Roundup

Government run businesses = Epic fail — But hey, things are different now.  These guys can definitely run GM, the banks, all of our health care, etc., right?

Mormon women sure seem to get a raw deal — a summary of some lesser known teachings about marriage and how Mormon women supposedly get into Heaven. 

Domestic Divapalooza makes some good points on the No H8 campaign – The commercial starts with their favorite false dichotomies: Either you are fully behind the pro-gay agenda or you hate gays.   Either you support “same sex marriage” or you are anti-gay.  Sure.

Then they try the “equality” ploy.  But skin color is morally neutral and sexual behavior is not.  “Same sex marriage” is an oxymoron. They have as much right to it as I have to a square circle.  Pointing that out doesn’t mean I hate gays.

I know quite a few gays.  We get along great.  One is the retired dance teacher for the girls.  I saw him at the Cinderella performance and we hugged (Eek, right?).  A couple of the guys I performed with were gay.  We talked about family, work, etc.  Shocking, eh? 

Hopefully some counter-ads will explain these remarkably simple concepts.

Obama’s Supreme Court nominee looks like  a jurisprudence train wreck — I won’t blog much about her given that the news is everywhere on this.  Just imagine if a white guy had said a different version of the following:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

If You Care about Hygiene, Don’t Stay at the Hilton Chicago Hotel — Host to ‘International Mr. Leather’ Deviant-Sex-Fest – Caution: Graphic.  Just one more thing that your friendly liberal Christians support as a “Civil Rights” issue.

52 thoughts on “Roundup

  1. Thanks for the link Neil.

    I know a few gay people, not in close proximity like you have, but it still puzzles me to see how our disagreement with a philosophy and lifestyle is so often conflated with hatred of people.

    • It is just part of the agenda: Make people afraid to criticize anything about the movement. Never mind that most of their claims are made up. Most people don’t hate, they just hate to be called haters.

      And truth looks like hate to those who hate the truth.

  2. It now appears that a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court is to have 80% of your appellate decisions overruled, and to be taken to the woodshed by a judge appointed by Clinton. P-BO rocks.

  3. The commercial starts with their favorite false dichotomies: Either you are fully behind the pro-gay agenda or you hate gays. Either you support “same sex marriage” or you are anti-gay. Sure.

    Well, if you don’t support it, it does mean you’re advocating that gays remain second-class citizens, so while you may not hate them, you’re still keeping them down. Personally, I don’t really make the distinction.

    Then they try the “equality” ploy. But skin color is morally neutral and sexual behavior is not. “Same sex marriage” is an oxymoron. They have as much right to it as I have to a square circle. Pointing that out doesn’t mean I hate gays.

    Marriage is adaptable, it can be changed to include same-sex couples. It’s not like marriage is some infallible law of nature which dictates men can only be happy if they live with women. Marriage is an invention of society, and as such it can be tweaked to adopt a more enlightened definition.

    Not even going to address that “morally neutral” codswallop. Go read something that doesn’t have an anti-gay spin and find out for yourself.

    I know quite a few gays. We get along great. One is the retired dance teacher for the girls. I saw him at the Cinderella performance and we hugged (Eek, right?). A couple of the guys I performed with were gay. We talked about family, work, etc. Shocking, eh?

    Okay, this is relevant how, exactly? You know a few gay people, so what. It doesn’t make your viewpoints less wrong.

    I know a few gay people, not in close proximity like you have, but it still puzzles me to see how our disagreement with a philosophy and lifestyle is so often conflated with hatred of people.

    Homosexuality has nothing to do with philosophy. It’s a biological issue, not a philosophical one.

    • Well, if you don’t support it, it does mean you’re advocating that gays remain second-class citizens, so while you may not hate them, you’re still keeping them down. Personally, I don’t really make the distinction.

      Hi Fox,

      Thanks for demonstrating my point. You immediately bring out the victim language and ignore the plain meaning of words. You also pull up the drawbridge on other sexual perversions in favor of your preferred class. Why are you such a hateful bigot against those who practice bestiality, incest and polygamy? Or do you support those as well?

      Marriage is an invention of society, and as such it can be tweaked to adopt a more enlightened definition.

      No, you want to make it an invention of society by re-defining it to say that it is not just a union of a man and a woman. The institution existed first and the word was made to describe it.

      Okay, this is relevant how, exactly? You know a few gay people, so what. It doesn’t make your viewpoints less wrong.

      First, you never demonstrated that my views were wrong. Second, if you paid attention to the topic at hand, the commercial was a vile accusation that to disagree with oxymoronic “same sex marriage” is to hate gays. Their whole campaign is against “H8,” implying that if you were for Prop 8 then you are a hater. You really tip your hand by missing the obvious there.

