Gay marriage

[Ken H.]

How about the belief that Islam is the only one true religion? How close are we (the USA) to prosecuting people just for having that belief? Darn close it seems.

[moshe_levy]

Can you give an example of such a near prosecution, Ken?

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Dave, I think your post is excellent and spot-on. Even if one could argue re post-9/11 "National Security" speech or "belief" issues as Tim alluded to earlier, comparing this era to McCarthyism is a worthy example that speaks volumes. We have indeed made progress on this front. I am eager for Scott to respond to see what his thoughts are.

 

-MKL

 

First, let me say that in part I agree with Dave's assessment. There have been some positive changes in Ameraica since the 50's. I believe we've made this progress in large part due to holding up the ideals of our founding documents and contrasting those with the injustices so apparent in American society. Racial justice being the hallmark issue in my mind.

 

But it is precisely the kind of thing thaat happened with the "hunt for the reds" that can happen at any time. To think that we're now free from that kind of thing is foolishness in my mind. All it takes is a threat, perceived or real, to make people willing to move in a direction that we'd think "impossible." The sort of paranoia that was evident in the HUAC is not the exclusive domain of a radical right. All we must do is look at the radical left in the Soviet Union of the early 20th century to see the same sort of thing. It is the tendency of cultures as they fancy themselves "becoming enlightened," to become blind. They tend to think that this "is the new reality and there's no going back." If only it were so.

 

I mentioned Hitler's Germany as an example - and here we're only talking about less than 100 years. Contemporary times on an historical scale, in a very civilized Europe. Here is an except from a paper by Nikolaus Wachsmann that I think is relevant. Underscore is mine, for emphasis. We tend to look back at what happend as an "all at once power grab" by some lunatic(s) with funny uniforms. No so.

 

The policy of exclusion: repression in the Nazi state,

1933–1939

Nikolaus Wachsmann

 

…

 

This raises a point of fundamental importance: the Nazi capture of power meant that the most radical exponents of a policy of exclusion took charge of the German state. They were now able to set the agenda. Some of their new initiatives were in line with what others outside the Nazi movement had been demanding for some time, and the Nazis could count on their active support. In other areas, though, the regime helped to transform existing norms and values, creating a moral climate in which ever more radical assaults on ‘community aliens’ were increasingly regarded as legitimate. In this way, measures which had still been widely rejected in the 1920s found more and more collaborators among those previously outside the Nazi movement. This did not mean that the Nazi policy of exclusion progressed in a clear and straightforward way. It did not follow some detailed master plan, nor were all ‘community aliens’ treated in the same way: different policies hit different groups at different times. Crucially, the identification of Jews as ‘racial aliens’ was set in stone.

 

They were regarded as the most dangerous enemy, the personification of all that the Nazis feared and hated—consequently all Jews were to be excluded, in one way or another, from the new Germany. By contrast, the decision about who, exactly, counted as a political opponent or social outcast was more fluid: definitions were more vague and new ‘enemies’ were added all the time. This had two implications. On the one hand, it served as a deterrent against nonconformist political and social behaviour—most people would not want to risk being labeled a ‘community alien’. On the other hand, it meant that some potential outsiders could hope to escape repression by trying to adapt to the demands of the new regime. In this way, some former Communists, for example, could still end up as members of the ‘national community’. This was impossible for German Jews.

…

 

I'm quite aware that the response to this is "that could never happen in the US" - but I must tell you that I think that is mere hubris. It is precisely because we think we're immune to such human depravity that we're ripe for it to happen. The difference, I think, is that it will be much more subtle. And, I don't think it will come as a result of "one person" or even one monolithic movement or idea. I think it will come when the consensus has shifted sufficiently. If a person, or a movement does come along, it might well take advantage of the situation, but it isn't necessary. We will re-mold our constitution in the name of the enlightened egalitarianism I spoke of earlier, and that will suffice. To the new majority it won't seem like a "not good thing." It will be done in the name of making things better, "for all" (substitute "the state" here). That's one scenario.

