You’re not even close.

50%

Not sure what you meant by that, but I do not consider those who are pushing more degradation on America on my team.

I have a good reason for asking, which I can only post if I know it’s you.

Thank you.

Now, Zach, er Freiheit, you post as ZachV on Hotair.com, don’t you? I remember because you gave me the ‘I’ve got my eye on you, boy’ statement one time during a debate like this.

Did you post this, Zach?

‘

If only we had an institution. You know, one that encouraged gay men
to embrace fidelity and commitment … and then told gay men that they
should join this institution by giving each other rings as symbols of
commitment, and announcing their decision in front of friends and
family. Then we could give them partner rights!

Oh wait, that’s actually smart. Excuse me. I forgot we opposed family values.’

(Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/20/elmo-creator-resigns-as-second-sex-allegation-surfaces/comment-page-1/#comment-6522842)
I await your response.

Apologies – I was out with the coworkers having a beer and to answer that, yessir! I believe in family values. I believe that everyone in society — gay and straight — should be encourage to find stability in their lives, marry and raise children if they are capable. Marriage, beyond being a committed partnership between equals, is a form of social support that allows two partners to rely on each other for self-support rather than, let’s say, government welfare or their parents. That’s because it encourages accountability and responsibility between the two persons (“until death do we part”) and if all else fails, between the couple and the community who they made their vows to.

It also affords protections to children, who become eligible to have two guardians to look out and protect them for the world’s evils. And given that ~25% of gays and lesbians have children, it’s these children that benefit.

Compared to, let’s say westcoastpattriette, who bless her heart, thinks that by persecuting gays and throwing them into therapy, we can some how rid ourselves of genetic predispositions. Then force LGBTs into predestined-to-fail marriages with the opposite sex or into the Catholic’s Church and/or Republican Senatorial campaigns, where (oh, who would have thunk) humanity’s strongest drive influences these men commit heinous acts. Marginalization, exclusion and prejudice are what drives this sort of worldview and why so many families are destroyed when a son or daughter comes out.

In the end, most gays want to be married. That’s a behavior that must encouraged to build a strong and healthy society, where families are united by committed bonds of kinship. To believe so otherwise denies that marriage is a institution of any benefit.

That’s nice, that you think you can define marriage to meet whatever criteria you think meets your needs. Too bad for you that you don’t actually get to do that.

States are not empowered to change the sum of two plus two. Nor are they empowered to change the definition of marriage.

Marriage (as defined as between a man and a woman) has been the foundation of civilization since the dawn of time. If gays and the lefts wish to destroy marriage and civilization with it, then I am afraid we will all suffer the consequences. Moral laws are just like physical laws. They will apply whether or not people vote for them or even believe in them. The state of Maryland can vote against gravity but if they jump off a building, gravity will still apply.

Oh that’s the reason . I was trying to figure out why you posted that on a blog posting about a gay man accused of molesting kids. It struck me as rather bizarre, and I was hoping you could clarify. It was the beer, then. Okay.

I added a correction at the end of the diary. Please see.

I’ll try to answer your questions about how the legislation has First Amendment problems here.

In spite of the many assertions in the bill that reference various professional organizations re: the “harm” that may be inflicted on a person if it is suggested that they may be able to change their same-sex attraction or “sexual orientation,” the truth of the matter is debatable and disputable. After reading the final draft of the bill, you will notice the conspicuous absence of any other views than that of the homosexual pushers — many of whom have infiltrated the mental health profession and are hell-bent on forcing their views on others.

In fact, many, many people have left behind that lifestyle permanently. And many of them did it with the assistance of professional counselors who were not forced to believe that it is impossible or harmful to try to assist someone who wants to change.

Many churches and non-profits employ professional licensed mental health practitioners and this bill bans them from helping a person who wants to change. Counselors have rights, too, and this is a blatant violation of their free speech and for some who include biblical counsel in their practice, it violates their freedom to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of being reported to the licensing agency for illegal/unethical conduct.

With respect to the parents of the minors this bill focuses on, it violates parental rights and privacy issues and even implies that parents of teens who may be struggling with sexual identity confusion must accept it as normal and are only “allowed” to be affirming and accepting of their “sexual orientation” — and to do otherwise would be harmful to their child. To empower the state to judge the parents who may disagree with this view is frightening on many levels.