      Homosexuality has nothing to do with philosophy. It’s a biological issue, not a philosophical one.

      You are behind on the latest science. Not only has that hypothesis never been proved out, the APA just reversed their “born that way” stance. Sadly, they were useful idiots for long enough to convince the masses that it was true. Of course, even if it was true, natural does not always equal moral – in fact, it rarely equals moral!

      • Thanks for demonstrating my point. You immediately bring out the victim language and ignore the plain meaning of words. You also pull up the drawbridge on other sexual perversions in favor of your preferred class. Why are you such a hateful bigot against those who practice bestiality, incest and polygamy? Or do you support those as well?

        The truth =/= “victim language.” As an openly gay male, I can’t marry other men, I can’t openly serve in the military and I can’t donate blood. I am not trying to victimize myself, I am stating the facts: I am not entitled to the same rights a heterosexual person is, and I think anyone who places faith in the current system is wrong.

        And once again, you call homosexuality a perversion, when even the site you do so love to toss about, NARTH, says that homosexuality is just as legitimate an orientation as heterosexuality. You do read NARTH’s articles, right?

        First, you never demonstrated that my views were wrong.

        It should be self evident.

        Second, if you paid attention to the topic at hand, the commercial was a vile accusation that to disagree with oxymoronic “same sex marriage” is to hate gays. Their whole campaign is against “H8,” implying that if you were for Prop 8 then you are a hater. You really tip your hand by missing the obvious there.

        To vote yes for propostion eight was to vote to deny equal rights for gays. It’s that simple. I don’t care if you hate gays or not, you’re still telling me I can’t be viewed as an equal under the eyes of the law.

        You are behind on the latest science. Not only has that hypothesis never been proved out, the APA just reversed their “born that way” stance. Sadly, they were useful idiots for long enough to convince the masses that it was true. Of course, even if it was true, natural does not always equal moral – in fact, it rarely equals moral!

        Yawn. Just because a person isn’t born gay doesn’t mean it’s not bilogical. People aren’t born straight, either. Even NARTH agrees that a person’s sexuality can be strongly influenced from the womb. It’s a combination of genetics and environment, and it’s different for everyone.

        Don’t give me that “what’s natural isn’t always moral” trash, either. It’s little more than a transparent attempt to excuse your own bigotry.

      • Hi Fox,

        There are sound medical reasons why gays can’t donate blood. There are so many restrictions on giving blood (travel destinations, false positives, etc.) I’m surprised they ever get enough. Tammy Bruce had some great commentary on gays giving blood in The Death of Right and Wrong.

        First, you never demonstrated that my views were wrong.
        It should be self evident.

        Try me. Explain how a union of a man and a woman is the same thing as a union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

        Explain how two guys can provide a mother and a father to a child.

        Explain how gays in California can get all the rights of married couples but just don’t have the name of “marriage” and then still complain that they are being treated unfairly.

        I repeat: Natural doesn’t equal moral. If someone claimed that gay bashing was natural for them I would still want them to see justice. How about you?

        And yes, you have the right to marry the opposite sex. If you don’t want to avail yourself of that right, that isn’t my problem. And you can get “married” at a number of fake churches.

      • There are sound medical reasons why gays can’t donate blood. There are so many restrictions on giving blood (travel destinations, false positives, etc.) I’m surprised they ever get enough. Tammy Bruce had some great commentary on gays giving blood in The Death of Right and Wrong.

        If the Red Cross has the ability to scan the blood they receive for diseases such as HIV, then there is no legitimate reason to deny gays the ability to donate blood.

        Explain how gays in California can get all the rights of married couples but just don’t have the name of “marriage” and then still complain that they are being treated unfairly.

        Does “separate but equal” ring a bell?

        I repeat: Natural doesn’t equal moral. If someone claimed that gay bashing was natural for them I would still want them to see justice. How about you?

        Durr, that’s not how nature works, and you know it.

        And yes, you have the right to marry the opposite sex. If you don’t want to avail yourself of that right, that isn’t my problem. And you can get “married” at a number of fake churches.

        Why would I want to marry someone I could never relate to emotionally or sexually? What use is the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex to me? Weren’t using your noggin on that one, were you.

      • If the Red Cross has the ability to scan the blood they receive for diseases such as HIV, then there is no legitimate reason to deny gays the ability to donate blood.

        Costs and risk are major reasons to do that. Don’t take it so personally. They are hyper-cautious with anything like that.

        Does “separate but equal” ring a bell?

        I’ve heard the term, but it doesn’t apply here. Skin color is morally neutral. Sexual behavior is not. It is reprehensible for the gay lobby to claim Civil Rights status for sexual preferences.