 

A second scenario looks something like this. The new consensus does the same re-molding of the Constitution in the name of the same enlightened egalitarianism. We already see evidence of this in the move away from the use of the electoral college toward a more "direct democracy." This is happening today. We will get to the place fairly soon when literally 51% will carry the day on any proposal. As the new enlightened egalitarianism becomes more and more "inclusive" (a good thing on the face of it) it will also become more and more secular (and by secular I mean a naturalistic world view will become monolithically dominant). This opens the door for other worldviews to quietly become the majority, and then to vote their 51% and take control. The Constitution will already have been sufficiently broadened so that it will not be a safeguard.

 

I realize this sounds paranoid, and perhaps even wacky. But I've studied history long enough to see that this has happened in one form or another, over and over again throughout the ages. To think that we're somehow immune because "we've arrived" at some new level of humanity is patently absurd. One of the hallmarks of cultures that have been subsumed in this manner is exactly that kind of attitude becoming pervasive in the culture.

 

It is important for me to note that this thinking of mine has nothing to do with any religious beliefs I may hold. As far as I know, except for the Scripture's expostion on the nature of mankind (our natural tendency toward evil rather than good), there is nothing in scripture that speaks to anything like this. (Except perhaps as we see Israel trounced on by various cultures during its history - but that is mere illustration and not "source" for my thinking.)

 

Let me offer one final example, one that will seem completely unrelated. I think it is exactly on point. Imminent Domain. The right to own property and to make use of it as one sees fit is a cornerstone of American culture, and rights. Imminent Domain laws came into being because there were times, when a larger “public good” was determined to trump individual rights. Makes sense. Imminent Domain was always, and ONLY, for a public use. A “necessary” public works project, etc. For all of this country’s history this understanding of Imminent Domain ONLY for an overriding public need, and only for some sort of public works effort was assumed to be sacrosanct.

 

In the last couple of years, the Supreme Court trashed this concept. A government entity may now take your personal property if the new use of the property is a "more appropriate" use, a revenue generating use, for the community. So, if you own a home and the city gets an offer from a big developer to come in and put a nice shopping mall where your house is (not a storm drain, not a freeway, not a fire station – a private business) you’re toast. It is exactly this kind of incremental erosion of individual liberty, growing out of what originally was a legitimate exception to the sanctity of personal property rights, that 20 years ago anyone would have said, “That can never happen” that is now a reality.

 

I need to acknowledge that this is a huge paradigm shift from the original topic of this thread - I usually try to avoid that - but I was asked a direct question.

[Selden]

North Carolina Pastor : Trap Gays and Lesbians Behind Electrified Fences.

It's hard to tell what's more digusting: That Rev. Charles Worley of North Carolina is preaching about rounding up gays and lesbians and putting them behind an electrified fence to die out, or the fact that he has a congregation cheering him on.

 

"Build a great, big, large fence — 150- or 100-mile long — put all the lesbians in there . . . do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out," said Worley in a May 13 sermon hate speech that was posted on YouTube yesterday.... "Feed ’em, and you know what...In a few years they’ll die. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce."

I'm currently in Delaware, returning to Georgia this coming weekend, and wishing I could do so without travelling through North Carolina. Unfortunately, I would have to pretty far out of my way.

[Couchrocket]

Can you give an example of such a near prosecution, Ken?

 

-MKL

 

Good question. In fact, I think our penchant for inclusion will trump in the long run any anti-Islam sentiment "of the moment" generated by events such as 9/11. The American infatuation with the "Arab Spring" is indication of that, I think.

[moshe_levy]

Scott,

 

I cannot find myself disagreeing with the spirit of your post, although rather than "enlightened egalitarianism" I would place the emphasis on baser forms of dogmatic, ideologically-based "us vs. them." You are absolutely, 100% correct that this creeping force is not monopolized by either extreme right or extreme left, and 110% correct that yes, it sure can happen here. We are not special or immune, and our history certainly speaks to that. Ultimately the goal of consolidation of power unites the two extremes in terms of motive and means - and at that level of thought, the ends always justify those means.