Hope this helped.

We’ll see soon enough how this plays out. And I think you are very wrong. Did you have to bite your tongue to control yourself from being detected as one of the fascists I am addressing? Hahaha. Too bad.

wcp, PFOX issued a statement against the legislation.

http://pfox.org/Homosexuals-Ban-Heterosexual-Therapy.html

We are Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX), a national non-profit organization helping families with homosexual loved ones and supporting an inclusive environment for the ex-gay community. PFOX conducts public education and outreach to further individual self-determination and respect for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation.

We write on behalf of our California members in opposition to SB1172, and ask that you vote against this legislation, which would ban therapy for minors with unwanted same-sex attractions. This bill is opposed by therapy organizations and prevents counseling to children who have been sexually molested and therefore confused about their sexual orientation. Teens in stress need more mental health assistance, not less.

As originally drafted, the bill also tried to outlaw such therapy for adults. Equality California, a major sponsor of the bill, opposes ex-gay equality and civil rights for the ex-gay community. They also assert that children should be able to legally change their gender but not their sexual orientation. Evidently, this discriminatory bill seeks to censor sexual
minorities and punish the ex-gay community for being who they are.

The American Psychological Association stated in 2009 that affirmative approaches [homosexual affirming therapy] have not been evaluated for safety and efficacy. See Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (APA 2009), page 91 at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf. Yet no similar ban on gay-affirming therapy or therapy to change one’s gender was offered by the bill’s sponsors.

The group also addresses the success of the therapy. From http://pfox.org/Hear_our_message_then_judge.html

Although gay organizations have tried to suppress it, recent
scientific research confirms that permanent change is indeed
possible. Just ask psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, a professor at
Columbia University who is so sympathetic to gay politics that in

1973 he helped to persuade the American Psychiatric Association to
remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. In the past few years, though, he has become convinced that some gays and lesbians have been able to successfully change their sexual orientation.

Spitzer conducted a five-year study of 200 gay men and women who had sought “reorientation” therapy. He found that most of them have
achieved fulfilling, long-term heterosexual relationships.

There’s a wealth of information on PFOX’s site re how ex-gays are treated. As usual, the left is only tolerant of those with whom they agree.

I don’t disagree with your point. However as I said, I think that the view is shifting overall in public opinion toward same sex rights/marriage. Now sure, it may not pass the ballots in the majority of the states right now, but I feel it’s a forgone conclusion that it will continue to move in the direction of SSM passing in more and more states. I just see this as a losing issue overall.

As for what’s happening in Cali, I see this as a state issue. And I disagree with the therapy anyhow, as I think it does more damage then good. I just don’t see the benefit for an already confused teen, who is more then likely hiding how they feel, to be told what their feeling is wrong and they need to change how they feel.

I respect your opinion streiff, but we’ll just have to agree to disagree here. People are attracted to who they’re attracted to, it is what it is, and I don’t think we should be telling someone whom they should or should not be attracted to.

If you are a conservative, your comment about a ‘foregone conclusion’ is a fine example of what I have dubbed the ‘conservative loser’s mentality’.

Rather than take responsibility for changing reality, let the left define it and just bend over for them.

I’ll pass, thank you very much.

Teens are confused about a variety of issues. Based on your logic, we should just let them go with their “feelings” regardless of whether they are right or wrong. That line of thinking is a huge part of what’s wrong with our society today. No logic, no morality, no judgment – just do what feels good regardless of the consequences.

Further, “people are attracted to who they’re attracted to.” So how about those who are attracted to children, or their pets, or multiple partners, or sadists, or any number of situations that are harmful? Just live and let live, huh? I don’t think so.

and that really is the point of this. The gay lobby has already labeled anyone who calls homosexuality a sexual perversion “homophoblic.” They browbeat the APA into removing it as a mental disorder in the DSM IV. This is not about whether a therapy is efficacious it is about silencing people who correctly point out that homosexuality is not normal.

I accept your apology. Thank you.

And, I might add, I don’t call for their deaths.

I just want their statist nonsense to stop.

But please, by all means, enlighten us and tell us why God is wrong.

Boy thinking ain’t your strong suit is it? I was referring to the moral judgment God made. That particular judgment was the law in the theocracy God set up for the Israelites. The moral law is firmly in place. You still haven’t addressed the issue of Gods judgment of homosexuality as wrong.