        And no one is forcing you into separate facilities. You have everything but a word, and that word doesn’t describe your relationships. I know the gay lobby has played on the collective reduction in common sense in the populace and may get their way in the end. But you won’t fool me.

        Why would I want to marry someone I could never relate to emotionally or sexually? What use is the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex to me? Weren’t using your noggin on that one, were you.

        Nice try. I didn’t say you should marry them, I said you could. But you knew that. Sorry, I know all the standard arguments. And I’m not one of those homophobes who is so scared of the gay lobby that they abandon their common sense, their Bible and their God and go along with the agenda.

        Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

  4. Neil, for the record, I don’t think you hate gays. In fact most of the Christians I know couldn’t hate someone if they tried. I’m not a believer, but if you follow what Jesus taught, then you pretty much can’t hate anyone, so I’ll give you guys that.

    The gay people I know feel hated by Christians because Christians want to prevent them from marrying the person they want to marry. They feel the same way about their spouse as you do about yours, and they want to commit to a life long relationship in the same way that their parents did, and in the same way that their friends do.

    Churches can and will always be able to perform only the ceremonies they want to, so that issue is not valid. The Catholic church across the street from me will not perform second marriages, and there have been no legal challenges to that.

    • Hi Ryan,

      Thanks for your reasoned and charitable response.

      Have you pointed out these gay folks that no one is stopping them from commiting their lives to each other and even going to apostate / false churches to get “married?” (Sorry, gotta use quotes since same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.)

      Really, no one is stopping them from commiting to each other and loving each other. The movement doesn’t just want that, it wants to silence the church. Witness the delays in New Hampshire that came about solely because language protecting churches from being forced to perform gay ceremonies was included in a bill.

  5. I am SO tired of the “you hate gays if you oppose same-sex marriage” thing. “Oh, you’re supporting keeping them 2nd class citizens!” “Gays should have equal rights!” Equal rights! That’s the cry.

    I don’t know why vegetarians haven’t stormed McDonalds for their unfair treatment of vegetarians. Shouldn’t vegetarians have equal access to the Big Mac (you know, the one that BEGINS with the definition, “two all-beef patties …”)? Look. It’s simple. All McDonalds has to do is REDEFINE their sandwich so that “beef” doesn’t mean meat, and then vegetarians can have equal access! Ohh, those evil, vegetarian-hating McDonalds people!

    “All you have to do,” they assure us, “is redefine marriage!” “Marriage has varied throughout history!” they tell us. Well, actually, that is a totally bizarre idea. Marriage FROM THE START has ALWAYS been IN ALL SOCIETIES the union of opposite sexes to create a family for the purposes of procreation and build a society. PRACTICES have varied, but not the DEFINITION. NO society, culture, or religion has EVER included “same-sex” in their definition. So … NOW we need to redefine it? I’m sorry, but I’m going to need a better reason than “because we want to”.

    (And this whole “they’re born that way” thing … it’s really getting tired. It is touted as truth even though there is no science to prove it and there IS science to dispute it. The American Psychological Association has recently published a paper admitting that it is NOT a product of birth. Scientists in Canada concluded that no evidence supported the claim that they were born that way. Of course, these types of things will be ignored if they don’t support the prevalent view.)

    And I haven’t even started into any moral or religious arguments …

    • “All you have to do,” they assure us, “is redefine marriage!” “Marriage has varied throughout history!” they tell us. Well, actually, that is a totally bizarre idea. Marriage FROM THE START has ALWAYS been IN ALL SOCIETIES the union of opposite sexes to create a family for the purposes of procreation and build a society. PRACTICES have varied, but not the DEFINITION. NO society, culture, or religion has EVER included “same-sex” in their definition. So … NOW we need to redefine it? I’m sorry, but I’m going to need a better reason than “because we want to”.

      Just because society has always done something a certain way doesn’t mean what they’ve been doing was the right thing. See: slavery.

      (And this whole “they’re born that way” thing … it’s really getting tired. It is touted as truth even though there is no science to prove it and there IS science to dispute it. The American Psychological Association has recently published a paper admitting that it is NOT a product of birth. Scientists in Canada concluded that no evidence supported the claim that they were born that way. Of course, these types of things will be ignored if they don’t support the prevalent view.)

      I wonder how many of you who keep parroting the APA revision have actually read what they have to say about the causes of homosexuality. Here it is:

      There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

      This is not as conclusive as you would like to believe, is it? Oh, too bad. The gay gene theory has been a laughingstock for years. Just because there is no one gene which decides a person’s sexuality, though, does not mean that it isn’t influenced from birth, or at a very early age.