 

Coming full circle back to this issue and our earlier post about the fence, the argument rages on mainly by people who do not see the creeping from their own side, only from the other side. The polarization grows and with it, individual thought, critical thinking, and any evidence of moderation (i.e.., identifying the bullshit from both sides for what it is) is marginalized, attacked, and so is increasingly absent from public discourse.

 

This DEFINITELY is not aimed at you personally. I am sure you've noticed this trend and lament it as I do. If I read you right, you can play devil's advocate in favor of an argument you totally disagree with, which is something I admire. I think we just may disagree respectfully that the prime mover in this paradigm shift you describe is egalitarianism, per se, though I would certainly grant you that even egalitarianism, taken to the extreme, can indeed result in the predictions you put forth, no question.

 

Perhaps we can delve further and surmise that ANY ideological force, taken to extremes and unchecked, leads to certain doom. And so we can hope that whatever "side" we're on in any given issue, that we're lucky enough to have a worthy opponent on the other side - who challenges us, makes us sharper, makes us grow, and in many cases enlightens us to the validity of their side. Perhaps that has even happened here in this thread, to some small degree or another.

 

Have we not seen this with gay marriage? Indeed, we have!! Many of the town hall meetings in small towns feature previously hostile pols who have changed their minds over time - because their son came out. Because their neighbor's kid was bullied. Because they befriended a gay couple and realized the bigotry they held was not productive, not realistic, and not worth holding onto any more.

 

The tide is turning. It CANNOT turn, by definition, without many people who were previously opposed - sometimes very firmly so - changing their minds, and their hearts. This is universal, and good, in this case. Very good.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Can you give an example of such a near prosecution, Ken?

 

-MKL

 

Good question. In fact, I think our penchant for inclusion will trump in the long run any anti-Islam sentiment "of the moment" generated by events such as 9/11. The American infatuation with the "Arab Spring" is indication of that, I think.

 

I do not think Ken will be able to come up with an example. At best we can point to the ridiculous red herring paranoia driving some state legislatures to pass laws banning Sharia Law (as if!) but this is a very far cry from prosecuting someone for his belief in Islam or any other religion. Such nonsense in fact, I would argue, drives more people away from faith of any time. While the hardliners dig their heels into the ground, the rest of us ask if this is really what we need to be talking about with all the other pressing problems all around us at any time.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

I agree that it is entirely possible that the US could become a dictatorship. However, your specific example of eminent domain really doesn't cause me a lot of heartburn. I don't like it any more than you do. But our country has survived much worse. Take, for example, the Owens Valley in the 1920's. LA sucked it dry. Makes the taking of the property In New London, CT look like an exercise in civic responsibility by comparison; at least everything was done in open meetings using Robert's Rules of Order. Compare with a certain pre-WW II president who couldn't get his way so he stacked the Supreme Court.

 

As Lincoln said, "all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Virtually all politicians from left or right seek power. If they get a little bit it corrupts them a little; if they get a lot it corrupts them absolutely. We have survived as a republic because we haven't let any one of them get a lot of power (so far).

[tallman]

Scott,

Nit picking, sort of, but you've mentioned 51% and control.

Actually 50% plus 1.

And, that is of those who vote.

Voting rates trends downward over past 40 years of course data on demographics shows a wide disparity when comparing groups.

 

So, eventually, about 1/3 of the eligible voters will control election outcomes, IMO.

That does not address the issues of who picks the candidates.

[Ken H.]

Can you give an example of such a near prosecution, Ken?

 

-MKL

The growing ‘you can’t build a mosque here’ movement.

[Dave McReynolds]

As Lincoln said, "all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

Sorry for the misquote. It wasn't Lincoln who first said that. There is some doubt as to who did say it (or something similar to it) but it evidently wasn't Lincoln.

[tallman]

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

 

Lord Acton

[moshe_levy]

Can you give an example of such a near prosecution, Ken?

