that is really True for all of us in the area of morals whether it is believed or not?”

    While a much different issue, the questions regarding sexual morality and sexual behavior are much the same. Is there anything that is really True, whether we believe it or not or practice it or not?

    A great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional…values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.”

    –C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

  • Patrocles

    To Jayhuck, Dave and Ken,

    My one and only point was to support the following argument: The question, if an inclination is innate or unchosen is quite irrelevant as an argument in the debate if that behaviour is good or bad.

    For that I had to find an example of an inclination whrere most people would admit that the behaviour is bad, even if the inclination is unchosen.

    Of course, that doesn’t give an answer to the question if homosexual behaviour is good or bad or what arguments are apt to decide about that. It only eliminates a particular argument which is completely inapt.

    At least, Dave with his commentary about my inclination to slanderous remarks seems to have accepted that – so I suppose I’ve made my point as far as it goes.

  • ken

    Joe# ~ Sep 11, 2011 at 7:53 am

    “-the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are very similar.-

    “The truth is, skin color is not a moral category, but demanding unquestioned public affirmation of certain sexual behaviors from society is an inescapably moral issue.”

    I get a choice in my behavior…my skin color… not so much.”

    However, discriimination based on ignorance and hatred and the bigotry it breeds IS very similar, regardless of whether it is based on a person’s skin color, orientation, gender, religion, ethnicity etc.

    “Was what happened on 911 really morally wrong? The Taliban, certain Muslim factions and those belonging to al-Queda don’t believe it. ”

    Which is a good example of why you should not be trying to legislate morality, because then it becomes a questions of whose morality do you pick.

  • http://www.exgaywatch.com Emily K

    I think what Joe is advocating is that as long as we remain self-loathing closeted people who can “pass” for “straight,” we don’t need civil equality.

    Of course, that is a miserable existence.

    Imagine telling a straight person they need to either be celibate or only have sex with people of the same sex in order to be accepted by society. They can “pass” as the correct type of person, but they would need to give up all semblance of true love and intimacy with a romantic partner they are attracted to. It would be an injustice.

    But maybe straights would get it, though, if this injustice were imposed upon them the way straights think it should be imposed upon us.

  • Teresa

    Is this the current opinion of Father Thomas Hopko?

    Joe, I’m really quite interested in your response here. Would you care to share?

  • Richard Willmer

    Teresa :

    I doubt that Fr Hopko’s position has changed, though he is due to speak on this subject on 15 October, I gather. In a sense, his position echoes what seems to be becoming the mainstream western Catholic one: LGB persons should be treated equally under the law (with the exception of matters relating to Marriage [but not necessarily civil unions] and adoption), but their ‘bedroom activities’ (which are deemed to be sinful) can never be ‘approved of’ by the Church.

    Anglican Christians (like myself) tend to hold a range of views on the issue of same-sex relationships. Personally, I cannot understand how any genuinely ‘loving’ relationship can be regarded as intrinsically sinful.

  • Jayhuck

    Patrocles -

    My one and only point was to support the following argument: The question, if an inclination is innate or unchosen is quite irrelevant as an argument in the debate if that behaviour is good or bad.

    For that I had to find an example of an inclination whrere most people would admit that the behaviour is bad, even if the inclination is unchosen.

    Of course, that doesn’t give an answer to the question if homosexual behaviour is good or bad or what arguments are apt to decide about that. It only eliminates a particular argument which is completely inapt.

    I think I can speak for all of us, Dave, Ken and myself, when I say we understood your point. I hope that you understand each of ours.

  • Jayhuck

    Joe -

    A great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional…values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.”

    Oh c’mon! Whose “traditional values” are you talking about? And what does the term “traditional values” mean anyway? Want to take a stab at that? I’ll bet for every answer you give there is someone who would offer a different one.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X