      • Just because society has always done something a certain way doesn’t mean what they’ve been doing was the right thing. See: slavery.

        I agree in principle. Also see abortion. It has always been evil, but is currently legal.

        But marriage was a term to describe the fundamental building block of society. It wasn’t a word that people made up definitions for.

        Re. the causes: I concede that those are complex. I base that on studies plus the many gays I’ve known. It could be relationship issues, sexual abuse, fear of failure with women, or just plain old lust.

        But it is always rebellion against God and a bad idea to practice it.

      • Re. the causes: I concede that those are complex. I base that on studies plus the many gays I’ve known. It could be relationship issues, sexual abuse, fear of failure with women, or just plain old lust.

        I like how you fail to mention any of the prenatal influences, as in, the ones that are entirely outside of a person’s control. There’s research which states that if an unborn male receives insufficient testosterone while they are in the womb they’re put in a position where it’s more likely for them to become gay.

        But it is always rebellion against God and a bad idea to practice it.

        I have a “science” on the phone? Says something about you being hilariously wrong?

      • Yes, and there was research over the genetic causes as well, as I recall. The research that was flawed.

        Just curious — are you pro-life? If not, and if prenatal influences could be disocvered in utero, would you oppose abortions used to destroy potentially gay people?

        I wouldn’t laugh over sin. Practicing that lifestyle mocks God. He uses it as a primary example of how upside down with rebellion and sin the world is. It deliberately goes against the created order. And oddly enough, science supports that! Only a male and female can produce the next generation. Homosexuality is not natural. That’s a scientific and religious fact.

        I encourage you to read this very carefully. Don’t confuse God’s patience with his approval.

        Romans 1:18-32

        18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

        24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

        26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

        28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

      • Just curious — are you pro-life? If not, and if prenatal influences could be disocvered [sic] in utero, would you oppose abortions used to destroy potentially gay people?

        By the time doctors would be able to detect something like that, the infant would be in an advanced stage of development. I oppose late-term abortion. And yes, I would oppose the abortion of potentially homosexual children, since homosexuality is not a disability, or a condition which will lead said child to have a disadvantaged life.

        Homosexuality is not natural. That’s a scientific and religious fact.

        Er, no. It’s a fact that homosexuality occurs naturally, and I’ve even seen you concede to that point. Secondly. Religious fact? Spare me. If you have to resort to the words of a ficticious collection of short stories written fifteen hundred years ago to back up your claims, I think it’s pretty clear that you have no factual ground to stand on.

      • I’m glad you oppose late term abortions. I hope you consider the facts that the earlier term abortions kill innocent human beings as well. The size, level of development environment and dependency of a human being do not justify murder.

        I don’t think that the age of a document or idea has any impact on its veracity.

        I don’t “have” to resort to those words. They exist. They are the word of the one true God. I’d be a fool to ignore them.

        Fictitious? Nope. Jesus really lived, died and was resurrected. There is a God. He created the universe and all that is in it. One day you will die and have to give an account for your life. Pretending that God doesn’t exist will not help you then. Eternity is a mighty long time. I’d obey God’s command to repent and believe in Jesus if I were you. And I’m not just talking about repenting of homosexual behavior. Even if we had zero sexual sins we’d still need Jesus — pride, lying, coveting, blasphemy, dishonoring parents, etc.

  6. There are a handful of American states that have legalised gay marriages, and seven or eight other countries (including, I’m proud to say, South Africa, my country of birth).

    I’m just wondering what the results would be of a study, in each of these countries / states, that would indicate the application for / constitutional challenge in aid of, since the availability of marriage rights for gay couples:
    - people wanting to marry their pet dog / cat / goat
    - fathers wanting to marry their daughters, (or mothers – sons, brothers-sisters, brothers-brothers whatever)
    - 50 year olds wanting to marry 12 year olds (choose whichever age discepancy suits you)

    I have deliberately left out polygamy, simply because it is an accepted form of marriage in many societies, since ancient times. South Africa, for example, has three marriage acts under which people can choose to be married, one of which is the Customary Marriages Act, which caters for the African culture of polygamous marriages.

    To be fair, I guess one should also, in such a study, find out what the uptake is on gay marriages since its legalisation. Is it really that big an issue? Are many people availing of it?

    I’m sure there are some social science students out there who would relish such a challenge, and the results could be quite informative.

      • Except being taught about homosexuality is not the same thing as being taught about, you know, actual sex. Don’t get confused because it has the word sex in it, now, I know you’re smarter than that.

        And for once can you please link to a site that doesn’t have its own its own agenda in mind? Something a little more impartial?