And again, what authority do you have to pick and choose? By what standard do you believe that the ‘quite a lot in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (and elsewhere)’ should not be followed literally? Where does that standard come from? Have you even thought of these things?

Yeesh. This is scary.

Can you answer a simple question?

I’m just curious to know whether or not you’re capable of that.

Since you apparently have reading comprehension issues, I’ll simplify it:

You have a crime, and you have a punishment. Used to be in our country, murder almost invariably carried the death penalty, and usually by hanging. The punishment has changed; today we use the needle, if we execute at all. BUT murder is still a crime.

In the OT times, God prescribed, for that society in that time, the punishment of the crime of lying about virginity/stealing/being homosexual, etc. We are not OT Israelites. We are Americans. We have different punishments for those things. The question that is pertinent is whether or not those things are wrong. Yes it is wrong for a betrothed virgin to lie about her sexual past. Yes it is wrong to steal .Yes, it is wrong to be a homosexual.

I can’t tell if you have trouble separating a crime from its punishment, or if you are disingenuous enough to claim to be a Christian on the one hand, and maintain that a moral crime’s status as such is determined by earthly authorities, not God.

I do perceive that you slavishly and weak-mindedly assimilate the ‘conventional wisdom’ of the day. I imagine that if the media and Hollywood and pundits were telling you that we should stone homosexuals, you’d be promoting it, for the good of conservatism, of course. You have yet to demonstrate that you root your beliefs in anything other than emotions and ‘go-with-the-flow’ sentiment.

Either that, or you’re too cowardly to make a moral stand.

No insults. no mischaracterizations. Truth.

And no, I didn’t forget to ask the question. I’ve repeated it several times: by which standard do you, mtmnd, pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe in and don’t, specifically the part that passes moral judgment on homosexuality.

It’s real simple.

In all seriousness, what you have done is demonstrate that in this regard you are a mere sophist.

1. You don’t need to rely on your personal introspection. If you look at Jewish law from the time of Christ it will tell you how the Jewish, and therefore the early Christian community, viewed homosexuality.

2. We judge people all the time. There is no specific prohibition against pedophilia in the Bible yet I doubt you are angst-ridden over judging pedophiles. I’m not.

3. The Bible, at least the new testament, exhorts us to correct people who are going astray. You may call that “judging” but trying to keep a neighbor from descending into a life of sin that imperils their soul is part of the responsibility of every Christian. All the morons who seem to only have read the story of the woman caught in adultery never seem to know that Christ tells the woman, after saving her, “go forth and sin no more.” This is both a judgment rendered and a condemnation of what the woman did as a sin.

“1. You don’t need to rely on your personal introspection. If you look at Jewish law from the time of Christ it will tell you how the Jewish, and therefore the early Christian community, viewed homosexuality.”

While I don’t rely solely on introspection, I do agree that early Christianity viewed homosexuality as a sin (punishable by death.) But on many moral questions the views of early Christianity are far different than the views of most devout Christians. I would go so far as doubt whether there are any among us who share absolutely all of the moral views of the early Christians as set out in the Old Testament.

“2. We judge people all the time. There is no specific prohibition against pedophilia in the Bible yet I doubt you are angst-ridden over judging pedophiles. I’m not.”

You are correct again. I am not at all angst-ridden over my condemnation of pedophilia as evil. But then I am not angst-ridden over my refusal to condemn the sexual preferences of others, either. While you may disagree, I see no contradiction here, and many Christians agree with me.

“3. The Bible, at least the new testament, exhorts us to correct people who are going astray. You may call that “judging” but trying to keep a neighbor from descending into a life of sin that imperils their soul is part of the responsibility of every Christian. All the morons who seem to only have read the story of the woman caught in adultery never seem to know that Christ tells the woman, after saving her, “go forth and sin no more.” This is both a judgment rendered and a condemnation of what the woman did as a sin.”

I understand what you are saying, but I am not Jesus. I am fallible. And won’t pretend to have the moral certitude to cast judgments on others about difficult moral questions such as God’s views on sexual preference. Easy and obvious issues like pedophilia, yes. But I don’t view same sex preferences in the same light for a host of reasons. You may, but I don’t. Many devout Christians don’t.

