# Jerry Falwell



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

In another thread here we've been discussing Mitt Romney and religion. I'm wondering what people have to say about the passing of Jerry Falwell and his legacy. 

Personally, I don't take delight in his death (although I know some who do), but neither could I support his political agenda. Too often, it seemed his fundamentalist views resulted in public statements that demonstrated great intolerance.

If Ron Paul is being faulted for comments suggesting that longstanding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East might have something to do with the 9/11 attacks, then Farwell's remarks about feminists, homosexuals and (gasp) the ACLU contributing to 9/11 seem to me utterly absurd.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I wrote this in the other thread, but deleted it before posting:

Several decades ago the protestant televangelists were just as against other Christians (Popery and the Mormon cult) as they were abortion and gays. Sometime between then and now, probably in the late 80s to early 90s, they've found themselves on the same team. Traditional devout Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormons are on the same side of the culture wars even if they have thier doctrinal differences. Falwell, Pat Roberts, and others realized they needed all the help/votes they could get. 

I agree that the 9/11 comments were absurd. I think that was the peak of thier influence, it's been all downhill, for him and the movement, since then. He would have been better off to be content with just making allusions to another Holy Crusade and noble Christendom fighting off the Mohammadeian hordes. 

Now instead of fighting to spread Christianity, we fight to spread Democracy!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Falwell already apologized for his remarks following 9/11. As for his political agenda, it is no different from anyone else with a political agenda. When Jimmy Carter passes, will he be remembered for his political agenda or his work with Habitat. I'm guessing the latter. I don't agree with Falwell's brand of Christianity however I'm willing to concede that statements taken as intolerant were merely a reiteration of scriptural commandments and an attempt on his part to prevent us from sliding into a state of moral apathy.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

BertieW said:


> In another thread here we've been discussing Mitt Romney and religion. I'm wondering what people have to say about the passing of Jerry Falwell and his legacy.
> 
> Personally, I don't take delight in his death (although I know some who do), but neither could I support his political agenda. Too often, it seemed his fundamentalist views resulted in public statements that demonstrated great intolerance.
> 
> If Ron Paul is being faulted for comments suggesting that longstanding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East might have something to do with the 9/11 attacks, then Farwell's remarks about feminists, homosexuals and (gasp) the ACLU contributing to 9/11 seem to me utterly absurd.


Falwell issued a clearly half-hearted apology for those statements and attributed them to "fatigue". But the real catharsis came when Falwell's speechwriter, Mel White, announced he was gay. Nothing like a bit of personal experience to force an end to religious-based bigotry.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Good riddance...I never could stand listening to that bloated windbag thump the bible and pretend to be so "morally superior"...


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

the death of an old man is not a tragedy. the death of a divisive, judgemental, caricature (oh, what the hell, I could go on. I despised the guy) is just another death.

M


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Dealing with death all the time, I am never happy to see someone die. Sometimes it is indeed a release, but it should never be a happy thing for anyone.

That said, I am sure Tinkie Winkie is sleeping better tonight.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

This just in, Westboro Baptist Church will protest/picket Reverend Falwell's funeral.



> Westboro Baptist Church
> (WBC Chronicles - Since 1955)
> 3701 SW 12th St. Topeka, Kansas 66604 785-273-0325
> Religious Opinion and Bible Commentaw on Current Events
> ...


They spelled 'against' wrong in an official release.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I can't think of a bigger way to announce you're a loser than to show up and picket/protest at someone's funeral. There are several groups that have been doing this frequently and I think they should be "rounded up". No matter what you think of Falwell his family loved him and will miss him and the funeral is for them and their friends to say goodbye with some dignity and grace. Protest him while he's alive, then move on.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

A time to come and a time to go. I thought he said a lot right. Somebody called him a bigot, but I suppose that person never had any personal converations with him. People that have real beliefs are not all bigots. Just because he said some tough things to this world on the surface what about underneath the surface. I think he had a great deal of understanding you don't even begin to know about. After all, he was more interested in you going to heaven than hell. 

Like all of use he made some mistakes. There are many problems in this world and he helped many from the problems they were entangled in. So, he was a fine man. And it is a sad day when people attack the dead who helped so many people.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That said, I am sure Tinkie Winkie is sleeping better tonight.


A lot of us are - sad but true.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Falwell wasn't really my cup of tea - and no doubt, based on my religion, he would personally believe I was going to hell (and I may well be - but not for my religious beliefs) but, I think he probably did more good than bad. Yeah he said/did things that made me cringe or get embarrassed for him; Yeah he could be a buffoon, but he also said things that were true and needed saying and he was able to build coalitions with groups that he generally disagreed with. I think the article below has a pretty fair take on the guy and I think this quote is a good point for putting things in perspective:

"Jerry Falwell had his faults, excesses, and ego. His style of politics has no doubt contributed to the public rancor over religion. But think about it: The most frightening outcome of his activism was not a cadre of suicide bombers, or a culture of nihilistic rage, or a network of terrorists plotting to destroy the foundations of Western civilization. The most frightening outcome of Falwell's activism was the mobilization of middle-class citizens to join school boards and city councils, to launch lobbying campaigns and voter-registration drives, to participate in local and national elections.

We call that democracy."

Source:


And, after all this time, let's admit it - Tinky Winky was clearly gay :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I'm sorry to have to say this, but the people who have a point of view that amounts to "Falwell? I hated him. He was intolerant." need some serious mental/emotional counseling. Unfortunately, this response seems common among several individuals that are in groups that considered him an adversary (Catholics, et al). I find it rather interesting to see who can "walk the talk" and who can not.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm sorry to have to say this, but the people who have a point of view that amounts to "Falwell? I hated him. He was intolerant." need some serious mental/emotional counseling. Unfortunately, this response seems common among several individuals that are in groups that considered him an adversary (Catholics, et al). I find it rather interesting to see who can "walk the talk" and who can not.


Given the fact that Mr. Falwell took every opportunity to tell the world what an immoral, sinful person I am because of some old myths doesn't make what he said good or right. Yes there are many people who need counselling - because of the hate he spoke in public. I criticized him when he was alive and I'm not about to change my tune because he's dead. Those who choose now to gloss over his hate now that's he's dead are in need of a serious mental/emotional reality check.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Falwell wasn't really my cup of tea - and no doubt, based on my religion, he would personally believe I was going to hell (and I may well be - but not for my religious beliefs) but, I think he probably did more good than bad. Yeah he said/did things that made me cringe or get embarrassed for him; Yeah he could be a buffoon, but he also said things that were true and needed saying and he was able to build coalitions with groups that he generally disagreed with. I think the article below has a pretty fair take on the guy and I think this quote is a good point for putting things in perspective:
> 
> "Jerry Falwell had his faults, excesses, and ego. His style of politics has no doubt contributed to the public rancor over religion. But think about it: The most frightening outcome of his activism was not a cadre of suicide bombers, or a culture of nihilistic rage, or a network of terrorists plotting to destroy the foundations of Western civilization. The most frightening outcome of Falwell's activism was the mobilization of middle-class citizens to join school boards and city councils, to launch lobbying campaigns and voter-registration drives, to participate in local and national elections.
> 
> We call that democracy."


IMO that's an overly generous if not inaccurate summary. Things like clinic bombings and assassination of doctors are also a legacy of the Pat Robertson/James Dobson/Jerry Falwell brand of "liberals are out to get us" politics and hateful, closed-minded "christianity".

I never did get the "Moral Majority" thing, because in most cases a majority of America didn't agree with the positions taken by this group.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> Given the fact that Mr. Falwell took every opportunity to tell the world what an immoral, sinful person I am because of some old myths doesn't make what he said good or right. Yes there are many people who need counselling - because of the hate he spoke in public. I criticized him when he was alive and I'm not about to change my tune because he's dead. Those who choose now to gloss over his hate now that's he's dead are in need of a serious mental/emotional reality check.


Your problem isn't with Falwell then - it's with the vast majority of adherents to the monotheistic religions (Have no idea about hindus or Buddhists, etc.)who hold similar beliefs. You must dislike billions of people.

Your "myth" crack demonstates all the tact of Falwell - well done.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Personally, I don't take delight in his death (although I know some who do), but neither could I support his political agenda. Too often, it seemed his fundamentalist views resulted in public statements that demonstrated great intolerance.


BertieW, I agree with your conclusions. Our founding fathers demonstrated considerable wisdom in providing for the clear seperation of Church and State. How unfortunate that so many, Jerry Falwell included, today fail to share that wisdom!



Wayfarer said:


> That said, I am sure Tinkie Winkie is sleeping better tonight.





Rocker said:


> And, after all this time, let's admit it - Tinky Winky was clearly gay :icon_smile:


In point of fact, Tinkie Winkie never carried a purse...it was a "Man Bag", which was/is a hallmark of "Euro-fashion!" The Rev Jerry was simply in error on this point. May he rest in peace.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> IMO that's an overly generous if not inaccurate summary. Things like clinic bombings and assassination of doctors are also a legacy of the Pat Robertson/James Dobson/Jerry Falwell brand of "liberals are out to get us" politics and hateful, closed-minded "christianity".


FrankDC - you say hateful and close minded things all the time; what's your excuse? You may think what you like - I don't recall Eric Rudolph or anyone else of his ilk mentioning Falwell - ever - but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your blanket assertions.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> Given the fact that Mr. Falwell took every opportunity to tell the world what an immoral, sinful person I am because of some old myths doesn't make what he said good or right. Yes there are many people who need counselling - because of the hate he spoke in public. I criticized him when he was alive and I'm not about to change my tune because he's dead. Those who choose now to gloss over his hate now that's he's dead are in need of a serious mental/emotional reality check.


Mr. Falwell advocating a religious and moral value is quite different than speaking hate. If you can't distinguish, you need the reality check.

You need to also distinguish criticizing behavior vs. criticizing people. He condems sin and not the sinner, and you in turn criticize him. Who is the better person in that scenario?

I'm pretty sure Falwell believed all people are sinners and God taught to love all people. Therefore, you may need to check the "old myths" facet of your opinion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> IMO that's an overly generous if not inaccurate summary. Things like clinic bombings and assassination of doctors are also a legacy of the Pat Robertson/James Dobson/Jerry Falwell brand of "liberals are out to get us" politics and hateful, closed-minded "christianity".


Sorry Frank, that's just nuts. Do you also blame Al Gore for people like ELF?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> FrankDC - you say hateful and close minded things all the time; what's your excuse? You may think what you like - I don't recall Eric Rudolph or anyone else of his ilk mentioning Falwell - ever - but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your blanket assertions.


I wasn't the guy running around the country pretending to be a spokesman for the "Moral Majority", and blackmailing politicians into supporting radical right-wing and/or fundamentalist religious positions.

Also, I stand by my claim. Falwell _was_ one of the major proponents of the belief system that results in Eric Rudolph and his ilk.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I wasn't the guy running around the country pretending to be a spokesman for the "Moral Majority", and blackmailing politicians into supporting radical right-wing and/or fundamentalist religious positions.
> 
> Also, I stand by my claim. Falwell _was_ one of the major proponents of the belief system that results in Eric Rudolph and his ilk.


Thank you for going on record and re-iterating you believe in guilt-by-association. Please do a search and revise your comments in the Sandy Berger thread regarding 9/11. You might also revise comments re: former President Carter and his role in the M.E..


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Thank you for going on record and re-iterating you believe in guilt-by-association. Please do a search and revise your comments in the Sandy Berger thread regarding 9/11. You might also revise comments re: former President Carter and his role in the M.E..


Association? What on earth are you babbling about? Falwell FOUNDED the "Moral Majority".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Association? What on earth are you babbling about? Falwell FOUNDED the "Moral Majority".


I always love a post like this Frank in which you basically are forced to state you do not understand the implications of your own prior post when someone else points out said implications to you. I have to say, the gambit where you state you do not understand your own words is not something I would employ, let alone as often as you do.

Cheers


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I wasn't the guy running around the country pretending to be a spokesman for the "Moral Majority", and blackmailing politicians into supporting radical right-wing and/or fundamentalist religious positions.


And by "blackmail" you mean that he threatened to ecourage his supporters to vote for the other candiate?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Thank you for going on record and re-iterating you believe in guilt-by-association. Please do a search and revise your comments in the Sandy Berger thread regarding 9/11. You might also revise comments re: former President Carter and his role in the M.E..


Since I've been participating here on AAAC I haven't said a single word about either Sandy Berger or Jimmy Carter. Absolutely clueless.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Your problem isn't with Falwell then - it's with the vast majority of adherents to the monotheistic religions (Have no idea about hindus or Buddhists, etc.)who hold similar beliefs. You must dislike billions of people.
> 
> Your "myth" crack demonstates all the tact of Falwell - well done.


Actually my problem isn't with the vast majority of adherents to the monotheistic religions. They don't make their living by 'preaching' hatred to millions of television viewers nor seeking to limit others peoples freedoms based on their personal beliefs. So yes, this is about Falwell and those in the public arena like him. As to disliking billions of people. I don't know why you would suggest that. Do you dislike all people who disagree with you? Actually some of my best friends are people with whom I disagree alot. To me that's apples and oranges.

As to the myth crack, I guess I do own Mr. Falwell something. Just ignore the myth remark, I didn't mean it, sort of like how Mr. Falwell didn't mean that 9/11 was the fault of femimists, gays, lesbians, abortionists et al.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

I grew up in a fundamental Baptist church and people like Jerry were outspoken heros.

Nonetheless, I have a huge problem with his views from a Biblical perspective. Getting your hands dirty in politics violates so may biblical teachings which Jerry totally ignored. Religion is cheapened now because of him.

Be in the world, but not of the world. 

If my people, who are called by my name, shall humble themselves and PRAY, I will heal their land. (It doesn't say form a right wing political action movement, it says PRAY!)

And the list goes on....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Since I've been participating here on AAAC I haven't said a single word about either Sandy Berger or Jimmy Carter. Absolutely clueless.


Guilt-by-omission? 

I may be confused, but I think you responded to some of Wayfarer's posts on those topics.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mpcsb said:


> 'preaching' hatred to millions of television viewers


Can you give an example?