      • Except being taught about homosexuality is not the same thing as being taught about, you know, actual sex. Don’t get confused because it has the word sex in it, now, I know you’re smarter than that.

        Yes, it is much worse. Actual sex is at least normal, but still wildly inappropriate for that age. To teach the GLBT smorgasbord of perversions is much, much worse.

        I’m tempted to say, “May God have mercy on the “Christians” who make these travesties possible,” but at the moment I wouldn’t really mean it.

        And for once can you please link to a site that doesn’t have its own its own agenda in mind? Something a little more impartial?

        Too ironic.

      • Yes, it is much worse. Actual sex is at least normal, but still wildly inappropriate for that age. To teach the GLBT smorgasbord of perversions is much, much worse.

        Apparently my meaning didn’t get across. Homosexuality by itself is as much about the act of sex as heterosexuality is. Kids are surrounded by heterosexuality, everywhere. I mean, hell, by your standards Disney must border on pornographic!

        And for once can you please link to a site that doesn’t have its own its own agenda in mind? Something a little more impartial?

        Aaaaand your meek attempt at wit falls flat on its face since I don’t like to sites that are obviously biased. I get what you’re saying, though: since I advocate that we end the state-sponsored inequalities as well as the social stigmas that afflict homosexuals, I must be part of the agenda! I am a terrible, terrible person.

      • Of course you beg the question with claiming “state sponsored inequities.” And yes, you are part of the agenda, especially if you, along with some “Christians,” advance the normalization of homosexual behavior and other perversions to 4 yr. olds.

        I didn’t think it would be possible, but it is like we’ve moved beyond Romans 1. Not only do people practice these things and encourage others to do so, they encourage children as well.

  7. Pingback: An Uncalled for Low Blow « The Pugnacious Irishman

  8. When I hear of the study that speaks of testosterone levels in the fetus, I have to wonder if those same people who see that as legitimizing the “born that way” argument will also cut slack for those of the opposite condition, that is, too much testosterone. For those people, who are typically criminally aggressive, should we also alter our perception of their behavior since they can claim the same “born that way” attitude with equal legitimacy?

    I doubt that there exists a large percentage of the population that aren’t “born some way” that isn’t desirable, either for themselves or the society in which they live. But homosexuality is one which we as a society MUST accept because, why exactly? Some skewed idea of love? It isn’t love that drives most of us, but lust. Real love has nothing to do with sexual behavior. There are heterosexual people with the same “uncontrollable” orientations toward lustful behaviors that are undesirable for society. That they do it with members of the opposite sex means nothing. That sex can be considered an expression of love is simply a justification for indulging our lustful desires, even with our spouses in a traditional marriage.

    The real question is do we act according to existing notions of right and wrong, or do we form notions of right and wrong based on how we want to act? It seems plain to me that for the average homosexual, just like the philanderer, the fornicator or any other of the many varieties of sexual lusts, and even those who succomb to non-sexual negative behaviors, the desires direct the notions of right and wrong. It’s the core cause of most of society’s troubles.

  9. Neil, you seem a lot more emotional about this than usual, and I’m not saying that as some sort of attempt to get at you.

    But let’s put this in perspective. It’s 45 minutes per year. I know you probably think even one minute is too much, but that still gives the child’s parents the other 525555 minutes in the year to refute it, should thay wish to do so. And I think it’s a huge stretch to link introducing young children to the idea that two men or two women can get married, to your “smogasboard of sexual perversions”. If they were teaching four year olds the mechanics of sex, hetero or homo, I’d be as upset as you are right now. But they’re not.

    Shortly before I sat down to write this my ten-year-old daughter came to my wife, rather distressed about something. Some of the other girls in her class had been talking about sex, including some things she didn’t understand (my wife has already taught her the basic “facts of life”, as I did with our older boy when he was the same age). Among other things anal sex was mentioned. She had also, I’m afraid, tried to look up some of these things on the internet, without our knowledge. I hate to think what came up, and that’s a lesson learned by her parents, let me assure you.

    We had to explain to her that 1) it is the right thing to do to come to us with her questions and she must never be scared to come and ask us anything, 2) her friends should never be the source of her knowledge, because they’re still learning just like she is,and 3) neither should the internet, because it won’t know that she’s a child, and there are things that some adults like that are not appropriate for children.

    Parents will always have their say, even if they make a bit of a hames of it, as we did in this situation. Our children are already learning worse things than these anyway, from their own friends.