But perhaps we’ve gotten sidetracked here. While I find the discussion fascinating and I learn a lot from these types of exchanges, my main concern is with the political consequences of treating this particular moral belief as a core driving principle of the conservative movement. Certainly it is an effective rallying point for a core constituency of the conservative Christian right, but beyond this, the issue turns many away. It may be difficult for many conservative Christians to accept, but gay and lesbian people and couples are increasingly being accepted into mainstream society and are gaining support outside of the immediate community of gays and lesbians. History teaches us that these societal movements toward acceptance tend to snowball.

I am sorry if I have been confusing on the issue, but I am well aware of the difference between the meaning of “devout” as opposed to “orthodox.” I use devout purposefully. In practice and belief, most christians are not entirely “orthodox” and they are becoming less so on the issue of sexual preference.

I don’t see this as different from abortion in terms of what it means to a significant portion of the conservative movement.

Nations go bankrupt and recover all the time (see Argentina and Brazil for examples) but nations cannot survive moral collapse.

Morality underlies all conservative principles — homosexuality notwithstanding. That you should think we would cave on that shows how little you understand conservatism. Posing it as a losing political matter is shallow and inaccurate on your part — and in the not too far off future, you will find yourself marginalized in a way you will find surprising. You are in denial about your level of denial on this subject.

Yep. That’s why I think the majority of Americans who understand that will come out of the closet and resist it fully before this war is over. And bills like SB 1172 give us a glimpse of what we — and our children — have in store if we don’t throw these deviants out of power and fully condemn homosexuality at its core. It’s another “no compromise” issue alongside abortion.

Mrs. Warbington,

My comments about “early Christians” were in response to a post by streiff, a few above, where he used the phrase “early Christian community” to refer to Jews (and Jewish Law) at the time of Christ. Here again is what he wrote, with my emphasis added:

“If you look at Jewish law from the time of Christ it will tell you how the Jewish, and therefore the early Christian community, viewed homosexuality.”

I tried to address his comment using his own phraseology, and I was referring to Jewish Law already in place at the time of Christ (OT not NT,) and I think he was too.

[I just noticed I also mistakenly referenced Christianity when I meant Jewish Law. This was sloppy on my part and I am sure added to the confusion. Sorry for that.]

Apparently you have trouble with the concept of ‘citing judgment’ vs. ‘making a judgment’.

God made the judgment in the Bible. I merely cite it. I don’t pretend to know God’s mind, I don’t pretend to be perfect, but I do know how to read. And the Bible is, whether or not you care to acknowledge it, very clear on it.

but I think anyone reading this sees that, as streiff said below, you are a sophist.

you try to clothe it in a self-righteousness that is, frankly laughable.

You ignore the Bible, GOD’S judgment on the issue. The Biblical language is not unclear. You simply play dumb.

But I will close with a warning, straight out of Ezekiel (chapter 3):

Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for[d] his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. 20 Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 But
if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he
shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.”

That applies to every human being who knows better, from me to you.

Amen.

that isn’t true. No one cares how gays live or what they stick where. I have no interest in forcing anyone to live the way I would wish. The issue is forcing social acceptance of sexual deviance as normative when it is, in fact, harmful.

“Telling me that I need to believe different because it’s not politically expedient ain’t cutting it.”

It is not my intention to tell you to “believe different.” My concern is only with the political viability of the conservative political movement. My comments are based in the unpopular political calculation that getting a little of what one wants is better than getting nothing.

That is certainly judgment, but I don’t attribute absolutely every literal word, directive, and judgment in the Old Testament to “that infallible One.” Do you? Really?

Are you really willing to follow and obey every literal word of the Old Testament as the Word of God?

Are you so confident in this so as insist, politically, that others must do the same?

“How is it that you see fit to judge me and others for calling homosexuality wrong?”
I didn’t judge you for calling homosexuality wrong. That isn’t a judgment I am willing to make myself, but I certainly understand the Biblical basis for your belief, and don’t judge you for your belief. That said, I don’t think it expedient to insist beliefs such as yours ought to be among the core driving principles of the conservative movement.

Where does your authority to do so come from?
I have no authority. Same as you.