I can give one supporting that he did not:
"We can have friendship with homosexuals," he says. "You need to learn that. We can have friendship with people we disagree with." Many of the kids have grown up in conservative homes where gays are rarely spoken of, especially not in exhortations to friendship, and now they sit stone-faced, motionless. Falwell laments the murders of Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming student, and Billy Jack Gaither, the gay man clubbed to death and burned in Alabama. Falwell makes clear that, to him, homosexuality is still a sin. But he says Christians must be more vigilant about observing both halves of "that cliche," as he calls it: "Love the sinner but hate the sin."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Guilt-by-omission?
> 
> I may be confused, but I think you responded to some of Wayfarer's posts on those topics.


You're confused.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

android said:


> Be in the world, but not of the world.


I think that statement is more ascribed to the Stoics, not the Xtians.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Can you give an example?


Among dozens of others:
"If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America! If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way, and our nation will pay a terrible price."
- Jerry Falwell, "Hostile Climate", 1997, p.15

Not "own", Jerry. Just redecorate. Maybe add a plant or two.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Thanks Frank,

I don't have time to research specific quotes at this time.

Yes, a plant or two....and those drapes _have_ to go.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> Actually my problem isn't with the vast majority of adherents to the monotheistic religions. They don't make their living by 'preaching' hatred to millions of television viewers nor seeking to limit others peoples freedoms based on their personal beliefs.


So, if the Pope, were to state that homosexual acts are sinful and are a mortal sin and that if one were to die after committing a homosexual act for which one was unrepentant and which was not conrfessed such person would go to hell - he is preaching hate?

And when any religious leader states that abortion is a sin and states the believers have a moral obliagtion not to support politicians who support such practices and thus seeks to restrict "other peoples freedoms based on personal beliefs" - that is hateful and deserves condemnation?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I love philosophy. In a perfect world, I would be teaching philosophy at a nice university, be tenured, and generally leading the life that is no longer possible as a humanities Prof in a cozy New England setting. So I always squeezed in as many philosophy classes as I could while doing my undergrad, enough in fact to declare a minor in it. I had a stellar Prof for an ethics class. After doing the obligatory work investigating some of the major ethical systems, he introduced a concept of "morality without hubris". I always thought that was a great concept and one that maybe, just maybe, we should employ in threads like this one.

YMMV.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> So, if the Pope, were to state that homosexual acts are sinful and are a mortal sin and that if one were to die after committing a homosexual act for which one was unrepentant and which was not conrfessed such person would go to hell - he is preaching hate?


In light of what is now known about homosexuality, yes. Not only hateful but evil.

If a Pope wants to be an OT Bible thumper he needs to at least be consistent instead of horribly selective. If he's going to condemn gay people for loving one another, he must also defend slavery, the beating of slaves, the putting to death of 20 different classes of human beings etc.



Rocker said:


> And when any religious leader states that abortion is a sin and states the believers have a moral obliagtion not to support politicians who support such practices and thus seeks to restrict "other peoples freedoms based on personal beliefs" - that is hateful and deserves condemnation?


Give it up Rocker, or else we'll have to really start digging into the Falwell File, e.g.

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."
- Jerry Falwell

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
- Jerry Falwell

Etc.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I had a stellar Prof for an ethics class... he introduced a concept of "morality without hubris". I always thought that was a great concept and one that maybe, just maybe, we should employ in threads like this one.
> 
> YMMV.


To quote Julius Caesar when he was crossing the Rubicon, "It's only hubris if I fail" - LOL :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Among dozens of others:
> "If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America! If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way, and our nation will pay a terrible price."
> - Jerry Falwell, "Hostile Climate", 1997, p.15
> 
> Not "own", Jerry. Just redecorate. Maybe add a plant or two.


I'm missing the word "hate".


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Among dozens of others:
> "If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America! If you and I do not speak up now, this homosexual steamroller will literally crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way, and our nation will pay a terrible price."
> - Jerry Falwell, "Hostile Climate", 1997, p.15
> 
> Not "own", Jerry. Just redecorate. Maybe add a plant or two.


Sigh - look, I'm not going to defend this guy across the Board (I don't share his religion). But, if I Google the above quote - most websites indicate ellipsis in the quote - i.e., words in the quote have been deleted - your post does not indicate this and that's not fair. What you've provided is an edited, out-of-context, and potentially misleading quote.

Further, I see this quote, even as you've stated it as polemic and abrasive - but not hateful. Take out "homosexual" and insert a political party and one sees similar statements ALL the time.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Rocker said:


> Sigh - look, I'm not going to defend this guy across the Board (I don't share his religion). But, if I Google the above quote - most websites indicate ellipsis in the quote - i.e., words in the quote have been deleted - your post does not indicate this and that's not fair. What you've provided is an edited, out-of-context, and potentially misleading quote.
> 
> Further, I see this quote, even as you've stated it as polemic and abrasive - but not hateful. Take out "homosexual" and insert a political party and one sees similar statements ALL the time.


Good response. I agree with that. I don't like Falwell much either. I dislike the religion and politics mix too. Include Robertson in that.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> In light of what is now known about homosexuality, yes. Not only hateful but evil.


 Yet, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, is it not?



FrankDC said:


> If a Pope wants to be an OT Bible thumper he needs to at least be consistent instead of horribly selective. If he's going to condemn gay people for loving one another, he must also defend slavery, the beating of slaves, the putting to death of 20 different classes of human beings etc.


 Uh, I don't see this. Where do you get this from?



FrankDC said:


> "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
> - Jerry Falwell
> 
> Etc.


That bothers you? Please. I assume some Christians (like Falwell) think I'm going to hell b/c I'm not the right kind of Christian; I assume Jews think I'll go to hell becasue I worship a false god; I assume Hindus beleive I'll come back as an amoeba - so what?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'm missing the word "hate".


A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> In light of what is now *known* about homosexuality, yes. Not only hateful but evil.


I guess that I am missing out on what is "known" here. I never knew science to be so definitive.

I couldn't stand Falwell and would happily dance on his grave. That said, I think he deserves time to get there.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.


Sometimes the irony is just too much for me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.


That would seem to dilute the effectiveness of "preaching hate". Would it not?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Sometimes the irony is just too much for me.


Come over the the Trad Forum. There are many of us who don't believe in ironing LOL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Yet, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, is it not?


Indeed it is. A Church whose clergy is by far the largest organized group of gay people in the world today.



Rocker said:


> Uh, I don't see this. Where do you get this from?


Please open your Bibles and turn to Leviticus chapter 20, Exodus 21:20-21 etc.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Come over the the Trad Forum. There are many of us who don't believe in ironing LOL


LOL....I do visit ya know? I'm just not a ribbon belt type guy but I consider myself to dress with many Trad aspects.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> A Church whose clergy is by far the largest organized group of gay people in the world today.


Ouch. Truth is where you find it and I have to say, Frank's point has some pretty strong validity there.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Indeed it is. A Church whose clergy is by far the largest organized group of gay people in the world today.
> 
> Please open your Bibles and turn to Leviticus chapter 20, Exodus 21:20-21 etc.


Well, first off that's irrelevant to this issue. Second, you've conflating homsexuals with homosexual acts throughout this thread.

But, in any case, I know all I need to know now - you've confirmed that the Catholic Church teaches hate and in your word teaches "evil." See ( https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showpost.php?p=554967&postcount=37) So, I know exactly where you're coming from - you hate Falwell, you hate the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and so, I would assume you consider anyone who espouses an "orthdox" Christian/Islamic/Jewsih view on this issue to be evil and hate filled.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Please open your Bibles and turn to Leviticus chapter 20, Exodus 21:20-21 etc.


No - I know the passages. What I don't get is you leap of logic as to why if the Pope/Church condemns homosexual acts, it also has to support slavery, " putting to death of 20 different classes of human beings," etc.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> No - I know the passages. What I don't get is you leap of logic as to why if the Pope/Church condemns homosexual acts, it also has to support slavery, " putting to death of 20 different classes of human beings," etc.


Yes. It's bigotry based on religious tradition and cultural conditioning.

A few weeks ago I was watching the film "Trading Places" on broadcast TV. The censors bleeped the word "ni**er" from the film, but left the word "fa**ot". This is a rather pathetic anecdote but it illustrates my point. It's still "ok" to bash (in a figurative sense) gay people.

The notions that homosexuals can "choose" to change their sexual orientation, that it's immoral because it cannot result in procreation (that argument hasn't stopped the RCC from blessing marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples and elderly couples) etc belong to the last century in my view. While (again IMO) the last Pope was authentically Christian in his approach to gay people, the current one has been a raging homophobe for the last 40+ years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The notions that homosexuals can "choose" to change their sexual orientation, that it's immoral because it cannot result in procreation (that argument hasn't stopped the RCC from blessing marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples and elderly couples) etc belong to the last century in my view.


This thread is starting to really upset me, as I have to agree with Frank again. I went around the bushes with someone on this here quite recently. I even included that the so-called "natural" method is just as wrong as taking the pill, logically speaking from the RC position, as the intent is to stop conception and enjoy sex just for the sake of sex. IMO, the logic on what sex is condoned by the RC and what sex is not, is totally inconsistent.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> This thread is starting to really upset me, as I have to agree with Frank again. I went around the bushes with someone on this here quite recently. I even included that the so-called "natural" method is just as wrong as taking the pill, logically speaking from the RC position, as the intent is to stop conception and enjoy sex just for the sake of sex. IMO, the logic on what sex is condoned by the RC and what sex is not, is totally inconsistent.


What does that have to do with Jerry Falwell?

You know, I assume from your medical industry experience, what an abortifacient is? Look at the Church's position on fetal stem cell research, compare with what the pill potentially does (e.g. prevents a fertilized egg from embedding in the uterus) and you'll see some consistency on the Pill. If you're truly curious on the issue, the Catechism is available on-line at the Vatcian website.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Yes. It's bigotry based on religious tradition and cultural conditioning.
> 
> A few weeks ago I was watching the film "Trading Places" on broadcast TV. The censors bleeped the word "ni**er" from the film, but left the word "fa**ot". This is a rather pathetic anecdote but it illustrates my point. It's still "ok" to bash (in a figurative sense) gay people.
> 
> The notions that homosexuals can "choose" to change their sexual orientation, that it's immoral because it cannot result in procreation (that argument hasn't stopped the RCC from blessing marriages of infertile opposite-sex couples and elderly couples) etc belong to the last century in my view. While (again IMO) the last Pope was authentically Christian in his approach to gay people, the current one has been a raging homophobe for the last 40+ years.


Regardless - the point is, as I've said to someone else - your issue isn't with Falwell - it's with mainstream/orthodox Christian/Jewish/Islamic belief. Falwell may have been acerbic and not too careful with his words - but, at essence, on this issue, his statements were in comport with 2,000 years of Christian belief and tradition (and the older Jewish beliefs/traditions) as well as the tradition in reading and interpretation of the text of the Bible. Accordingly, it's not just Falwell who is evil and hateful, it's the billions of people who hold similar beliefs - apparently, including Benedict XVI.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

Rocker said:


> No - I know the passages. What I don't get is you leap of logic as to why if the Pope/Church condemns homosexual acts, it also has to support slavery, " putting to death of 20 different classes of human beings," etc.


There is not leap of logic, only logic. If you are going to quote old testament to support your views, then you need to believe in the entire old testament, not just the parts you like.

So, positions on no shellfish, stoning and slavery as well as women being unclean while menstruating must be accepted along with the condemnation of homosexuality.

We're just asking that if you make rules, that you play by your own rules. If you chose to "believe" in the old testament, then please believe in all of it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> What does that have to do with Jerry Falwell?


If you read the last several posts, it should fit well into the context. The post I quote specifically mentions the topic of the RCC and blessing unions. I mentioned that and then transitioned to the last point as demonstration that similar topics have been raised here in the recent past and that as much as it pains me, Frank is doing rather well in this thread.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Regardless - the point is, as I've said to someone else - your issue isn't with Falwell - it's with mainstream/orthodox Christian/Jewish/Islamic belief. Falwell may have been acerbic and not too careful with his words - but, at essence, on this issue, his statements were in comport with 2,000 years of Christian belief and tradition (and the older Jewish beliefs/traditions) as well as the tradition in reading and interpretation of the text of the Bible. Accordingly, it's not just Falwell who is evil and hateful, it's the billions of people who hold similar beliefs - apparently, including Benedict XVI.


And again you'll need to address the issue of selective belief. Your "2000 years of Christian belief and tradition" include some very very nasty things. Do we need to review them?


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

android said:


> There is not leap of logic, only logic. If you are going to quote old testament to support your views, then you need to believe in the entire old testament, not just the parts you like.
> 
> So, positions on no shellfish, stoning and slavery as well as women being unclean while menstruating must be accepted along with the condemnation of homosexuality.
> 
> We're just asking that if you make rules, that you play by your own rules. If you chose to "believe" in the old testament, then please believe in all of it.


All right - I'm getting out of this thread b/c - like I said, I'm not going to defend Falwell against all comers.
1) I have no idea what "rules" youre talking about.
2) I NEVER relied on or quoted the Old Testament - Frank DC is the one who brought it up - not me.
3) The New Testament condemns Homosexual beahvior as well - it's not just OT?
4) I don't care what you do with your body - but don't vomit invective and hatred against Falwell as if he's so far outside the religious mainstream. He's not - at least on this issue - and I notice this is the ONE issue everybody is getting uppity about with repect to Falwell. Most Protestant denominations, the Eastern Orthodox, Catholcism, orthodx Judaism, Islam, etc. all condemn homosexual acts. Hell, I think Gandhi had problems with it too.

The irony is for all the "hate" talk people impute to Falwell, most of the writers are guilty of far more hateful and vicious talk than he ever engaged in. Just go to some of the more liberal blogs and take a looksy.

I'm done - feel free to wish pain and hell on him.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> And again you'll need to address the issue of selective belief. Your "2000 years of Christian belief and tradition" include some very very nasty things. Do we need to review them?