    So is the constant preaching of GLBT=sordid sex part of some sort of agenda, I wonder? An agenda that always points to gay perversions but conveniently ignores heterosexual perversions that are no less disgusting? An agenda that ignores the real hardships being faced by many gay people, and either accuses them of using the “victim card”, or just tells them to stop sinning. An agenda that accuses gays of wanting to silence the church (I wonder which came first, religion’s dislike of homosexuals or homosexual’s dislike of religion)?

    When you said that we’ve gone beyond Romans 1, Neil, you touched on something quite true. I’ve thought about this a bit over the last few days, and I’ve tried to see just why it is that Christians fear homosexuality so much. The most obvious reason of course is that God forbids it, and the bible does not equivocate on this issue. The same cannot be said of other issues such as slavery, divorce and racism. Could reason number 2 then be (assuming one even needs another reason if you believe in God) that the bible is being left behind by the shifting moral focus of the rest of the world? Christianity will become much harder to defend in 20, 50 or 100 years time when homosexuality is accepted worldwide as legitimate form of relationship.

    And I think those of us who are still around then might just be wondering what all the fuss was about.

    • Hi Michael,

      Actually, when I wrote those things I was thinking very matter-of-factly. And of course, the relative amount of emotion applied to a statement is irrelevant with respect to its veracity.

      The amount of time is not the key here. It is subjecting 4 yr. olds to the normalization of something that is abnormal, oxymoronic and far from ideal.

      I think the 45 minutes vs. 5255555 minutes argument fails miserably (I’m trusting you on the math there ;-) ). For one, it isn’t just 45 minutes. One of the reasons the movement wants Civil Rights status for sexual preferences is that it would require textbooks and lessons to have at least proportional representation of these allegedly equally valid alternatives. So it really is an all-day presentation of material by authority figures. You may not even know what they’ve been taught. Most parents can relate to the “What did you learn today?” / “Nothing” conversations.

      I oppose heterosexual perversions as well. If you can point me to lessons to 4 yr. olds (and any other age; I just use that as an example) I’ll gladly complain about those.

      They absolutely want to silence the church.

      I don’t think we fear homosexuality in the sense that you explained it.

      I am glad that you see the Bible does not equivocate on this issue. I wish liberal theologians knew as much as one of my favorite atheists does about the obvious contextual meanings! They work extremely hard to ignore the problems with pro-gay theology.

      The church should speak more about divorce. I agree with you there. Re. racism and slavery, I think there is a lot less friction between secular and religious views on those topics.

      Christianity will still be around in 100 years. Issues like this aren’t all bad, because it helps weed out the fakes.

      I think you handled the situation with your daughter in an excellent fashion. That’s good parenting. If you haven’t done so already, I highly recommend getting an Internet filter such as Bsafe Online. There are just too many ways for kids (and adults) to accidentally access bad sites.

  10. Of course you beg the question with claiming “state sponsored inequities.” And yes, you are part of the agenda, especially if you, along with some “Christians,” advance the normalization of homosexual behavior and other perversions to 4 yr. olds.

    Firstly, I am not a Christian. Why would I try to align myself with a faith that wrongfully condemns me for something I have no control over? I am not that masochistic, thank you.

    Secondly, I don’t pretend that homosexuality is normal. How can it be, when only three-to-five percent of the world’s population identifies as gay? Normal means of the norm, and homosexuality well never be normal in the strictest sense of the word. However, because it is not normal does not make it wrong. It is still a naturally occuring phenomenon, and people still need to be accepting of it.

    I didn’t think it would be possible, but it is like we’ve moved beyond Romans 1. Not only do people practice these things and encourage others to do so, they encourage children as well.

    Durr, it’s hard for me to take you seriously anymore. No one’s trying to “turn” anyone gay. It’s about informing people of what homosexuality is, and why condeming it as perverse and immoral is inherently false.

    • Hi Fox,

      Firstly, I am not a Christian. Why would I try to align myself with a faith that wrongfully condemns me for something I have no control over? I am not that masochistic, thank you.

      I see several fallacies in that statement that you may want to consider.

      First, the only reason to believe in Christianity is if it is true. As Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 15:

      1 Corinthians 15:14-19 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

      So if Christianity isn’t true, you shouldn’t believe in it. If it is true, you should. Otherwise, you’ll be paying for your sins (sexual and non-sexual) for all eternity in Hell.

      And if it is true, then you are mistaken about it wrongfully condemning you for anything.

      And whether it is true or not we have control over our behaviors.

      However, because it is not normal does not make it wrong. It is still a naturally occuring phenomenon, and people still need to be accepting of it.

      If there is no God, then who are you to tell anyone that they “need” to do anything? In a purely materialistic universe, there is no legitimate moral distinction between gay sex and gay-bashing.