“Be real careful quoting Jesus ‘judge not’…
I didn’t quote Jesus “judge not.” I referenced Deuteronomy 22:20-21. But apparently you want to “take every part of the Bible exactly literally.” If so, then do you believe that a betrothed daughter must be stoned to death for lying about being a virgin? And why aren’t you demanding death for gays and lesbians?

“You just undermined your own ability to do that when you said you don’t take every part of the Bible exactly literally. Who’s to say that any one selection is more valid than another if its not ALL true?”
My point exactly, but it applies to you as much as to me. Or more, really.

Oh, don’t try to slip out of that one.

You labeled views such as mine as ‘vitriol’. That’s a judgment.

Because you made a judgment, you do need to cite your source of authority.

I claim that my evaluation of homosexuality is a citation of God’s judgment. The authority for that is the Bible.

I pre-empted your abuse of ‘judge not’… so AGAIN, where do you get your authority to judge my comments as ‘vitriol’. And this time, please don’t dodge the question.

Your last point answers my question about thinking not being your strong suit. My point was that YOU claim that the Bible is not to be taken literally on every point. That undermines you. That doesn’t apply to me, because, as you attacked me for, I take every point literally .

I assumed throughout you are an adult. It wouldn’t be fair for me to now question whether you are young person, because I’ve known many young people who reason far better than you. At any rate, I think you need to hit the books and really think about the stuff you spout.

It’s not that your position is complicated, it’s that it’s ill-formed.

I’ve set no relativist trap. You did, and you ensnared yourself in it. I don’t even think you understand the words you’re using.

Your position re: political advantage is really screwy. Politico-philosophically, you are advocating further watering down our platform, to conform to the leftist-driven popular culture, instead of advocating turning that culture around. In short, you’re advocating a move to the left. Hell, why don’t we just join the dimocrat party and call it a day? Morally and with respect to God, it’s even worse: ignore what God has said on the matter in His book/pretend that His book doesn’t mean what it says.

You still haven’t addressed the following issues:

1. If everything in the Bible is not to be taken literally, what parts are? What standard do you use to determine which should be and which should not be? Why are you having trouble answering this question? Really, you are dodging it. Why?

2. Why it is you think you get to determine what is and is not a judgment. Why your comment about ‘vitriol’ was, according to you, NOT a judgment, but my observations about what God said in the Bible is.

I guess you have indirectly answered my question about whether or not you are willing to give reasonable discussion a try.

A victim? Not me.

For the last few decades the unmistakable trend has been toward increasing societal acceptance of gay and lesbian men and women, and of gay marriage in particular. I don’t think name-calling and insults are going to change this. Nor is sticking our heads in the sand and denying that these attitudinal shifts are taking place. It would be more productive if instead we began to seriously thinking about where to go from here.

And by the way, as for SB1172, I haven’t taken any of the positions you attribute to me. I’d appreciate it if you would quit misrepresenting my viewpoints. Thanks.

I don’t think the Federal Courts will declare the law unconstitutional. That is my realistic assessment of the constitutional claims and has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with the law.

Yet, inexplicably, you treat my assessment of the merits of the constitutional claim as an outright attack on your beliefs and even on the parents of gay kids! With all due respect, this makes no sense.

Again, like with the growing acceptance of gay marriage, you seem to fail to grasp the distinction between your strongly held beliefs and the realities of the situation. The constitutionality of the law is independent of whether you or I agree with the law. If you want the law changed or stricken, your best redress is probably legislative, not judicial.

“defining deviancy down”

Over thousands of years societies have developed rules of social order. These rules have been amazingly consistent. Now we live in the age of a bunch of geniuses who have decided that history began around 1968.

look, this particular question of yours has been asked and answered a half dozen times. I tire of it. Move on.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems like you must have great faith in government as a conduit for ensuring morality. If so, I don’t think I share in that faith. Most obviously, public opinion rules government, and as we all have pointed out repeatedly, morality and public opinion are very different animals.

One more thing, if I may. Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully and reasonably express yourself in our exchanges. I am sure that much of what I have written goes well against your core beliefs and that never makes for easy conversation, and I do appreciate your level tone and thoughtful comments even if I don’t agree with all of them.