 

-MKL

The growing you cant build a mosque here movement.

 

I alluded to this nonsense earlier, and while it is sad and ignorant (i.e., my version of the fairy tale is better than yours. Mine is TRUTH! Yours is NOT! Yada, Yada...) it is a far cry from actual prosecution of an individual based on his beliefs. This is not prosecution - this is simply the nature of religion laid bare for all to see. Irrational people arguing with other irrational people over whose belief system is the right one. Stand back and watch the screaming and the scapegoating - that's religion in a nutshell. And as we said here, all the anti-gay agenda is based on the same exact screaming and scapegoating. It's all part of the same agenda, isn't it?

 

-MKL

 

 

[moshe_levy]

PS - By "nonsense" I did not mean your post or example, but more the idea of people fighting over where they can set up houses of worship.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

I don't like it any more than you do. But our country has survived much worse.

 

Frankly, this is the kind of thinking that has me concerned for our future. If one cannot see the difference between an abuse of ID, and the highest court in the land overturning an established limitation in law on ID - one that allows "the state" to take your property for merely a "more appropriate" use - well then there's nothing much else to be said. This isn't a "small thing" IMO, nor is it "more of the same that we've seen before." It is a fundamental change in the view of private property in this country, in LAW.

 

It is the equivalent, IMO, of the laws concerning things like yelling fire in an auditorium, where the justification for the infringement of free speech is based upon a clear danger to others - and that being changed to "if the state feels that your speech is inappropriate" there can be a suppression of free speech.

 

As I've mentioned often before, the lack of critical thinking about such things alarms me.

[Couchrocket]

Have we not seen this with gay marriage?

 

No, we have not. We've seen it in the area of proper civil rights for gay people and gay couples. You've reverted to conflating the definition of marriage with the issue of full rights and dignity for gay people.

 

This brings us back full circle, IMO, to the issue of definitions, and their importance.

 

For the record (geeze this gets tedious) I am in full support of absolutely full rights for gays, and gay couples and their standing before the state. They must be recognized before the state as having the same dignity, person hood, and rights as any other citizens of thie nation. And to put some personal context to this, I have two gay couples as friends.

 

The issue of the definition of marriage is a different subject altogether. If we broaden it to include same-sex couples, fundamentally changing its definition in culture, tradition, and law, we need to ask ourselves what boundary conditions we should leave, or "put in" to the definition of marriage so that it has meaning and purpose. So far, the only ones anyone has been willing (here) to proffer is "human" and "of consenting age to enter into legal contract." James has conceded to the appropriateness of marrying mother, father, sister, etc. and to the number of participants being irrelevant. Anyone else care to weigh in?

[moshe_levy]

Have we not seen this with gay marriage?

 

No, we have not. We've seen it in the area of proper civil rights for gay people and gay couples. You've reverted to conflating the definition of marriage with the issue of full rights and dignity for gay people.

 

Scott, I must disagree. We have indeed seen it specific to the issue of gay marriage and by extension, all of the definition-changing that implies, specifically under law (because here we are only concerned with state legality, not religious tradition and other non-legal factors). To put the quote you listed above into context, what I said was this:

 

>>>>Perhaps we can delve further and surmise that ANY ideological force, taken to extremes and unchecked, leads to certain doom. And so we can hope that whatever "side" we're on in any given issue, that we're lucky enough to have a worthy opponent on the other side - who challenges us, makes us sharper, makes us grow, and in many cases enlightens us to the validity of their side. Perhaps that has even happened here in this thread, to some small degree or another.

 

Have we not seen this with gay marriage? Indeed, we have!! Many of the town hall meetings in small towns feature previously hostile pols who have changed their minds over time - because their son came out. Because their neighbor's kid was bullied. Because they befriended a gay couple and realized the bigotry they held was not productive, not realistic, and not worth holding onto any more.<<<<

 

We have seen it, undeniably and indisputably. The proof is the votes which were originally opposed and are now for gay marriage across the country via elected officials. Of course you see pockets where this is not happening, but you cannot deny the tide by virtue of recorded votes.