No, I'm bowing out of this thread - I don't have the time to educate you and refute the usual canards of the crusades and the inquisition and the usual littany of a-historical alleged church abuses.

Start a thread on this topic next week when I have time and I'll participate - I'm off to draft a Board of Directors Written Consent Action.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Rocker said:


> 4) I don't care what you do with your body - but don't vomit invective and hatred against Falwell as if he's so far outside the religious mainstream. He's not - at least on this issue


If you believe e.g. AIDS is God's punishment on homosexuals, I believe you're pretty far outside the religious mainstream. At least I'd hope so.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

The Gabba Goul said:


> Good riddance...I never could stand listening to that bloated windbag thump the bible and pretend to be so "morally superior"...


Could not have said it better myself.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

When Steve Irwin died I paused. He taught a lot of people about Nature and taught himself a lesson when people called him on the stunt with his infant. I moved on after a week. When Anna Nicole died I didn't pause. I've already determined big breasted blondes are trouble and I prefer redheads anyway. When Rev Falwell died I paused, knowing somebody would post here and scribbled a few notes on who would say what. 'Christianity' in all it's claimants has full share of Elmer Gantry's and living Saints. I've met every stripe from the evil incarnate Jim Jones in San Francisco to a catholic monk with crippled arms from being suspended in shackles by the communists in his native China he prayed for daily. Falwell? I've known better, encountered worse. Time to move on for me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

dopey said:


> The reasoning people employ in the interchange is abysmal. What is relevant in responding to rocker is not what we do or don't know about homosexuality. It is what we do or don't know about going to hell. If the Pope is offering an accurate assessment of the consequences of an unrepentant act of homosexuality, it would be hard to argue his warning could be considered evil. You might argue that the rules of admission to hell are evil, but don't blame the Pope.


Dopey:

This is a great post. It made me think. At first, I was in total agreement with you, hey, it is just the rules, nothing one can do. Then I pondered about things and would ask, does one not have some accountability in what one choses to believe? I am sure the people that flew planes into the WTC thought they were following rules laid down by their god, so hey, we should have no problems with the terrorists, they were just following their rules. I could go on with other examples of "just following the rules" but I am sure everyone gets the point of my query.

Dopey, post here more, that was a very good post.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.


That works two ways bud.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

dopey said:


> You are letting me off easy, and yourself to.
> 
> The easy answer answer in your example is that you believe that WTC killers were mistaken. In other words, their crime is not just being viscous murderers, but being such based on falsehood. It is not good enough or excusable to just act on your beliefs - you had better be damn sure your beliefs are correct, if you don't have an independent moral justification for what you do.
> 
> Now, what do you do where you have clashes of beliefs? That is where the argument for tolerance and autonomy come into play. I can't say the Pope is wrong just because I don't share his beliefs. But I also can't allow him to impose his beliefs on me. Nor can I impose mine on him. That part is easy, and a stable pluralistic society demands it. Things are more difficult when my belief makes me make demands on your behavior. That's when the shooting starts.


So I assume you'd support e.g. the basic human right of gay people to enter into legally recognized marriages.

And if you don't, why not? What gives heterosexuals (or worse yet, our government) the right to impose their definition of marriage on gay people?

The simple fact is, gay people have been dealing with institutionalized (and in the case of religion, enshrined) bigotry and discrimination for the last 3000+ years.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> What gives heterosexuals (or worse yet, our government) *the right to impose their definition of marriage* on gay people?


If we all have individual definitions for words, how do we communicate?

I think we need to promulgate a term universally such as "contractual relationship" and drop the term "marriage" except for religious ceremonies. Of course, I back all forms of this contractual relationship between consenting adults, i.e. five guys, one girl, 10 guys, three guys, six women and a well endowed mule....


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Falwell issued a clearly half-hearted apology for those statements and attributed them to "fatigue". But the real catharsis came when Falwell's speechwriter, Mel White, announced he was gay. Nothing like a bit of personal experience to force an end to religious-based bigotry.


Wherein lies the end?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> If we all have individual definitions for words, how do we communicate?
> 
> I think we need to promulgate a term universally such as "contractual relationship" and drop the term "marriage" except for religious ceremonies. Of course, I back all forms of this contractual relationship between consenting adults, i.e. five guys, one girl, 10 guys, three guys, six women and a well endowed mule....


How does a mule consent, even a well-endowed adult one?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> How does a mule consent, even a well-endowed adult one?


Just felt like tossing in a little whimsy....


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

3000 years of bigotry? Methinks Frank DC needs a mentori.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> So I assume you'd support e.g. the basic human right of gay people to enter into legally recognized marriages.
> 
> And if you don't, why not? What gives heterosexuals (or worse yet, our government) the right to impose their definition of marriage on gay people?
> 
> The simple fact is, gay people have been dealing with institutionalized (and in the case of religion, enshrined) bigotry and discrimination for the last 3000+ years.


Your post has a lot of argumentative statements and assumptions and assertions in it. Almost enough to make me think that you are interested only in speechmaking and incapable of discussion. I will respond nonetheless.

The simple answer is "do what you want.' Live with whomever you want on whatever terms and conditions you want. As for State sanction of marriage, tell me what difference it makes and I'll tell you what I think of it. I will begin by saying I am not compelled by arguments about equality alone. Rather tell me why, if you work for me, I must pay for your boyfriend's healthcare. The fact that I have to pay for someone else's husband's heatlthcare doesn't do much for me. But really, I don't much care either way.

If I liked you, I would be glad to invite you and your partner to dinner and address the invitation however you liked. I have several gay couples as friends, including ones who consider themselves married and ones who have gone through "divorces." What they called their relationships were, for the most part, their business.


----------



## dopey (Jan 17, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> the basic human right of gay people to enter into legally recognized marriages.


I am quoting this because it is funny.

I never thought of the ability to enter into legally recognizable relationships as a basic human right. Pretty soon people will be marching in the streeets for the right to form LLCs without publication requirements and for hairdressers to form professional corporations. I can't wait for the million S corporation march on DC.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> So I assume you'd support e.g. the basic human right of gay people to enter into legally recognized marriages.


Basic human right? According to whom?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

whnay. said:


> Basic human right? According to whom?


Haven't you heard? Any time your bag of tricks in a message board debate is running low you're supposed to claim your position protects a basic human right and then hope that people won't actually think about what you just said.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Haven't you heard? Any time your bag of tricks in a message board debate is running low you're supposed to claim your position protects a basic human right and then hope that people won't actually think about what you just said.


Or call your antagonist "racist". Oh wait, other thread....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

If the right to have a marriage to the person you love recognized by the state does not qualify as part of man's inalienable (i.e. NOT granted by the state) rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happinsess, NOTHING ELSE DOES.

But I keep forgetting, we shredded the Declaration of Independence in 1940, when advocation of revolution was made a federal crime.

If the state wishes to deny this right to any class of individual, the burden is on THEM to defend this denial, NOT on e.g. gay people to prove why they should have it. And so far, the best the state has been able to come up with is claiming the sky will fall, and pointing to the Bible. Why do you think all these inane "defense of marriage" constitutional amendments have passed in the states? The "defense of marriage" camp doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and they know it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If the right to have a marriage to the person you love recognized by the state does not qualify as part of man's inalienable (i.e. NOT granted by the state) rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happinsess, NOTHING ELSE DOES.
> 
> But I keep forgetting, we shredded the Declaration of Independence in 1940, when advocation of revolution was made a federal crime.
> 
> If the state wishes to deny this right to any class of individual, the burden is on THEM to defend this denial, NOT on e.g. gay people to prove why they should have it. And so far, the best the state has been able to come up with is claiming the sky will fall, and pointing to the Bible. Why do you think all these inane "defense of marriage" constitutional amendments have passed in the states? The "defense of marriage" camp doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and they know it.


Gay men have the right to marry. They can marry any woman they want. Seems to me like that is the State's only obligation.

It's understandable why they choose not to marry a woman, but that in and of itself does not create a right to marry a man.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank, you do back group marriages, polygamy, and any permutation consenting adults can come up with, correct?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, you do back group marriages, polygamy, and any permutation consenting adults can come up with, correct?


No, that's the Rick Santorum/Sky is Falling School of Logic. This puerile point has been raised and answered time and again, it's one of the primary reasons why the "defense of marriage" camp has lost in court cases from Massachusetts to Hawaii.

As I said before, the burden is on the state to justify the denial of marriage rights to any class of individual, and the state has successfully done so with polygamists and other classes of Americans. The state has not been able to do so with gay Americans, hence the need for constitutional bashing.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Gay men have the right to marry. The can marry any woman they want. Seems to me like that is the State's only obligation.
> 
> It's understandable why they choose not to marry a woman, but that in and of itself does not create a right to marry a man.


This is the same logic used to justify miscegenation laws in the U.S. prior to 1960, i.e. "You're free to marry anyone of the same race."

The argument is ridiculous, and (as far as I know) has never been used by the "defense of marriage" camp in a court case.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*You are using the word "puerile" way too much....*



FrankDC said:


> No, that's the Rick Santorum/Sky is Falling School of Logic. This puerile point has been raised and answered time and again, it's one of the primary reasons why the "defense of marriage" camp has lost in court cases from Massachusetts to Hawaii.
> 
> As I said before, the burden is on the state to justify the denial of marriage rights to any class of individual, and the state has successfully done so with polygamists and other classes of Americans. The state has not been able to do so with gay Americans, hence the need for constitutional bashing.


So you seem to be stating you feel "marriage" is only between two consenting adults?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So you seem to be stating you feel "marriage" is only between two consenting adults?


My view is, when the state cannot prove a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to a group of Americans, they should refrain from doing so.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> My view is, when the state cannot prove a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to a group of Americans, they should refrain from doing so.


So do you or do you not believe "marriage" can consist of more than two consenting adults? Stop equivocating, have the courage of your convictions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So do you or do you not believe "marriage" can consist of more than two consenting adults? Stop equivocating, have the courage of your convictions.


I answered your question. It's up to the state to decide whether they have a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to that group. What I believe isn't relevant, and it's certainly not my right to impose my belief on others.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I answered your question. It's up to the state to decide whether they have a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to that group. What I believe isn't relevant, and it's certainly not my right to impose my belief on others.


Coward.

Edit: And no, you did not answer my question.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Coward.
> 
> Edit: And no, you did not answer my question.


Ok, I'll give you a more specific answer: I don't have an opinion about that group. I know states have defended denial of marriage rights to polygamists (apparently polygamy abuses women etc), but beyond that I haven't given it much thought.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I answered your question. It's up to the state to decide whether they have a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to that group. What I believe isn't relevant, and it's certainly not my right to impose my belief on others.


So you would have no problem if the citizens of said state should decide in an overwhemling majority to deny that "basic human right"?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Ok, I'll give you a more specific answer: I don't have an opinion about that group. I know states have defended denial of marriage rights to polygamists (apparently polygamy abuses women etc), but beyond that I haven't given it much thought.


So it's ok to deny rights to a group as long as it isn't one on which FrankDC has an opinion? What part of the Constitution is that in?


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

android said:


> There is not leap of logic, only logic. If you are going to quote old testament to support your views, then you need to believe in the entire old testament, not just the parts you like.
> 
> So, positions on no shellfish, stoning and slavery as well as women being unclean while menstruating must be accepted along with the condemnation of homosexuality.
> 
> We're just asking that if you make rules, that you play by your own rules. If you chose to "believe" in the old testament, then please believe in all of it.


+1

One might also point out the place where God tells the Israelites to kill their disobedient children.

Not that the NT, which introduces the lovely notion of eternal torture and damnation, is any better.

There's plenty of good in the Bible. And plenty of bad. Take the best and leave the rest.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whnay. said:


> So you would have no problem if the citizens of said state should decide in an overwhemling majority to deny that "basic human right"?


If it violates our Constitution, of course I'd have a problem with it. Our courts would also have a problem with it. Dozens of issues could be cited where the opinion of an overwhelming majority of Americans has run afoul of our Constitution over the last 200+ years. This is another one IMO.

And again I'll mention, the state constitutional amendments we've seen in response to this issue are a direct result of the "defense of marriage" movement not having a legal leg to stand on. Courts could find no legal basis on which to deny same-sex couples this most basic right, so the "defense of marriage" camp's answer was to push states to amend their constitutions.

This legal leg they've created is not only artificial, it's very temporary. A single Supreme Court decision will render every one of these state amendments invalid, which is why Bush was pushing for a federal constitutional amendment. Fortunately, not even conservatives are willing to use our Constitution as a weapon to bash 20+ million Americans.

You know, this issue has to rank as one of the most overblown in world history. Look at Denmark, Canada or any other country that has recognized same-sex marriages. The sky hasn't fallen, their societies haven't collapsed, and what do you know, the Lord Jehovah hasn't appeared from the heavens to smite anyone. In fact no one has noticed any differences whatsoever, except of course for gay people themselves.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If it violates our Constitution, of course I'd have a problem with it. Our courts would also have a problem with it. Dozens of issues could be cited where the opinion of an overwhelming majority of Americans has run afoul of our Constitution over the last 200+ years. This is another one IMO.
> 
> And again I'll mention, the state constitutional amendments we've seen in response to this issue are a direct result of the "defense of marriage" movement not having a legal leg to stand on. Courts could find no legal basis on which to deny same-sex couples this most basic right, so the "defense of marriage" camp's answer was to push states to amend their constitutions.
> 
> ...


Not to be rude, but this is dumb.

Last in your writing but not lest you should get theology right if you are going to knock it. Grace is opportunity for repentance. If God does not give you a chance to repent, then how can he give you mercy?

Just because you want to believe something to be right, and maybe lots of people like you, that still does not make it right in itself. I have been reading, through out the years in Psychology, that gay is far from being settled as not a vice. There are thousands of Psychologist that have been practicing psychology for years, these people are trained observers- you can not throw out their observations because you feel like it.

And the media is not a Psychologist to say either way, either.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It's up to the state to decide whether they have a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to that group. What I believe isn't relevant . . .