There was certainly a strong Christian moral element to our founding. But this was complicated by a strong inclination to protect religion from politics, and politics from religion. It was complicated. To varying degrees, the founders were all Christians, but they also recognized the realities of politics, and knew that mixing politics with religion tended societies toward oppression and corruption of both religion and government.

Take Dr. Benjamin Rush, a very close friend of Thomas Jefferson who signed the Declaration of Independence and served in the Administrations of Presidents from each party. As you are probably aware, Rush was devoutly religious, active in many churches (including Christ Church Philadelphia), founded many religious education groups including groups organizing Sunday school and Bible study, insisted that the Bible be used as a text in public schools, wanted to provide all Americans a Bible, etc. In short, he seems somewhat of the embodiment of the notion of America as a Christian nation, and even one point famously referred to himself as a “Christocrat.”

Yet at the same time he was extremely skeptical of man’s attempts to achieve religious ends through politics. While discussing the First Amendment religious projections with Jefferson, Dr. Rush wrote:

I agree with you likewise in your wishes to keep religion and government independent of each other. Were it possible for St. Paul to rise from his grave at the present juncture, he would say to the clergy who are not so active in settling political affairs of the world: ‘Cease from your political labors your kingdom is not of this world. Read my epistles. In no part of them will you perceive me aiming to depose a pagan emperor, or place a Christian upon a thrown. Christianity disdains to receive support from human government.’

Far from a ringing endorsement of mixing politics with religion. Rush trusted God, but he didn’t trust men with power who claimed to be doing God’s will. And he didn’t want politics to sully religion. To him, they were separate realms.

Even assuming this is an accurate description of our government, the purposes of politics and the purpose of government are far different things.

The breakdown of marriage and the family will destroy society and open the door to big government. Many in the black community are now slaves to big government largesse because of the destruction of the black family that started with the Great Society. If the trend is not reversed, it does not matter if you win elections or not.

“If you have no authority then Jesus Christ is not your Lord and Savior.”

With all due respect, I am astounded that you and others think you know enough about me to draw these conclusions.

“As to Jesus’ command to “judge not”, I suggest you read the entire context. Jesus call is not against judging but against hypocritical judging.”

As I have explained repeatedly, I didn’t reference this passage, nor do I rely on it directly or indirectly. Judge away. I just don’t share in your judgment in this particular instance, and don’t agree that pushing this issue advances the conservative movement politically.

You ignored the context and misunderstood me. I am not The authority. That is all I meant. Humankind is fallible and I am a human.

So then do you believe that betrothed daughters who lie about their virginity ought to be stoned to death?

Isn’t it possible that I comprehend your explanation but still respectfully disagree with it? Or is it that all disagreement on my part must necessarily be a result of my inability and/or some other mental failure on my part?

Today, we live under a dispensation of grace not under the dispensation fo the law. Jesus came to fulfill the law and to usher in the new dispensation. When the Jews brought to Jesus a woman caught in adultry, he could have fulfilled the law and stoned her but instead he showed grace and mercy. He then told the woman to go forth and sin no more. He did not condone the sin. The view you push of Scripture is a simplistic one. It also misses the point that homosexuality is condemned both under the law (Old Testament) and under grace (New Testament).

If a person rejects the authority of Scripture, then they are not followers of Christ – no matter how they self identify.
Nor does the majority have the right or authority to determine morality. They can either live by it or suffer the consequences of defying it.

I’m not kipling, but I don’t think he’ll mind my advising you to go read Matthew 7, especially verse 21.

Winning elections does not matter if society is destroyed by blatantly violating the moral laws established by Scripture. It is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Scripture is pretty clear on homosexuality. To say that Scripture is not clear on it is to be intellectually dishonest.

Read Romans 1:18-32. Homosexuality is the symptom of a larger moral problem. Caving on the issue will do nothing to solve that problem.

This guy is like an irritating, pompous gnat, kipling. His arrogance while preaching down to people like us is laughable. Wish there were a way to ban people from your diaries. He enjoys irritating us and that’s about all he brings to the table.

I agree that we’re not getting anywhere, and I think we’re moving too far away from politics and into religion on a political forum, so I’ll leave you with one last suggested reading. Matthew 18:6-8 (actually the entire chapter). The bold words of Jesus, while not advocating literal self-mutilation, are clear with regard to how we should deal with the sin in our lives and the choices we make and what the consequences are. Compromising with sin is not the suggested course of action. I hope you are honest and willing to study and learn. God bless you.