      No one’s trying to “turn” anyone gay. It’s about informing people of what homosexuality is, and why condeming it as perverse and immoral is inherently false.

      I disagree. Even if it was just about information, there are zero reasons to fill the minds of 4 year olds with it.

      If there is no God, then you have no grounds to say we’re wrong to condemn anything.

  11. Joanne, you need to re-read my comments, the link and even read the link you provided. This school district is engaged in advancing the gay agenda by indoctrinating young children. It is sickening, as are you if you agree with them. It shows how diminished critical thinking is in our country that we’re even having this conversation. Who could possibly think that schools need to teach elementary kids about gays, bisexuals, transgenders and lesbians?

    • It is sickening, as are you if you agree with them.

      Because God forbid people be taught how to be tolerant of those who are different.

      Who could possibly think that schools need to teach elementary kids about gays, bisexuals, transgenders and lesbians?

      Because if kids aren’t exposed to the idea at an early age, it’ll be harder for them to accept as they mature. That, or, someone will hand them a bible and by that point you might as well give up.

      • Because God forbid people be taught how to be tolerant of those who are different.

        You are begging the question. The vast, vast majority of people tolerate gays. The gay lobby is targeting the youth. It is undeniable — http://www.massresistance.org/ .

        You can teach people how to be tolerant without exposing them to every perverted thing you want them to tolerate.

        Because if kids aren’t exposed to the idea at an early age, it’ll be harder for them to accept as they mature. That, or, someone will hand them a bible and by that point you might as well give up.

        Yeah, they might learn the truth and get eternal life, and learn how to properly treat people. Or they could just stick with public schools that teach survival of the fittest.

      • Yeah, they might learn the truth and get eternal life, and learn how to properly treat people. Or they could just stick with public schools that teach survival of the fittest.

        “Survival of the fittest” was a term coined by racial theorists, and is a gross perversion of Darwin’s theories. The reason evolution is taught in public school systems is because it’s secular, but more importantly, because it’s true. It has some kinks, but as it stands evolution is as much a theory as gravity is.

        …and learn how to properly treat people.

        From the bible? Sporfle.

      • “Survival of the fittest” was a term coined by racial theorists, and is a gross perversion of Darwin’s theories.

        It is an apt description of materialist philosophy, and completely in line with Darwin’s book title: On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

        But you don’t need Darwin for the theory. A world with no God would make survival of the fittest perfectly “moral” (if such a word could make sense in a materialist worldview).

        From the bible? Sporfle.

        Good comeback! You win.

  12. Who could possibly think that schools need to teach elementary kids about gays, bisexuals, transgenders and lesbians?

    Kids see depictions of heterosexuality on a daily basis. Television commercials, movies, books, everywhere. But nowhere do they ever see homosexuality depicted. There are certainly no gay couples in Disney movies, or on any childrens’ television networks. Children only see the heterosexual side of things until they’re significantly older, which is extremely misleading to both potentially straight and potentially gay people.

    For example, my life would certainly have been a hell of a lot easier had I known from the beginning it was possible to be gay. But since all I saw were straight couples left and right, I just naturally assumed that I was straight. Not being informed about homosexuality from a young age only hurt me.

    Conversely, it’s good for children who will end up being straight to at least know what homosexuality is when they’re young, so they’ll be more comfortable with the idea as they get older, and will be tolerant of it.

    • Hi Fox,

      I strongly disagree. I have been tolerant of gays my whole life, as have virtually everyone I can think of. We take a “live and let live” attitude. This whole issue is a massive Trojan Horse on behalf of the GLBT lobby, who could care less about kids and just wants to advance their agenda. The schools do not need to teach 5 year olds what gays, bisexuals, transgenders and lesbians are.

      Again, all you need is a simple and thoroughly enforced anti-bullying policy: If you physically or verbally harass other students on or off school grounds you will have swift and serious consequences. It doesn’t matter if you are bullying because they are gay/straight/fat/thin/smart/dumb/pretty/ugly/etc., or if it is just because you are a mean jerk.

  13. I strongly disagree. I have been tolerant of gays my whole life, as have virtually everyone I can think of.

    You openly dismiss same-sex attractions as a perversion of nature. Hardly my definition of tolerant.

    We take a “live and let live” attitude. This whole issue is a massive Trojan Horse on behalf of the GLBT lobby, who could care less about kids and just wants to advance their agenda. The schools do not need to teach 5 year olds what gays, bisexuals, transgenders and lesbians are.

    Hate to sound like a jerk, but did you even read what I just said? Kids need to at least know what homosexuality is when they’re young so they can get used to the concept. And let’s face it, some of those kids will turn out gay, so that knowledge will save them a lot of emotional anguish down the road. The ones that’ll wind up straight need to learn about it so they can be correctly informed on what it is.