"What I believe isn't relevant . . . " Frankie, never have truer words been spoken, period.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying it is the "compelling interest" standard that determines if the state can deny a particular right? So if the state were to argue, for example, that homosexuality creates an overwhelming burden on the states health system, then they could ban gay marriage?

I have been reluctant to speak on this subject for reasons I will make clear, but have decided that I might find some input via this anonymous venue that might be of assistance. I have found some in this forum to be quite insightful on subjects that are dear to me and so thought this might be the time to address this issue here.

I have a son who pronounced he was gay about three years ago. No single issue has impacted our family more than our sons same sex attraction. As a father, I had prepared myself mentally, I thought, for every possible contingency that could occur as our family increased. This was one that I had never prepared for.

I am really not interested in the opinions of others who will suggest that their is nothing wrong with my son's behavior and that the problem is mine. If that is the extent of your assistance on the matter then you are wasting your time. I do not now and never will accept same sex attraction as anything less than a conscience decision by my son to act on feelings that are wrong. I do not know if those feelings are genetic, the result of a physchiatric disorder, or have some other origin. It does not matter to me. Whatever the origin of the feelings, we are all born with the ability to freely choose to act or not act on any feelings we might have.

As far as I am concerned, God has spoken, definitively, on the issue and that is enough for me. My son has chosen to act on his feelings and it is the choice to act that is sinful, not the feelings themselves. So, my question is, how do other like-minded Christain forum members deal with this issue, if it is one you have faced yourself? I would invite anyone who finds themself similarly dealing with this issue, struggling with your love for your son versus your hatred of the sin, to send me a private message with your thoughts, as I certainly accept that others have far more than my three years experience with the issue and may have ideas that I have not yet benefited from.

Let me be clear, I am only interested in private messages from someone who is like-minded and can share some thoughts on the issue. If your intention is to tell me that the problem is mine and that I need to get over it, your comments through the private message system are not welcome and will be promptly reported as such. Call me a homophobe publicly all you want, if that makes you feel better, but that would only make you a bigot since my feelings on the subject are faith based and therefore my singular right.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

whomewhat--

I feel sorry for your son. He is in a position not of his own choosing, rejected by the majority of society, and he will face many challenges and difficulties through his life. At a time like this he needs the support of his family more than ever. More than needing the support of his family, he deserves it, and your refusal to accept and support your son is a gross dereliction of your duties as a father.

I'm sure you will consider me a bigot, but this is far from the truth. You could say I'm a bigot if my views were based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of your position. In fact, my views, and my rejection of your position, is based on a clear knowledge and understanding of your intolerance.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> I do not now and never will accept same sex attraction as anything less than a conscience decision by my son to act on feelings that are wrong.


If this is the case, can you identify the time when you made the conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex?


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> whomewhat--
> 
> I feel sorry for your son. He is in a position not of his own choosing, rejected by the majority of society, and he will face many challenges and difficulties through his life. At a time like this he needs the support of his family more than ever. More than needing the support of his family, he deserves it, and your refusal to accept and support your son is a gross dereliction of your duties as a father.


Like many, you equate support of my son with support of his same gender attraction. I love my son deeply, have supported him and continue to do so now, even putting him through college, but I do not and will not support his actions as they relate to same gender attraction. I help him, as with any child, with anything and everything I can, with this one exception. The scriptures tell me it is my duty to teach my children in all things that I may stand blameless before God. This is one of those all things, in my view, and he knows my position. In fact, he freely admits that he has known my position all of his life. He is welcome in the home anytime he wants, still has a key, and does visit periodically. He is welcome, not anyone else, and as long as he obeys the rules of our house, which he does. You just do not know what you are talking about, which is not unexpected, but you are correct that I think you are a bigot because you demand that I conform to your thinking or I am derilect in my duty as a father, refusing to take into account my deep religious conviction on the matter. I imagine I could list a whole littany of actions I think all fathers should be required to do, many of which you will not have done yourself, and then conclude, as you, that you are a bad father, but I do not because you do not share my faith and therefore I cannot impose my moral standard on you. I can and do impose it on myself.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying it is the "compelling interest" standard that determines if the state can deny a particular right? So if the state were to argue, for example, that homosexuality creates an overwhelming burden on the states health system, then they could ban gay marriage?


What creates the major burden is a society that denies gay people any legally recognized method to establish long-term relationships, which in turn results in much higher promiscuity rates, rates of sexually transmitted diseases etc. As Andrew Sullivan and other conservative commentators have noted, support for same-sex marriage is in fact the conservative position. Society accrues no benefits by keeping gay people perpetually single and isolated, even our courts have agreed with this simple logic.



whomewhat said:


> I have a son who pronounced he was gay about three years ago. No single issue has impacted our family more than our sons same sex attraction. As a father, I had prepared myself mentally, I thought, for every possible contingency that could occur as our family increased. This was one that I had never prepared for.


What is known about homosexuality is the result of 40+ years of formal clinical studies and research, not a delusional liberal conspiracy to destroy marriage.

On one side of this debate we have research and position statements from virtually all of America's established medical associations on the issues of homosexuality and same-sex parenting, e.g. the American Medical Association:

American Psychological Association

https://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

American Psychiatric Association
https://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm

American Academy of Pediatrics
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/6/1827

etc etc.

And on the other side we have institutionalized fear and bigotry based on ignorance and 3500+ years of religious persecution.

Read. Learn. Educate yourself.

The fact you're requesting support (even privately) for your feelings is commendable and a good indication of what the actual problem is between you and your son. If you were to seek some counseling, either alone or with your son you'll discover the real issue has absolutely nothing to do with who your son chooses to cuddle with at the end of his day.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The counseling is probably a good idea. I might stop short of saying anything about what the actual problem of someone we don't know "really" is.

I do hope you are able to come to peace with this, "Whomewhat", no matter where that takes you. This is an intensely personal situation and no one can really tell you what to do. I do hope you keep communication open with your son.

This is a hard issue for me. Science tells me one very logical thing and my faith tells me another, also. I personally lean toward science on this, but I wish that people on both sides of this issue would respect the other side a lot more when the issue is discussed.

This is a huge mind-set change for our society. I don't equate it with racism per se, because people can control what they outwardly project in public, even if they choose not to. 

On they other hand, I hate to see people subjected to persecution over something (the orientation) they can't control. 

I have played music in country bands in hick areas, and I'm not married (or all that interested in the drunk women in dive bars) and have been accused of being gay before. I'm aware of how nasty this prejudice is.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

whomewhat,

As you can tell from an earlier post, I'm not a "like-minded Christian," so if that's enough to invalidate whatever I have to say in your eyes, don't bother to read further.

However, I have some first-hand experience in this area that you might find interesting.

As an openly gay man, probably several years your senior, who was on the other end of your situation, I can't be quite as harsh with you as some others have been. I know what a child's coming out does to a closely knit religious family; I saw how my parents, especially my father, struggled with the news-saw how it tore them up. My father had hoped his sons (my brother is gay too) would follow in his footsteps, with their own traditional families steeped in traditional values; all of a sudden, like a bolt from the blue, his hopes are dashed: he finds out he's raised a couple of Martians. That's how I interpreted his feelings when I tried to put myself in his shoes. During one of our early, angst-ridden discussions, I said, "Dad, it's not like I'm a murderer or anything." He answered, "That, at least, is something people could understand."

At the risk of throwing you a left-handed compliment, you could have done worse by your son. Gay community centers all over the country are full of kids who have been tossed out on the street by their parents. I've heard of Orthodox Jewish fathers who have said Kaddish (the prayer for the dead) for their gay sons and then cut them out of their lives forever. You at least continue to love and welcome your son, even if you can't accept his sexuality. My father did the same. It's a start.

OK. Let me offer some observations. Take them for what you think they're worth.
Your son is not going to change. Sexual orientation is as much an intrinsic part of your personhood as the color of your hair, eyes, and skin. Scientists are coming around to the idea that whether it's genetic or a result of the pre-natal hormonal environment or both, your sexuality is already in place when you're born; that squares with the feelings of the majority of gay people that they knew they were "different" when they were in grade school. The so-called "cures"-behavior-modification "therapy," religiously oriented "ex-gay" groups like "Exodus," cold showers, whatever-don't work, or at best work in very, very few cases, those being individuals who already have a significant heterosexual component to their sexuality. For years, my father carried around in his wallet a yellowed newspaper clipping, an ad for some psychologist quack who claimed a high "cure rate." If you're still clinging to such false hope, forget it; it ain't gonna happen.
You're right about one thing: Your son's sexual orientation is not a choice, but what he _does_ with it _is_.

Here are some choices he has. If he thinks his sexuality is evil and it's making him miserable, he can try for a "cure," subject his psyche to torment and abuse, and having failed, wind up even more miserable and frustrated than he was to begin with. Or he can delude himself into thinking he'll be fine once he finds the "right woman"; he might even get married and have kids-and eventually wind up like Jim McGreevey. Or he can acknowledge that his feelings won't change and decide to lead a sexless life-in which case he'll wind up a bitter, frustrated old man who's never experienced love and intimacy.

Or . . . he can realize that a loving, intimate relationship with another human being is the best chance we have for happiness, and that his _only_ chance for such fulfillment is with another man. And he can act on that knowledge and look for a partner with whom to share his life. (My partner and I are coming up on our 38th anniversary; I consider us very lucky, but we're not the only ones. Most of our friends are other guys in long-term or very-long-term relationships.)

Which would you want for your son, whom you love?
You say your difficulty lies in the fact that you're a Christian, but that's not accurate. Lots of Christians accept gay people. (I'm sure you know the gay-friendly churches better than I do.) The problem is in the _kind_ of Christianity you embrace.

It's hard (although apparently not impossible-witness the Metropolitan Community Church, www.mccchurch.org) to reconcile fundamentalist belief with acceptance of gay sexuality. But if your revulsion towards homosexuality comes from the Bible, you'd better realize the consequences of believing that everything in it is God's Word. Leviticus says that two men lying together is an "abomination," but so is eating pork and shellfish. Ever wear something made of wool and linen? That's against the Bible as well. Do you really want to base your ideas about morality on a book that endorses polygamy, slavery, and genocide; prescribes the death penalty for working on the Sabbath; and tells parents that as a last resort, they should take their disobedient children out and kill them? And by the way, Jesus, as innumerable people have pointed out, seems to have had nothing to say on the subject. Romans, as you know, was written by Paul, who had his own "issues" with sexuality (see Bishop John Spong's _Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism_).

When it comes to religion, though, rational arguments don't count for much, and I realize I may have lost you in my anti-fundamentalist rant. So don't take my word for it. Your best bet is to reach out to other parents of gay people who come from religious backgrounds and orientations like your own and who have managed to reconcile their beliefs with acceptance of their children's sexuality. A good place to start would be P-FLAG: Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays: www.pflag.org.
I'm willing to continue this discussion privately if it would be helpful to you. PM me.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

A lot of your post makes sense, however, most Christians are not required to follow the Jewish dietary laws, etc. from the Old Testament.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

WA said:


> Not to be rude, but this is dumb.
> 
> Last in your writing but not lest you should get theology right if you are going to knock it. Grace is opportunity for repentance. If God does not give you a chance to repent, then how can he give you mercy?
> 
> ...


Apparently, neither are you... the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM dropped references to homosexuality as pathology as far back as 1973 (DSM II).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM dropped references to homosexuality as pathology as far back as 1973 (DSM II).


APA is a huge group where the majority of "experts" set the tone. Some of the DSM's have errors, comparing what they say now and then, which they have not gone back to correct. And so much is spectulation anyway.

Of all the people who are part of this APA do you really think they all agree with everything the APA says? I think most of these Ph.D's like to run their own mine on every subject, and do their own thinking. Blanket statments really don't work. The history of what normal sex is seems to change, change, change- do you really think it won't change again? And, besides, this is only one group. What about the other groups? No doubt many that belong to the APA belong to several other groups.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The issue of gay marriage has two facets; the recognition by society as a marriage and the recognition of legal rights and safeguards for the two partners. I haven't heard of any gay plural marriages, so I'll keep this simple. A couple can be together for decades. Now imagine one becomes ill or disabled or terminally ill. The partner under most laws has utterly no legal rights. A long lost nephew from Cleveland can fly out, bar the partner from visitation , make medical decisions if a living will is not present, claim property under inheritance laws, contest insurance benefits. If no nephew is available, these decisions are made by ;courts, Doctors---strangers. In the eyes of our legal system the partner is nothing more than a roommate, a friend, a third party. We theoreticaly practise seperation of Church and State. It is the responsibility of the State to insure equal rights for all under the law. The religous collective can continue to make judgements in the jurisdictions of the assorted churches, temples etc. I doubt if hordes of gays with a civil recognition of union are going to show up at a conservative church and demand seating in the front pews. Christians are supposed to 'Hate the sin, not the sinner.' So continue to deny various spiritual comforts proscribed by such 'behaviors.' But to bring hurt and injury in this world by denying these simple legal freedoms is showing hate to the 'sinner.'


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> The issue of gay marriage has two facets; the recognition by society as a marriage and the recognition of legal rights and safeguards for the two partners. I haven't heard of any gay plural marriages, so I'll keep this simple. A couple can be together for decades. Now imagine one becomes ill or disabled or terminally ill. The partner under most laws has utterly no legal rights. A long lost nephew from Cleveland can fly out, bar the partner from visitation , make medical decisions if a living will is not present, claim property under inheritance laws, contest insurance benefits. If no nephew is available, these decisions are made by ;courts, Doctors---strangers. In the eyes of our legal system the partner is nothing more than a roommate, a friend, a third party. We theoreticaly practise seperation of Church and State. It is the responsibility of the State to insure equal rights for all under the law. The religous collective can continue to make judgements in the jurisdictions of the assorted churches, temples etc. I doubt if hordes of gays with a civil recognition of union are going to show up at a conservative church and demand seating in the front pews. Christians are supposed to 'Hate the sin, not the sinner.' So continue to deny various spiritual comforts proscribed by such 'behaviors.' But to bring hurt and injury in this world by denying these simple legal freedoms is showing hate to the 'sinner.'