If they reject the authority of Scripture then they do not follow the Christ of Scripture but rather a god of their own invention. Someone might be a Christian and be wrong about the issue but to blatantly reject the authority of Scripture marks one accordingly.

Yes, I am quite willing to stand on this issue regardless of political realities. Moral reality trumps the political. The height of arrogrance is not to stand on Scripture but to reject Scripture because “I” know better than God or because it is not politically expedient.

I think we have carried out discussion as far as it can go. To continue will just lead to repetition. Good day.

Yep that poll must be accurate, I just have to wonder why then has nearly every actual measure of support for gay marriage in ballot measures, since so many believe it to be moral and OK, have been handily beaten even if the liberal stronghold known as CA.

The poll is BS and so are your arguments.

Time to Heinz mtmnd, people.

“Again, when polls say one thing and the vote says the other, who is right. Even you can figure that one out.”

Except it turns out that I cannot figure it out.

The polls and the voters are have always been saying the same thing on the issue of gay marriage. Gay marriage has long been a loser, but public opinion has recently been changing rapidly. Thus the 32-0 election record opposing gay marriage prior to this November, and the 0-4 record this November.

Or maybe I am missing something . . . When have the polls been wrong about the society’s beliefs about the potential legality of gay marriage?

So now I “straight out lie?” Because you won’t accept the validity of the polls? Or the four November election results directly addressing gay marriage? This is too much.

Oh well, no matter. Reality treads on without you.

Playing stupid? You mean by trying to have a reasonable discussion with you? And about you calling me a liar . . . how about you back that up by showing me the lie?

“Very simple, we shall start with the most obvious. Your 0 and 4 claim that gay marriage was the reason they lost. That is so laughable, it is actually funny.

Well I am laughing, but probably for different reasons than you. In November, the issue of whether gay marriage should be legal was put directly before voters in four states. In Maine the voters passed a ballot measure legalizing gay marriage. In Washington and Maryland, the voters approved legislation legalizing gay marriage. In Minnesota voters rejected an Amendment which would have defined marriage as being a union solely between a man and a woman.

In short, the opposition to the legalization of gay marriage lost direct votes on the issue in all four states. I am no math genius, this looks like zero-for-four to me. Prior to this year those opposing gay marriage went 32-0 in direct elections, but this November was very different.

“Any more questions bub?”

One more. Are you going to make amends for flying off the handle and calling me a liar?

I see instead of apologizing for wrongly calling me a liar, you’ve upped the stakes and are now calling me and “idiot” and/or a “liar.” Does it make you feel better to lash out at me because you aren’t comfortable with the direction in which the country seems to be heading on this issue? Do you really think your anger and denial in any way advances the conservative political movement?

Against my better judgment I will continue to try and reasonably respond.

No doubt people feel differently about this issue in South Carolina than in Minnesota. Indeed, the polls indicate significant differences in regional views. But the polls also indicate that public opinion is radically shifting across all regions, including the South. According to Pew Research, only 28% of those in the South Atlantic region favored the legalization of gay marriage in 2003, whereas 42% of those in the South Atlantic region favor the legalization of gay marriage in 2012. This 14% swing is close to the nationwide shift of 15% over the same time period.

“Damn you are either the biggest idiot this site has seen or a very poor liar. You chose.”

- Being an idiot and all, I was never good at multiple choice. Is “all-of-the-above” an option?

-

-

“Yes, I am confident in the Word of God and will stack it up against human wisdom any day of the week.”

I agree. All of “human wisdom” is fallible. Likewise So are those who are most “confident” they know the Word of God.

“As to the civil law of ancient Israel, Bill S has already spoken to that and its relevance.”” I read that and have read many expositions on this particular interpretation of the Old Testament, but must respectfully disagree. Death for homosexuality with the blood on the heads of the sinners is hardly an example of a solely civil decree. And if such distinctions were possible then perhaps the prohibition on homosexual activity is civil as well. If one bases the argument on an absolutist position, one cannot then pick and choose.

Then I await your diary condemning the Islamofascist movement that has polluted places like Dearborn, MI.

Until you provide such, I suggest you stop with epithets against the “religious right”, because the next one will end your tenure here.