    In resonse to your statement that “the schools do not need to teach 5 year olds what gays, bisexuals, transgenders and lesbians are,” I couldn’t disagree more. Elementary school is all about giving kids a diverse perspective on life. How is celebrating Gay Pride Day in school any different than celebrating Black History Month or Women’s History Month? Note: don’t cop-out with that “race is morally neutral, sexual orientation is not,” hogwash, since that argument is inherently moot. Give me a response that requires a little thinking on your part.

    This whole issue is a massive Trojan Horse on behalf of the GLBT lobby, who could care less about kids and just wants to advance their agenda.

    It’s okay, the aliens aren’t coming, you can take off that tinfoil hat any time now. Trojan horse? And what exactly do you think they’re going to do once they tell kids what homosexuality is? Convert them to being gay? Atheists? Communists? You are some kind of paranoid, sir.

    • You openly dismiss same-sex attractions as a perversion of nature. Hardly my definition of tolerant.

      That’s part of the problem with our culture. You have changed the definition of tolerance just as you want to change the definition of marriage.

      Traditionally, tolerance meant you tolerated people but not necessarily ideas. Now it is an upside down definition where you can’t disagree with the PC positions without being “intolerant.”

      Yes, homosexual behavior is a perversion. So is teaching little kids that it is a natural or desirable lifestyle.

      Elementary school is all about giving kids a diverse perspective on life. How is celebrating Gay Pride Day in school any different than celebrating Black History Month or Women’s History Month? Note: don’t cop-out with that “race is morally neutral, sexual orientation is not,” hogwash, since that argument is inherently moot.

      Fox, please don’t comment again until you are ready to discuss things like an adult. My argument that skin color is morally neutral and sexual behavior is not is 100% accurate. You can’t just dodge it by calling it hogwash. This is a waste of my time, and I don’t appreciate it.

      Kids need to at least know what homosexuality is when they’re young so they can get used to the concept.

      4 year olds do not need to know that. Nor do 5 year olds, 6 year olds, etc.

      It’s okay, the aliens aren’t coming, you can take off that tinfoil hat any time now. Trojan horse? And what exactly do you think they’re going to do once they tell kids what homosexuality is? Convert them to being gay? Atheists? Communists? You are some kind of paranoid, sir.

      Mockery and ad hominems are not serious arguments. Once again you demonstrate that all you can throw at me is fallacies. Feel free to return when you have something substantive.

    • Fox writes, “Kids need to at least know what homosexuality is when they’re young so they can get used to the concept. ”

      But if the practice is natural, normal, and good, why do the kids need years of exposure to get used to the concept?

      I can think of no other natural, normal, and good thing that children must be told is natural, normal, and good for years and years without that statement being challenged before they believe it to be true.

      All other natural, normal, and good things are immediately recognized as such by humans.

      Why is homosexuality the one exception? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

      • I’ll rewrite this sans the snarkiness, because I really wanted to drive this one home.

        But if the practice is natural, normal, and good, why do the kids need years of exposure to get used to the concept?

        My brother spent the summer of 2007 in a small village outside the city of Chang Mei, in Thailand. The village is tiny, and receives virtually no tourist traffic. As such, there is very little in the way of racial diversity. A girl in my brother’s group was black, and because of that she was mocked and insulted, because the people in that village had never been exposed to people of a different race, and they certainly weren’t educated on the subject.

        Now, consider how elementary schools in the United States function. Kids are taught about other cultures and other races and are strongly encouraged to be accepting of them. This is to prevent them from jumping to their own conclusions based on a lack of information.

        Do you see where I’m going with this? Despite what you claim, kids need exposure to concepts as basic as race for several years to prevent ignorance.

        All other natural, normal, and good things are immediately recognized as such by humans.

        The holocaust and slavery beg to differ.

      • Skin color is morally neutral. Sexual behavior is not.

        You keep conflating your faux concept of “orientation” with behavior. Many people go in and out of sinful sexual preferences.

        Kids do not need exposure to concepts as basic as sexual perversions.

      • And once again I ask, what evidence do you have to support your thesis that homosexuality is a perversion, when modern research claims it’s just as much a “perversion” as heterosexuality is?

      • It couldn’t be more obvious than simply observing natural law. Also, the Bible is the word of God and it is equally clear. Time to move on.

  14. I guess I have to ask, did you delete both the comments I just made?

    Or am I jumping the gun again? Should that be the case, please accept my apologies in advance.

    • I deleted them for not following the guidelines — both the general ones and my more specific requests.

      I know you won’t complain, since morality is so subjective and all.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s