This sounds really nice. But, what is marriage? I think marriage is more than saying "I do". What happens to people before marriage and after marriage when having sex?

To turn this into a religous war is unfair- what about the atheist who say there is more to what you wrote above and they think gay marriage is pretend marriage. If you do some more reading there are some valid points, which moves it out of the hate catagorie. And this hate by association is unfair, too.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Most people I've discussed it with had a pleasurable experience, rolled over , smoked a cigarette and showered. I can't make this much easier. Here, takes a dutch apple pie and karate chops it in half with my hand. Hands half to Cuff 44. This represents legal rights of a legaly recognised union for legal affairs. Hands the other half to the world ecumenical council. Anyone care to debate the coffee and french vanilla icecreme?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> *I am really not interested in the opinions of others who will suggest that their is nothing wrong with my son's behavior and that the problem is mine. If that is the extent of your assistance on the matter then you are wasting your time. I do not now and never will accept same sex attraction as anything less than a conscience decision by my son to act on feelings that are wrong. * I do not know if those feelings are genetic, the result of a physchiatric disorder, or have some other origin. It does not matter to me. Whatever the origin of the feelings, we are all born with the ability to freely choose to act or not act on any feelings we might have.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, God has spoken, definitively, on the issue and that is enough for me. My son has chosen to act on his feelings and it is the choice to act that is sinful, not the feelings themselves. So, my question is, how do other like-minded Christain forum members deal with this issue, if it is one you have faced yourself? I would invite anyone who finds themself similarly dealing with this issue, struggling with your love for your son versus your hatred of the sin, to send me a private message with your thoughts, as I certainly accept that others have far more than my three years experience with the issue and may have ideas that I have not yet benefited from.
> 
> Let me be clear, I am only interested in private messages from someone who is like-minded and can share some thoughts on the issue. If your intention is to tell me that the problem is mine and that I need to get over it, your comments through the private message system are not welcome and will be promptly reported as such. Call me a homophobe publicly all you want, if that makes you feel better, but that would only make you a bigot since my feelings on the subject are faith based and therefore my singular right.


While I would have to question the wisdom of Whomewhat's posting (the end was predictable) ...

It's very sad to see that the so-called tolerant ones among us cannot abide by Whomewhat's wishes concerning his family situation with some respect and courtesy.

I've read no less than three posts in direct violation of his wishes.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove "gentleman", but perhaps a simple "Whomewhat, that is not playing completely fair in a public board" would have sufficed?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> While I would have to question the wisdom of Whomewhat's posting (the end was predictable) ...
> 
> It's very sad to see that the so-called tolerant ones among us cannot abide by Whomewhat's wishes concerning his family situation with some respect and courtesy.
> 
> ...


He requested private messages, he didn't say he would like to cease public discussion of the issue. And in any case this thread wasn't his to direct.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The man requested privacy on a painfull and personal matter. The thread was an opportunity to bravely share it and perhaps gain a little wisdom and comfort. Shouting him down through a street protest megaphone of eltiist ersatz liberalism is not gentlemanly.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> He requested private messages, he didn't say he would like to cease public discussion of the issue. And in any case this thread wasn't his to direct.


Frank, he shared something personal and did so conditionally. Not meeting/accepting his conditions is a violation of the good faith (however misguided) he placed in us as members of the board.

Of course, you *can* do as you please. Your self-absorption is not in question.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Frank, he shared something personal and did so conditionally. Not meeting/accepting his conditions is a violation of the good faith (however misguided) he placed in us as members of the board.
> 
> Of course, you *can* do as you please. Your self-absorption is not in question.


The topic being discussed was same-sex marriage, and I responded to specific questions he asked me about that subject. If that qualifies as self-absorption in your book, it's your problem.

I also don't turn a deaf ear to people who make a public spectacle out of gay bashing, whether physical or emotional. If whowhatwhywhatever was truly secure in his position he wouldn't have brought it up publicly, or asked specifically for private infantry support from other gay bashers.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> The topic being discussed was same-sex marriage, and I responded to specific questions he asked me about that subject. If that qualifies as self-absorption in your book, it's your problem.
> 
> I also don't turn a deaf ear to people who make a public spectacle out of gay bashing, whether physical or emotional. If whowhatwhywhatever was truly secure in his position he wouldn't have brought it up publicly, or asked specifically for private infantry support from other gay bashers.


You responded by saying exactly what he asked not be said.



FrankDC said:


> Read. Learn. Educate yourself.
> 
> The fact you're requesting support (even privately) for your feelings is commendable and* a good indication of what the actual problem is between you and your son. *If you were to seek some counseling, either alone or with your son you'll discover the real issue has absolutely nothing to do with who your son chooses to cuddle with at the end of his day.


Not the only example of your self-absorption, but a pretty glaring one.

And; no, Frank, it's one of your many problems. I don't see the guy bashing his own son. I see a guy struggling with a personal/family problem in contraditiction to his religious values - the same ones *your* Pope shares and preaches, FWIW.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You responded by saying exactly what he asked not be said.


He asked that it not be said in private email to him.

I also stand by my claim. If a person is gay, and that person's father has a problem with it, who has the problem? Sticking your head in the sand by supporting (or even ignoring) the father accomplishes nothing.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Frank, If there were more of you, aside from the multiple personalities: I fear I would be clearly guilty of a specific bigotry and racism to a group. Sort of defeats arguments favouring cloning, now don't it?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> Frank, If there were more of you, aside from the multiple personalities: I fear I would be clearly guilty of a specific bigotry and racism to a group. Sort of defeats arguments favouring cloning, now don't it?


Thanks. Now try answering my last question. We'll wait patiently.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> He asked that it not be said in private email to him.
> 
> I also stand by my claim. If a person is gay, and that person's father has a problem with it, who has the problem? Sticking your head in the sand by supporting (or even ignoring) the father accomplishes nothing.


No, that was not all he asked.

In a general sense, you may have a point. I don't really agree, but I'm open to the possibility intellectually. However, in this specific case you aren't accomplishing anything either; except you are being unpleasant and de-valuing the good faith of the board. That makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. That you even think there is an opportunity for you to be part of the solution between a man and his son is evidence of your self-absorption.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, that was not all he asked.
> 
> In a general sense, you may have a point. I don't really agree, but I'm open to the possibility intellectually. However, in this specific case you aren't accomplishing anything either; except you are being unpleasant and de-valuing the good faith of the board. That makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. That you even think there is an opportunity for you to be part of the solution between a man and his son is evidence of your self-absorption.


I disagree. What is the possibility that any son would say, "Gee dad, you don't like my sexual orientation, so I'll change it for you"?

Get real and face reality. Encouraging this father to come to terms with his bigotry might accomplish something, while reinforcing or ignoring his bigotry certainly won't.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

I find it necessary to set the record straight since it was not my intention to turn one forum member against another relative to this particular subject.

"If your intention is to tell me that the problem is mine and that I need to get over it, *your comments through the private message system are not welcome* and will be promptly reported as such. *Call me a homophobe publicly all you want*, if that makes you feel better, but that would only make you a bigot since my feelings on the subject are faith based and therefore my singular right."

I did and do recognize that this is a public forum and, specifically, a thread that was created by someone else. As such, I did state that those who were so inclined to berate me "publicly" were free to do so all they wanted. Very few in this forum have been as criticle of FrankDC as have I, but on this single point he is correct. As I suspected, however, he did resort to the name-calling I knew would be forthcoming:

"If whowhatwhywhatever was truly secure in his position he wouldn't have brought it up publicly, or asked specifically for *private infantry support from other gay bashers*."

Frank, you continue to call me a bigot and that is your right, I suppose, but it is you that maintains this stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from your own. Is that not bigotry?

It is sad that Frank returned to his usual name-calling because for a brief moment a glimpse of humanity was shining through and I was actually reading what he had to say with interest. So if I understand Frank's position, if one is insecure about their position, they bring it up publicly? If one is secure, then they discuss it privately? Frank, only because you said a few things that were not your ordinary nonsense I am going to accept that you misspoke here and meant the exact opposite of what you stated because if you meant what you said, well, then you really are crazy.

FrankDC is consistent in his inconsistency, I will grant him that. When one exercises Free Speech and makes a statement based on ones deeply held religious convictions, well, FrankDC calls it "gay bashing." I did not ask for support from "other gay-bashers," rather, I asked for support/input from others with similar convictions and similar family dynamics. Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right. I do not know how that is a request for the support of gay-bashers and FrankDC ought be man enough to recognize his error, apologize, and move on. You can learn a lot from cufflink44 Frank. He recognized from the start that we were not of the same thought process on this issue, nonetheless, he offered a thoughtful persepective and seemed to genuinely understand:

"I know what a child's coming out does to a closely knit religious family; I saw how my parents, especially my father, struggled with the news-saw how it tore them up. My father had hoped his sons (my brother is gay too) would follow in his footsteps, with their own traditional families steeped in traditional values; all of a sudden, like a bolt from the blue, his hopes are dashed: he finds out he's raised a couple of Martians."

Maybe I would not have worded it exactly as he did, but he captured the overall sense of my feelings perfectly. My world was, indeed, turned upside down with my sons pronouncement, whereas my son had an enormous burden removed from him. He had suffered severe migraines since about age 12, yet, since his coming out to me, his migraines have completely disappeared. The burden of carrying this secret of his was gone, replaced by his fathers tormented spirit over the loss of his sons innocence. I hate how this has made me feel, how it has hurt my family, how it has created division and divisiveness where there was once unity and harmony.

Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that my opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, as was raised earlier in the thread, should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. I love and honor them as sons and daughters of God.

I believe the standard of morality is clearly defined and applies to all of God's children. Scripture teaches chastity before marriage and complete fidelity within a marriage. Marriage is also defined by God as the union of a man and woman, and we are not at liberty to change that definition. Attraction between man and woman was instilled by the Creator to ensure the perpetuation of mortal life and to draw husband and wife together in the family setting he prescribed for the accomplishment of his purposes, including the raising of children. In contrast, deviations from God's commandments in the use of procreative powers are grave sins.

As to my son, specifically, I made clear that I continue to love and support him. Unfortunately, some believe that you cannot love and support someone if you do not accept everything they stand for. I acknowledged that I did not know how or why same gender attraction became a problem for my son. I recognized the possibility, even likelihood, that genetics may have played a part in his tendencies toward same gender attraction. It is wrong to use science to denote homosexuality as a _condition,_ however, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual _behavior._ In addition, I reject on its face any attempt to characterize my refusal to accept my sons choice to act on same gender attraction as hatred of him in any way. No one has the right to tell me what is in my heart. I love my son completely. If it were not so I would not be so completely devastated by his choices in this regard.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but scripture teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Cor. 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom, we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose.

Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim 'I was born that way' does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited [or developed] weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his 'thorn in the flesh' would depart from him, the Lord replied, 'My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' Obedient, Paul concluded:

" 'Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

" 'Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong' (2 Cor. 12:9-10).

Whatever our susceptibilities or tendencies [feelings], they cannot subject us to eternal consequences unless we exercise our free agency to do or think the things forbidden by the commandments of God. For example, a susceptibility to alcoholism impairs its victim's freedom to partake without addiction, but his free agency allows him to abstain and thus escape the physical debilitation of alcohol and the spiritual deterioration of addiction.

Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children.

There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.

One final note for cufflink44: I agree and accept that my sons feelings relative to this will never change. I do hope and pray that his actions as they relate to his feelings will change. I truly believe that with God nothing is impossible. If it were not so, then God would not be Divine, merely mortal like the rest of us. I willalso agree that, although we clearly are not like-minded Christians, that alone wasnot enough to invalidate what you said. It is possible to overcome differences with compassion and understanding and you obviously know this.

rnoldh: Thank you.

WA: You lost me?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> I find it necessary to set the record straight since it was not my intention to turn one forum member against another relative to this particular subject.
> 
> "If your intention is to tell me that the problem is mine and that I need to get over it, *your comments through the private message system are not welcome* and will be promptly reported as such. *Call me a homophobe publicly all you want*, if that makes you feel better, but that would only make you a bigot since my feelings on the subject are faith based and therefore my singular right."
> 
> I did and do recognize that this is a public forum and, specifically, a thread that was created by someone else. As such, I did state that those who were so inclined to berate me "publicly" were free to do so all they wanted. Very few in this forum have been as criticle of FrankDC as have I, but on this single point he is correct.


Thank you. I was being led to believe I had misread your post.



whomewhat said:


> "If whowhatwhywhatever was truly secure in his position he wouldn't have brought it up publicly, or asked specifically for *private infantry support from other gay bashers*."
> 
> Frank, you continue to call me a bigot and that is your right, I suppose, but it is you that maintains this stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from your own. Is that not bigotry?


That's a complete misrepresentation of my view. From your perspective you're merely following the dictates of your own conscience, something you have every right to do. But from your son's point of view, he's being held accountable for something he is unable to change. He could wake up tomorrow morning and decide to change (or not act on) his sexual orientation just as "easily" as you could wake up tomorrow morning and decide to change or not act on yours. To deny this reality is the very definition of emotional gay bashing. You're holding your son accountable for something he is neither responsible for or able to change. Morally it's analagous to mentally bashing Black people for being Black. And worst of all are people such as yourself who might tell gay people to avoid acting on their sexual orientation, and live horribly lonely, emotionally starved lives just so YOU won't be made to feel uncomfortable. It's the pinnacle of selfishness.



whomewhat said:


> It is sad that Frank returned to his usual name-calling because for a brief moment a glimpse of humanity was shining through and I was actually reading what he had to say with interest. So if I understand Frank's position, if one is insecure about their position, they bring it up publicly? If one is secure, then they discuss it privately? Frank, only because you said a few things that were not your ordinary nonsense I am going to accept that you misspoke here and meant the exact opposite of what you stated because if you meant what you said, well, then you really are crazy.


Again you mischaracterize my view and contradict your own logic. I've asked this question before and I'll ask it again: what possible point could there be in soliciting private comments _only from people who already agree with you_? Think a while before you answer that question. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't come up with any logical explanation except that you're either insecure about your position, feel guilty about it, or possibly both. And given that probable fact, all I did was encourage you to seek counseling (either with your son or without him) to help resolve your feelings of insecurity and/or guilt.



whomewhat said:


> FrankDC is consistent in his inconsistency, I will grant him that. When one exercises Free Speech and makes a statement based on ones deeply held religious convictions, well, FrankDC calls it "gay bashing." I did not ask for support from "other gay-bashers," rather, I asked for support/input from others with similar convictions and similar family dynamics. Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right. I do not know how that is a request for the support of gay-bashers and FrankDC ought be man enough to recognize his error, apologize, and move on.


And again I'll say, your son's sexual orientation is also through no fault of his own, and the only person carrying a heavy burden on this issue appears to be you.



whomewhat said:


> Maybe I would not have worded it exactly as he did, but he captured the overall sense of my feelings perfectly. My world was, indeed, turned upside down with my sons pronouncement, whereas my son had an enormous burden removed from him. He had suffered severe migraines since about age 12, yet, since his coming out to me, his migraines have completely disappeared. The burden of carrying this secret of his was gone, replaced by his fathers tormented spirit over the loss of his sons innocence. I hate how this has made me feel, how it has hurt my family, how it has created division and divisiveness where there was once unity and harmony.


The unity and harmony was your delusion, not your son's reality. If you don't believe this, ask HIM how he felt during the time he pretended to be someone he's not, just to make YOU more accepting of him.



whomewhat said:


> Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that my opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, as was raised earlier in the thread, should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. I love and honor them as sons and daughters of God.


And if you honestly believed that, you'd know a person's morality is completely unrelated to their sexual orientation. E.g. studies have shown that fully HALF of the men in Catholic seminaries are active homosexuals, yet these are the same men who spend most of their time doing charitable work and making the world a better place.



whomewhat said:


> I believe the standard of morality is clearly defined and applies to all of God's children. Scripture teaches chastity before marriage and complete fidelity within a marriage. Marriage is also defined by God as the union of a man and woman, and we are not at liberty to change that definition. Attraction between man and woman was instilled by the Creator to ensure the perpetuation of mortal life and to draw husband and wife together in the family setting he prescribed for the accomplishment of his purposes, including the raising of children. In contrast, deviations from God's commandments in the use of procreative powers are grave sins.


So you appear to be aware of what the actual problem is. Your son's sexual orientation isn't the issue, it's your complete ignorance of what the medical community has learned about it over the last 40+ years, and insistence on condemning your son's sexual orientation by applying a religious text written by a homophobic culture 2000 years ago.



whomewhat said:


> As to my son, specifically, I made clear that I continue to love and support him. Unfortunately, some believe that you cannot love and support someone if you do not accept everything they stand for. I acknowledged that I did not know how or why same gender attraction became a problem for my son. I recognized the possibility, even likelihood, that genetics may have played a part in his tendencies toward same gender attraction. It is wrong to use science to denote homosexuality as a _condition,_ however, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual _behavior._ In addition, I reject on its face any attempt to characterize my refusal to accept my sons choice to act on same gender attraction as hatred of him in any way. No one has the right to tell me what is in my heart. I love my son completely. If it were not so I would not be so completely devastated by his choices in this regard.


In psychology this is called emotional blocking, and with some counseling you'll find there is no substantive difference between hatred and "complete devastation".



whomewhat said:


> Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of "nature and nurture." All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but scripture teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.


I've already answered that point. The reason no one takes e.g. the RCC's position seriously on this issue is because it's inherently selfish. When your son cuddles with his partner at the end of his day, who exactly is being victimized? Would you prefer that he marry a woman, live a lie and get blowjobs in bowling alley restrooms three times a week? Or even worse, live his entire life emotionally starved and miserable?



whomewhat said:


> Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and "lifestyle" we engraft upon them.


That's one of the most overused and misused phrases in this whole debate. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a "lifestyle". The gay people I know wake up in the morning, get dressed, go to work, come home and take a shower, eat dinner and then go to bed. What exactly differentiates this from a "heterosexual lifestyle"? And the kicker is, the people who scream loudest against gay promiscuity are the same people who scream loudest against implementation of any legally recognized method which would allow gay people to form long-term relationships.



whomewhat said:


> Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called "a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Cor. 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.
> 
> In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex. The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom, we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose.


There's that word "choose" again. Same misconception, same illogical conclusion. The gay people I know are perfectly comfortable with who they are, and don't feel a need to justify their sexuality to anyone, let alone groups of people who subscribe to culturally conditioned religous texts. We're back to the main point: if you have a problem with homosexuality, it's nobody's problem but your own.



whomewhat said:


> Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim 'I was born that way' does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.


More of the same. The fact that you'd prefer your son to spend his life horribly lonely and emotionally starved says far more about you than it does about him.

The remainder of your post is mostly a restatement of your views. If you believe you'll never be able to open your heart enough to accept your son as who he is -- including his sexual orientation -- (and again, the problem is yours, not his. He can't change, but you could), for his sake you should suggest he break his ties with you and anyone else in your family that holds similar views. Saying you love your son but not his sexual orientation is exactly the ridiculous position of the RCC, i.e. love the sinner but hate the sin, as if a person's sexual orientation is somehow not one of the most fundamental parts of who they are, can be surgically separated from the rest of their psyche, and the expression of which isn't absolutely necessary for their emotional and psychological well being.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

WA said:


> APA is a huge group where the majority of "experts" set the tone. Some of the DSM's have errors, comparing what they say now and then, which they have not gone back to correct. And so much is spectulation anyway.
> 
> Of all the people who are part of this APA do you really think they all agree with everything the APA says? I think most of these Ph.D's like to run their own mine on every subject, and do their own thinking. Blanket statments really don't work. The history of what normal sex is seems to change, change, change- do you really think it won't change again? And, besides, this is only one group. What about the other groups? No doubt many that belong to the APA belong to several other groups.


One can always find contrarians. There are a handful of not-too-well-regarded scientists who still believe that global warming is either a myth or that man has nothing to do with it; there are even a few scientists who believe in the young earth creationist myths. However, the APA represents the majority of current thinking (and thinkers) in the field of psychology, regardless of your closely held belief system. You said you read the literature in psychology; let me suggest that you read across the field rather than just picking material that supports your already sealed conclusions. You might start with the research that led up to the changes in the DSM II in 1976. If you read it with an open mind, setting aside for the moment your religious blinders, you'll find it quite eye-opening, particularly in understanding the thinking and the type of research that led to the earlier classification of homosexual pathology, and what flaws were discovered in that research that led to the decision to remove it from the manual.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> ...
> The remainder of your post is mostly a restatement of your views. If you believe you'll never be able to open your heart enough to accept your son as who he is -- including his sexual orientation -- (and again, the problem is yours, not his. He can't change, but you could), for his sake you should suggest he break his ties with you and anyone else in your family that holds similar views. Saying you love your son but not his sexual orientation is exactly the ridiculous position of the RCC, i.e. love the sinner but hate the sin, as if a person's sexual orientation is somehow not one of the most fundamental parts of who they are, can be surgically separated from the rest of their psyche, and the expression of which isn't absolutely necessary for their emotional and psychological well being.


Well said, Frank, though it is a futile argument, sad to say. Faith-based "reasoning", if it can be called such, just isn't open to discussion or review. It's the very definition of tautology. But isn't it odd, given the passions and downright hatred this subject engenders, and that it becomes almost the core issue of some Christians' religion, that Jesus himself had nothing, absolutely nothing, to say about homosexuality?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Perhaps the way both sides do "in-your-face" put downs instead of trying to educate has a lot to do with the lack of communication.

Anyone trying to change "Whomewhat's" mind is not doing it with the nasty at worst, condescending at best tones I'm seeing here.

The slap he's getting when he reached out for help is not helping anyone understand anything.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Frank & Whomewhat,

Previously Whomewhat said and I quoted "I am really not interested in the opinions of others who will suggest that their is nothing wrong with my son's behavior and that the problem is mine. If that is the extent of your assistance on the matter then you are wasting your time."

Frank you knew this and you knew I quoted that and bolded it and was not speaking about the PM part three paragraphs down. 

However, if Whomewhat is too inconsistent to stick with his own post now that he's setting the record straight, then by all means have at it him. 

It's certainly a waste of my time at this point.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

rip said:


> But isn't it odd, given the passions and downright hatred this subject engenders, and that it becomes almost the core issue of some Christians' religion, that Jesus himself had nothing, absolutely nothing, to say about homosexuality?


He didn't say anything about incest or bestiality either - what's your point?


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a "lifestyle". The gay people I know wake up in the morning, get dressed, go to work, come home and take a shower, eat dinner and then go to bed. What exactly differentiates this from a "heterosexual lifestyle"? And the kicker is, the people who scream loudest against gay promiscuity are the same people who scream loudest against implementation of any legally recognized method which would allow gay people to form long-term relationships.


Well said, Frank--although I should tell you that some of us prefer to shower in the morning. :icon_smile:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

It's not often that I find myself on the same side of the fence as Frank, but, for the most part, I am.

I too always had an issue with the concept of being a homosexual is not a sin but acting on it is. It is walking too fine a line. Unless you have made a vow of chastity (which is voluntary) you are going to act on your sexual impulses. If the table was turned and someone said to me that I can be straight but I can't act upon it I would think that they nuts and did not have a clue about sexuality. We are driven to have sex.

Personally, I am for civil unions as long as they give partners the legal benefits similar to marriage. If God made you gay, then that's what your going to be. And that's OK by me.

Just give me a dame, though.....


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Rocker said:


> He didn't say anything about incest or bestiality either - what's your point?


The point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that since the anti-gay issue has become almost the ground-zero of the Christian Right, it seems rather unusual that the very founder of Christianity had nothing to say about it. If it had been as important to Him as it is to people who go about gay-bashing in His name, it seems He would have had at least something to say about it. Neither incest nor bestiality occupy that same hot-button position. When they do, then let's address those issues. However, the issue at hand is homosexuality.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

rip said:


> The point, which you seem unable to grasp, is that since the anti-gay issue has become almost the ground-zero of the Christian Right, it seems rather unusual that the very founder of Christianity had nothing to say about it. If it had been as important to Him as it is to people who go about gay-bashing in His name, it seems He would have had at least something to say about it. Neither incest nor bestiality occupy that same hot-button position. When they do, then let's address those issues. However, the issue at hand is homosexuality.


Yeah, I got your point - I suppose I was being disingenuous. Your point was silly and it falls under its own weight as is shown by your dodge of my question. Aside from the previous examples, I don't think Jesus said anything about murder or rape or infanticide or a slew of issues - that doesn't mean there isn't clear teaching on these issues or that it's a green light to do as one pleases because he didn't specifically address every single possible act.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rip said:


> Well said, Frank, though it is a futile argument, sad to say. Faith-based "reasoning", if it can be called such, just isn't open to discussion or review. It's the very definition of tautology. But isn't it odd, given the passions and downright hatred this subject engenders, and that it becomes almost the core issue of some Christians' religion, that Jesus himself had nothing, absolutely nothing, to say about homosexuality?


"Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality, Did He?" 5/6/2004
By Linda Harvey



> When He discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11). He warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts (Matthew 5:28). And he confronted the woman at the well (John 4:18) by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband. If he had intended to change this longtime understanding of God's requirements for human sexuality, He would have said so.
> 
> Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God's wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12 and Luke 17:29). Throughout the Old Testament, prophets clearly described these cities as being notorious for the practice of homosexuality (Genesis 18:20, Genesis 19:4-5, Isaiah 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14, Ezekiel 16:46-59). Jesus certainly knew that this was how the comparison would be understood.


Matthew 19:4-6 (New King James Version)
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made[a]them at the beginning 'made them male and female,'* 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Mark 10:6-9 (New King James Version)
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

.*


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality, Did He?" 5/6/2004
> By Linda Harvey
> 
> Matthew 19:4-6 (New King James Version)
> ...


*
And you're claiming this refers to homosexuality and not divorce?

Heterosexuals have made a complete mockery of the institution of marriage -- without any help from gay people.

It should also be noted, in countries that recognize same-sex marriages, divorce rates among lesbian couples are ONE THIRD those of opposite-sex couples.*


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> And you're claiming this refers to homosexuality and not divorce?
> 
> Heterosexuals have made a complete mockery of the institution of marriage -- without any help from gay people.
> 
> It should also be noted, in countries that recognize same-sex marriages, divorce rates among lesbian couples are ONE THIRD those of opposite-sex couples.


It clearly has to do with marriage and it's constitution including anti-divorce. I agree on the one point about divorce. That's not an excuse for gay marriage. I'm only responsible for my own marriage vows made before God. Others, well YMMV.

If one doesn't believe in the Bible, Jesus, or God fine that's your right, but the point was made that Jesus had no opinion or expressed none. Jesus ended some old covenants and made some new ones. Clearly those not replaced were left in place. It's pretty simple that he endorsed some of the old law while replacing some specific ones. To say otherwise is just ignorance or convenience.

A man shall be joined to his wife seems pretty clear too.

Intellectually, I think an atheist or anti-Bible argument stands up better than a Jesus was not anti-homosexuality argument. Just my opinion.

On a personal and public policy level I am fine with gays and anti-discrimination. I do have an issue with gay marriage which I have previously expressed. Civil unions, no problem. I don't believe any man has the right to marry another man - straight or gay. As I have said before, if straight men could marry and gay men couldn't, then you would have discrimination. AFAIK straight men are not allowed to marry other men either.

If someone wants to make a moral choice on sex outside of marriage, I'm not sure it matters whether that is same-sex or not beyond that point.

Again, what does *your* Pope say about it? You always want to throw his political views and statements in our face. How about his moral views? Or do you only quote *your* Pope when it suits you?

https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/31/vatican.gay.marriages/index.html

"Marriage exists solely between a man and woman ... Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," the 12-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said Thursday.

"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> It clearly has to do with marriage and it's constitution including anti-divorce. I agree on the one point about divorce. That's not an excuse for gay marriage.
> 
> If one doesn't believe in the Bible, Jesus, or God fine, but the point was made that Jesus had no opinion or expressed none. Jesus broke some old covenants and set new ones. Clearly those not replaced were left in place. It's pretty simple that he endorsed some of the old law while replacing some specific ones. To say otherwise is just ignorance or convenience.
> 
> A man shall be joined to his wife seems pretty clear too.


In the words of The Church Lady, "How conveeeeenient."

Now let's read the rest of the very verses you're quoting:

"Whosoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

So why aren't the Christian fundies pushing to ban legally recognized divorce?

Your level of hypocrisy and selective belief is beyond astonshing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> In the words of The Church Lady, "How conveeeeenient."
> 
> Now let's read the rest of the very verses you're quoting:
> 
> ...


Well #1, I'm not a fundy. And #2, I am anti-divorce. I have no hypocrisy on this issue I believe nor selective belief.

Nice try, however, you lose that argument.

You are the hypocrit - always citing Pope John Paul II when he agrees with you, but never when he does not.

None of this changes (although you have tried to obscure) the fact that both the Old and New testament are consistent on the issue in question.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

What's the old saw about wrestling with a pig??


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> What's the old saw about wrestling with a pig??


Ha! I think you can wrestle them, you just can't eat them. 

I can think of nothing better than a piggie on the smoker. Making some this week for the long weekend.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Actually what you said was



FrankDC said:


> So why aren't the Christian fundies pushing to ban legally recognized divorce?
> 
> *Your* level of hypocrisy and selective belief is beyond astonshing.


And you are again repeating the lie that Jesus never addressed both.

I have no idea why the fundies are not anti-divorce. I was not aware that they even were not anti-divorce. Every Christian I know is anti-divorce, that's all I can tell you.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I like your joke.

I think the punch line has something to do about getting dirty no matter what.

This is a tough issue, though. I hate to see anyone discriminated against, but I don't see why civil unions can't be enough. The requirement that it be called "marriage" is so incendiary and it is the reason there is so much dander against it.

Another thing, I wonder how many gay people have ever really been prevented from visiting a partner in the hospital (since, say 1980.) unless they are under legal age or something.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> That wasn't the question I asked. Why is the Religious Right/"defense of marriage" camp specifically focused on denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, instead of denying divorce rights to opposite-sex couples, when Jesus explicitly addressed the former but not the latter? Is the institution of marriage "defended" by denying it to 20+ million people, or by ignoring 50+% divorce rates?
> 
> It's hypocrisy and selective belief at its worst.


Oh, there you are. See my reply above.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Why Aren't Conservatives Talking About Divorce 
By William R. Mattox Jr. 
Summer 1995


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I like your joke.
> 
> I think the punch line has something to do about getting dirty no matter what.
> 
> ...


Thousands. And that's just the very tip of the discrimination iceberg: inheritance rights, insurance, immigration and tax policies, and 1000 other federal and state rights and benefits are bestowed with legal recognition of marriage, most or all of which are denied to same-sex couples.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Thousands. And that's just the very tip of the discrimination iceberg: inheritance rights, insurance, immigration and tax policies, and 1000 other federal and state rights and benefits are bestowed with legal recognition of marriage, most or all of which are denied to same-sex couples.


Those are incentives. The mere existence of incentives is not discrimination.

Otherwise we need to get rid of about 100 government programs starting with SBA loans and preferential government contracts to women and minorities.

Kids have sex. We want those who get prego to get married. If you can get prego then we would incentise you to get married too.

Blame biology not theology. The government has a social and economic interest in encouraging hetero marriage. While perhaps lesbians do have lower divorce rates (accepting your premise) they certainly don't procreate.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> So why aren't the Christian fundies pushing to ban legally recognized divorce?
> 
> Your level of hypocrisy and selective belief is beyond astonshing.


There were plenty of fights over the liberalizing of divorce laws and the creation of no fault divorce. The 50% divorce rates are the results (not exlusive results) that were predicted by those who opposed liberalizing the laws - conservatives lost that fight decades ago - and the fruits of that loss are evident everywhere - no just in divorce rates, but in illegitimacy rates, and in the rates of missing fathers, and all the other resulting social pathologies that have gone on with it. We've spent 40-50 years weakening the institution of marriage, is it any wonder it isn't stronger? The way to strengthen marriage is not to expand the definition of it to include everybody and the kitchen sink - it's to make it meaningful again in a way that imposes real obliagtions on the parties and decreases incentives for families to break up.

You stated "Heterosexuals have made a complete mockery of the institution of marriage." To the extent that it is true, it was not always the case. These divorce figures are a very recent development and go hand in hand, no doubt, with the many cultural changes and break downs of established norms which you probably cheer on.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Those are incentives. The mere existence of incentives is not discrimination.
> 
> Otherwise we need to get rid of about 100 government programs starting with SBA loans and preferential government contracts to women and minorities.
> 
> ...


But they make for some interesting movie scenes. :devil:


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Those are incentives. .........
> we would incentise you to get married too.
> .


*Incentise*? ic12337:

no doubt the _*bastardization*_ of non-married hetero (possibly Bi-lingual), etc. .....

:icon_smile_big:

BTW, I liked the Hoover.org link and article on divorce...I'd like to hear much more public discussion on those issues among current Repubs and Dems.

M


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

tabasco said:


> *Incentise*? ic12337:
> 
> no doubt the _*bastardization*_ of non-married hetero (possibly Bi-lingual), etc. .....
> 
> ...


OOPS!

Yes, I liked the Sen. DPM quote.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It was probably around the time of this Hoover Institute article that we also saw a flurry of states and localities pushing so-called "covenant marriage" programs. The details varied, but it was a way to formalize the expectation that marriage would be forever. I think enough time has passed that there should be some social science research on whether it had any effect (for instance, have "covenant marriages" lasted longer than the regular kind?) but I haven't seen any. I have seen a recent study that indicates that making those celibacy pledges doesn't make kids any less likely to engage in sex or get pregnant.

I don't claim to know the answer to marital dissolution. I think there are a lot of divorces that should happen, but I don't doubt that there are some relationships that could be salvaged or extended. Despite all the talk about divorce, preventing people from getting a divorce isn't the same as keeping them together. I don't know how we get back to the expectation that marriages will last forever, but the Hoover paper seems to suggest that the most widely disseminated statisics about the prevalence of divorce are overstated:

"It is frequently asserted that half of all marriages end in divorce. The number, derived by comparing the annual number of marriages to the annual number of divorces, overstates the likelihood of a failed first marriage. This is because the number is skewed upward by the experience of men and women who have gone through divorce many times. The truth is that about one quarter of all adults who have ever been married in America today have also experienced divorce. "


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This has drifted off to where my differences with my religious friends becomes apparent. I back civil unions 110%. I back them amongst gays, lesbians, trans-gendered, etc., in twos, threes, fours, and mores. Whatever sort of grouping consenting adults (consenting adults! Arranged marriages for children is wrong IMO) should be allowed. Pretty much end of story in my books and if you are going to deem gender as "arbitrary" then I think the number of the people in said civil union is also arbitrary.

As to gay adoption, I have always figured that if a gay or lesbian couple have established the long term, stable relationship any adoption agency should be seeking, they will probably make good parents. In today's day and age, a strong, stable, long term relationship is hard enough to build for two heteros, so if a gay couple can do it, they pretty much have to be pretty solid people. Just like people are not "gay by choice", people are not hetero by choice, so I sincerely doubt this will affect the sexuality of the children.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

KenR said:


> It's not often that I find myself on the same side of the fence as Frank, but, for the most part, I am.
> 
> I too always had an issue with the concept of being a homosexual is not a sin but acting on it is. It is walking too fine a line. Unless you have made a vow of chastity (which is voluntary) you are going to act on your sexual impulses. If the table was turned and someone said to me that I can be straight but I can't act upon it I would think that they nuts and did not have a clue about sexuality. We are driven to have sex.
> 
> ...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

That's a comforting statistic, Jack. I had not realized that if you looked into the statistics more deeply that removing multiple divorces from the sample would improve things that much.

I'm still afraid to get married, myself, though. I'm too set in my ways. (Or I'm too selfish and immature.) Only God knows which.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Statistics question*

Has anyone followed all of the statistical discussion here?

I'm inclined to be skeptical of this use of statistics from the Hoover paper:

"A 1994 study of juveniles in the Wisconsin correction system found that 1 in 3 came from divorced or separated homes."

Specifically, this doesn't tell us anything unless we also know how it compares to the general population.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I guess I have no problem if civil unions get the benefits of marriage.

I just don't like the idea of religious institutions being forced to conduct or recognize (other than in commercial matters, etc.) marriages that they find to be sinful.

I agree that civil unions should confer the legal rights that a marriage does and I have no problem calling them "civil unions." 

If those who are interested in equality really are interested, they should understand that this might be the best they can do now politically.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> This has drifted off to where my differences with my religious friends becomes apparent. I back civil unions 110%. I back them amongst gays, lesbians, trans-gendered, etc., in twos, threes, fours, and mores. Whatever sort of grouping consenting adults (consenting adults! Arranged marriages for children is wrong IMO) should be allowed. Pretty much end of story in my books and if you are going to deem gender as "arbitrary" then I think the number of the people in said civil union is also arbitrary.
> 
> As to gay adoption, I have always figured that if a gay or lesbian couple have established the long term, stable relationship any adoption agency should be seeking, they will probably make good parents. In today's day and age, a strong, stable, long term relationship is hard enough to build for two heteros, so if a gay couple can do it, they pretty much have to be pretty solid people. Just like people are not "gay by choice", people are not hetero by choice, so I sincerely doubt this will affect the sexuality of the children.


I don't get your point. I know many religious people that support civil unions, just not gay marriage. So how are your differences apparent? I support civil unions.

As to gay adoption, there are many non-religious people that are against gay adoption and the two-mommies/two-daddies. Most knowledgable people (like psychologists) feel that it's important to be exposed to multiple influences including that of both a Mother and a Father for children. This is one of the primary destructive results of divorce in hetero families as well. Otherwise, who really cares other than religion? Look at things like sexual predator influences and you always see imbalanced family structures.

I know specifically of a couple with great children and the Father is gay, but they have a Mom and a Dad in the home.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I don't get your point. I know many religious people that support civil unions, just not gay marriage. So how are your differences apparent? I support civil unions.


You then are an anomoly. Most economically conservative, religious people I come across are against gays in general, let alone giving them a legally valid relationship status.



ksinc said:


> As to gay adoption, there are many non-religious people that are against gay adoption and the two-mommies/two-daddies. Most knowledgable people (like psychologists) feel that it's important to be exposed to multiple influences including that of both a Mother and a Father for children. This is one of the primary destructive results of divorce in hetero families as well. Otherwise, who really cares other than religion? Look at things like sexual predator influences and you always see imbalanced family structures.
> 
> I know specifically of a couple with great children and the Father is gay, but they have a Mom and a Dad in the home.


If you have some data to support likely harm by children adopted into a same sex couple, I am all for reading it. I am very data driven. However, I go back to my previous point. I think given how difficult it still is for a gay couple, if they can create a strong and stable home over the long term, they are pretty likely to be quality people in my book, hence good candidates for adopting.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I just don't like the idea of religious institutions being forced to conduct or recognize (other than in commercial matters, etc.) marriages that they find to be sinful.


Don't worry, that's not going to happen. Religious institutions are free to conduct and recognize whatever marriages they want, and to disapprove of any they don't. There are plenty of churches that won't solemnize "mixed" marriages, marriages of nonmembers, etc.



forsbergacct2000 said:


> If those who are interested in equality really are interested, they should understand that this might be the best they can do now politically.


I agree completely. I think that's where we as a society are heading.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> This has drifted off to where my differences with my religious friends becomes apparent. I back civil unions 110%. I back them amongst gays, lesbians, trans-gendered, etc., in twos, threes, fours, and mores. Whatever sort of grouping consenting adults (consenting adults! Arranged marriages for children is wrong IMO) should be allowed.


Well that would pretty much have the effect of killing off Employer provided health insurance (which I believe you're in favor of Wayfarer?) I mean, if I had a close friend/friends who were sick, I'd just "marry" them all to get them health insurance coverage if they didn't have it. You're also providing the means to avoid any death/estate taxes for a larger number of people - when in extremis simply "marry" those you want to inherit tax free.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> Well that would pretty much have the effect of killing off Employer provided health insurance (which I believe you're in favor of Wayfarer?)


First, no, I am not for the current system. The tax code needs to be revised to stop tying health insurance to employment, but that is another thread. Secondly, there is no logical necessity that the current system would founder due to this. There are a) provisions regarding eligibility and pre-existing conditions and b) usually the price of the premium would be too high for such uncovered people to pay anyways, as again, health insurance is currently so closely tied to employment and c) it might actually relieve the burden on the system, as uninsured people access the emergency and tertiary system at much higher rates, actually increasing the burden and cost. Lastly, I would be fine if this facilitated people avoiding death taxes, I think they are wrong.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> If you have some data to support likely harm by children adopted into a same sex couple, I am all for reading it. I am very data driven. However, I go back to my previous point. I think given how difficult it still is for a gay couple, if they can create a strong and stable home over the long term, they are pretty likely to be quality people in my book, hence good candidates for adopting.


You missed the point. It has nothing to with them being quality people.

It has to do with creating balanced influences on a child in their developmental years. Children need Moms and Dads - as shown by the single parent crisis we face in America with child behavioral problems. The problem isn't that there is just one parent it is that there is just one type of influence. Most single Moms also already have a strong secondary female influence like a GrandMother or seek out another single Mom to share duties like babysitting, etc. the same problems persist from the lack of a stable male influence in the home.

Yes, I do think there would be identity problems as well, but that's just an opinion. Having "a mother" even an adoptive one is a pretty important part of identify and self-awareness IMHO.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You missed the point. It has nothing to with them being quality people.
> 
> It has to do with creating balanced influences on a child in their developmental years. Children need Moms and Dads - as shown by the single parent crisis we face in America with child behavioral problems. The problem isn't that there is just one parent it is that there is just one type of influence. Most single Moms also already have a strong secondary female influence like a GrandMother or seek out another single Mom to share duties like babysitting, etc. the same problems persist from the lack of a stable male influence in the home.
> 
> Yes, I do think there would be identity problems as well, but that's just an opinion. Having "a mother" even an adoptive one is a pretty important part of identify and self-awareness IMHO.


Must have.....data...

Single parent (and all that usually entails) vs. stable, long term, financially comfortable gay couple. Have to think the second one is a better choice. Again though, open to data of the hard variety.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Must have.....data...
> 
> Single parent (and all that usually entails) vs. stable, long term, financially comfortable gay couple. Have to think the second one is a better choice. Again though, open to data of the hard variety.


There's a ton of this stuff out there. Knock yourself out:

Compared to children in male-headed traditional families where their
natural parents are married to each other, children living in
female-headed single-parent, lesbian or other environments where they are
deprived of their natural fathers are:

1. Eight times more likely to go to prison.
2. Five times more likely to commit suicide.
3. Twenty times more likely to have behavioral problems.
4. Twenty times more likely to become rapists.
5. 32 times more likely to run away.
6. Ten times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
7. Nine times more likely to drop out of high school.
8. 33 times more likely to be seriously abused.
9. 73 times more likely to be fatally abused.
10. One-tenth as likely to get A's in school.
11. On average have a 44% higher mortality rate.
12. On average have a 72% lower standard of living.

https://www.answers.com/topic/single-parent-families

https://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/55

https://www.blackwell-synergy.com/d...300.2002.00693.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=famp

https://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00373.x?journalCode=famp

https://www.schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/pdf/sb-13.pdf


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I read the abstract to all your links. Nothing to do with gay/lesbian couples in stable, long term relationships that I could see. All to do with single parents and/or broken families with re-mariied parents, i.e. "reconstructed" as one abstract called it. The abstracts seemed to bear out what I was thinking about single parenting.

Anything on gay/lesbian couples in stable, long term relationships and their adoptive children now?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I read the abstract to all your links. Nothing to do with gay/lesbian couples in stable, long term relationships that I could see. All to do with single parents and/or broken families with re-mariied parents, i.e. "reconstructed" as one abstract called it. The abstracts seemed to bear out what I was thinking about single parenting.
> 
> Anything on gay/lesbian couples in stable, long term relationships and their adoptive children now?


No, of course not. Who would bother with such a thing with what is known about required Male and Female influences? You are ignoring the premise of your own point.

If you want to go against the accepted norm that a child does indeed need both Male and Female influences or that it can be negated by income - provide your own data.

"do your own homework", Frank!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No, of course not. Who would bother with such a thing with what is known about required Male and Female influences? You are ignoring the premise of your own point.


What exactly do you think my point is?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> What exactly do you think my point is?


I can only go by what you said:

"However, I go back to my previous point. I think given how difficult it still is for a gay couple, if they can create a strong and stable home over the long term, they are pretty likely to be quality people in my book, hence good candidates for adopting."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I can only go by what you said:
> 
> "However, I go back to my previous point. I think given how difficult it still is for a gay couple, if they can create a strong and stable home over the long term, they are pretty likely to be quality people in my book, hence good candidates for adopting."


Yup, that is exactly it. So how am I missing my point when I say it seems single parent homes are inferior? Because in the gay/lesbian household they are definitionally the same sex? Not the answer I am willing to bet. The answer I think lies in two things.

1) Stability of the relationship. I kept stressing "stable" and "long term". Creating this would indicate for me you probably have pretty sound people.
2) Affluence. Money does buffer people from many things in this society and I recently saw some data indicating gay couples tend to be better off than the average hetero couple. Not sure with lesbians, never seen any data. However, the adoption agencies usually have income screening, so there is that taken care of.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Yup, that is exactly it. So how am I missing my point when I say it seems single parent homes are inferior? Because in the gay/lesbian household they are definitionally the same sex? Not the answer I am willing to bet. The answer I think lies in two things.
> 
> 1) Stability of the relationship. I kept stressing "stable" and "long term". Creating this would indicate for me you probably have pretty sound people.
> 2) Affluence. Money does buffer people from many things in this society and I recently saw some data indicating gay couples tend to be better off than the average hetero couple. Not sure with lesbians, never seen any data. However, the adoption agencies usually have income screening, so there is that taken care of.


There is no difference between a single Mom and two lesbians. Neither has a stable male influence. It has nothing to do with 'quality people' or afluence as income. Particularly so with women who still usually make less and have less stable career paths than men.

Perhaps you just don't care about the behavioral relationship influences over basic needs like food & water?

Let's take someone like Rosie as an example: Afluent/Income? Yes. Long term relationship? Yes. STABLE/STRUCTURED/EMOTIONALLY MATURE BEHAVIORAL INFLUENCE? I rest my case.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> There is no difference between a single Mom and two lesbians. Neither has a stable male influence. It has nothing to do with 'quality people' or afluence as income. Particularly so with women who still usually make less and have less stable career paths than men.


Like I said, I have no data on lesbians. However, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. BTW, my father died when I was nine. I had no stable male influence. I still turned out hopelessly heterosexual and somehow managed to amass a couple graduate degrees and some moderate financial success. I guess one can always beat the stats


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Like I said, I have no data on lesbians. However, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. BTW, my father died when I was nine. I had no stable male influence. I still turned out hopelessly heterosexual and somehow managed to amass a couple graduate degrees and some moderate financial success. I guess one can always beat the stats


I was not debating turning out hetero. I think if you read that one on single parents it said there was statistical exclusion for Widows. Strange, no? 

I fail to see how the data on lesbians would be different from a single mom as far as lack of Male influence affecting behavioral relationships would matter.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Ken, I agree with everything you say here (except for the God part, of course).
> 
> Although there was a right-wing backlash when we enacted civil unions in Vermont that briefly led to a Republican takeover in the Legislature, by now it is pretty much a non-issue in the state; not accepted by everybody, but hardly an issue for anybody. It seems that this is the position that most people across the country are moving toward.


Jack, thanks for your participation in this thread. Among all the political and religious scare tactics on this issue (claims that polygamists will push to have their marriages recognized, people will start marrying their pets and two dozen other flavors of The Rick Santorum School of Hysteria), it's refreshing whenever someone has the guts to cite what has _actually happened_ in states and foreign countries that have recognized same-sex unions.

Maybe 10 or 20, but certainly 50 years from now people are going to look back on this current era in absolute and amazed wonder. What a tempest in a teapot, and how utterly short-sighted, counterproductive and reactionary it is to "defend" marriage by denying it to so many millions of Americans. We'll look back on this debate the exact same way we now look back to the 1950's, when a majority of Americans screamed bloody murder, predicted the collapse of civilization etc etc if we legalized interracial marriages. All the same nonsense arguments disproven by time and experience.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Among all the political and religious scare tactics on this issue (claims that polygamists will push to have their marriages recognized...


What compelling interest, your own criteria, could the State have in making polygamy illegal? You lacked the _cajones_ to give your personal stance on this, at least show enough stone to attempt a rational argument to meet your own criteria.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> What compelling interest, your own criteria, could the State have in making polygamy illegal?


Search back in this thread, WF. Or simply read state and federal Supreme court decisions on this issue. The reasons most often cited is that polygamy usually involves coercion, exploitation and abuse of women and minor children. I'm not an expert on this issue, but I do know the state was required to show (as with every other class of American) a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to polygamists -- not simply saying "It's icky and we don't like it", or "It's icky and God doesn't like it", or claiming society will collapse, or pointing to religious texts, or citing the opinion of a majority of Americans.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Search back in this thread, WF. Or simply read state and federal Supreme court decisions on this issue. The reasons most often cited is that polygamy usually involves coercion, exploitation and abuse of women and minor children. I'm not an expert on this issue, but I do know the state was required to show (as with every other class of American) a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to polygamists -- not simply saying "It's icky and we don't like it", or "It's icky and God doesn't like it", or claiming society will collapse, or pointing to religious texts, or citing the opinion of a majority of Americans.


So then if nine consenting adults wished to all be married, you would have no problem with it?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then if nine consenting adults wished to all be married, you would have no problem with it?


For the third (or is it fourth?) time, I haven't researched the subject enough to have an informed opinion about it. Whether you believe it or not, that's the truth.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> For the third (or is it fourth?) time, I haven't researched the subject enough to have an informed opinion about it. Whether you believe it or not, that's the truth.


What research do you have to do? You state that two consenting adults of the same sex should be able enter into a civil union and that anything else is discrimination. I agree. Yet you blither and blather not wanting to address the subject of plural marriage. Again, multiple consenting adults want a civil union. The answer should be pretty clear and straightforward: not to allow it is discrimination.

I just cannot fathom why you refuse to answer this question other than, "I have no answer". Also, can you outline the "research" you did concerning gays to come to your "informed opinion"?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> What research do you have to do? You state that two consenting adults of the same sex should be able enter into a civil union and that anything else is discrimination. I agree. Yet you blither and blather not wanting to address the subject of plural marriage. Again, multiple consenting adults want a civil union. The answer should be pretty clear and straightforward: not to allow it is discrimination.


If you can't see the obvious error in your logic, an error you've repeatedly made, it's probable no one here will be able to explain it to you. But I'll give it one last shot. Read the following slowly and carefully:

Because the state has failed to prove a compelling interest in denying one class of Americans (gay people) the right to legal recognition of marriage, that does not mean the state has failed to prove a compelling interest in denying this same right to another (or any other) class of Americans, such as polygamists, those involved in incestual relationships, or any of 100 other classes of people. In each and every case, the burden of proof is on the state to justify the denial of this right to a given class, and as I've mentioned, the state has failed in some cases (same-sex couples, interracial couples etc), and succeeded in other cases.

I'm not going to rehash the same basic truth to you any further. If you can't or (more likely) won't understand it, I don't know how else it can be explained to you.



Wayfarer said:


> I just cannot fathom why you refuse to answer this question other than, "I have no answer".


That's not what I said. You're trying to goad me into offering an opinion on the issue of plural marriage, an opinion that would be based on a near total ignorance of the subject. Ain't gonna do it.



Wayfarer said:


> Also, can you outline the "research" you did concerning gays to come to your "informed opinion"?


30+ years of study, reading the results of formal clinical studies, court opinions, opinions of religious leaders and other opposing viewpoints, etc.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

In answer to my question, "can you outline the "research" you did concerning gays to come to your "informed opinion?" Frank says:



FrankDC said:


> 30+ years of study, reading the results of formal clinical studies, court opinions, opinions of religious leaders and other opposing viewpoints, etc.


Well with all those years of study, you surely must have an informed opinion. Oh wait, you say endlessly you do not have an informed opinion. So far in this thread you have said:



FrankDC said:


> You're trying to goad me into offering an opinion on the issue of plural marriage, an opinion that would be based on a near total ignorance of the subject.





FrankDC said:


> I'll give you a more specific answer: I don't have an opinion about that group.





FrankDC said:


> For the third (or is it fourth?) time, I haven't researched the subject enough to have an informed opinion about it. Whether you believe it or not, that's the truth.


So you have done 30+ years of study on one hand and on the other are totally ignorant of it. In another quote by you in this thread:



FrankDC said:


> In the words of The Church Lady, "How conveeeeenient."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

rip said:


> One can always find contrarians. There are a handful of not-too-well-regarded scientists who still believe that global warming is either a myth or that man has nothing to do with it; there are even a few scientists who believe in the young earth creationist myths. However, the APA represents the majority of current thinking (and thinkers) in the field of psychology, regardless of your closely held belief system. You said you read the literature in psychology; let me suggest that you read across the field rather than just picking material that supports your already sealed conclusions. You might start with the research that led up to the changes in the DSM II in 1976. If you read it with an open mind, setting aside for the moment your religious blinders, you'll find it quite eye-opening, particularly in understanding the thinking and the type of research that led to the earlier classification of homosexual pathology, and what flaws were discovered in that research that led to the decision to remove it from the manual.


DSM II in 1976- I've read the stuff before and after. I may have read DSM II in the year 1976 itself. When you look at the early and older there is conflict. Not only that the argument is rather clearly still going on in the 80's and the 90's, not to mention today. I'm sure many are still not convinced, because, who knows what the future will show. History shows us that sometimes well thought out ideas were wrong. So where is the proof and not speculation? I watched a program within the last year about the latest ideas and the ideas faults on a liberal tv program.

Why haven't the APA gone back and cleaned up the DSM's so at least they work together? Maybe the major changes they would have to do is to much? Or is it so people don't blindly believe? I notice you have been only looking at pro-global warming and not the other side of the argument. Science is very much like a game of chess among them- the aim is to win and not who is right.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> Why haven't the APA gone back and cleaned up the DSM's so at least they work together? Maybe the major changes they would have to do is to much? Or is it so people don't blindly believe?


Apparently you don't understand the system. Each edition of the DSM is a revision and replacement for the previous edition. Thus, DSM--III replaced DSM--II. DSM--III was replaced by DSM-IIIR (revised), which was, in its turn, replaced by DSM--IV. DSM--IV is the current edition, although there is a new version called DSM--TR (text revision).

This being the case, there would be no reason to do anything to change previous editions of the DSM. Once a new edition is released the previous edition is considered, by scientific consensus, invalid.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Apparently you don't understand the system. Each edition of the DSM is a revision and replacement for the previous edition. Thus, DSM--III replaced DSM--II. DSM--III was replaced by DSM-IIIR (revised), which was, in its turn, replaced by DSM--IV. DSM--IV is the current edition, although there is a new version called DSM--TR (text revision).
> 
> This being the case, there would be no reason to do anything to change previous editions of the DSM. Once a new edition is released the previous edition is considered, by scientific consensus, invalid.


Thanks Jack. I thought it might be that way.

They ought to erase some of the earlier ones.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The earlier ones are books, with millions of copies in print all over the world. Not really practical to "erase" them. I wouldn't be surprised if you can find earlier editions online, but people in the field are familiar with the current edition.


----------