 

-MKL

 

 

[Couchrocket]

We have seen it, undeniably and indisputably.

 

And, it has rendered the definition of marriage meaningless. If not, please provide a definitive definition.

 

Heck, I'll even get you started, "Marriage is a relationship of human beings of legal age, it is a contractual relationship that has legal standing before the state. The parameters ... "

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

I must disagree again. A cursory glance at any state or municipality which allows equality under the law surely has defined such law. It cannot overturn an existing definition without providing a replacement, or it would be legally meaningless.

 

I cannot speak to whether the replacements meet your satisfaction, or mine. Hell, I do not even know if the replacements match from state to state or county to county. But your point about definitions cannot be true, by virtue of the fact that one law was replaced with another. And so the other MUST offer a legal definition of what now constitutes marriage where that law applies. No?

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Scott-

 

I must disagree again. A cursory glance at any state or municipality which allows equality under the law surely has defined such law. It cannot overturn an existing definition without providing a replacement, or it would be legally meaningless.

 

I cannot speak to whether the replacements meet your satisfaction, or mine. Hell, I do not even know if the replacements match from state to state or county to county. But your point about definitions cannot be true, by virtue of the fact that one law was replaced with another. And so the other MUST offer a legal definition of what now constitutes marriage where that law applies. No?

 

-MKL

 

OK, I challenge you to research one of the states that has made this change, find the definition in law, and show us the changes.

[Ken H.]

I alluded to this nonsense earlier, and while it is sad and ignorant (i.e., my version of the fairy tale is better than yours. Mine is TRUTH! Yours is NOT! Yada, Yada...) it is a far cry from actual prosecution of an individual based on his beliefs. This is not prosecution - this is simply the nature of religion laid bare for all to see.

Well I did say we are getting close, not that we are there yet. And of course there’s a difference between prosecution and persecution, but I don’t think we are very far from when Muslims in the USA will begin to be prosecuted just because they are Muslim. 5 -10 years from now depending upon the results of the next election. Oh they won’t call it that; they’ll say "aiding and abetting terrorism" or "treason against the State" or some such catch phrase. But underling it will be belief/faith based prosecution.

 

Irrational people arguing with other irrational people over whose belief system is the right one. Stand back and watch the screaming and the scapegoating - that's religion in a nutshell.

Can’t argue with you there. Religion, IMHO is one of the most self-limiting things mankind ever invented. Think of all that the human race could accomplish it wasn’t so limited by self-imposed restrictions on itself in competing quest to prove an exclusive knowledge of the unknown. If as a whole we spent even 10% of the human energy trying to understand the unknown as we spend instead on worshiping and fearing it; there’d be far less of it in the first place.

 

And as we said here, all the anti-gay agenda is based on the same exact screaming and scapegoating. It's all part of the same agenda, isn't it?

Can’t argue with you there either. 'I don’t understand the gays, why (s)he feels the way (s)he does, therefore I fear them.' I fear they’ll destroy my relationships, I fear they’ll destroy “family values” I fear they’ll covert my kids to be homosexuals, I fear they’ll lead to the downfall of America, I fear they’ll lead to moral decay, I fear they’ll cause a health epidemic, I fear they’ll make property values go down, taxes go up, I fear they’ll make Hell too crowded, I fear they’ll destroy the definition of marriage, I fear...

 

Notice a common theme? Did I miss any? Anyone; feel free to continue the list, what do you fear of gays? Does that fear say about them, or more about yourself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

I must disagree again. A cursory glance at any state or municipality which allows equality under the law surely has defined such law. It cannot overturn an existing definition without providing a replacement, or it would be legally meaningless.

 

I cannot speak to whether the replacements meet your satisfaction, or mine. Hell, I do not even know if the replacements match from state to state or county to county. But your point about definitions cannot be true, by virtue of the fact that one law was replaced with another. And so the other MUST offer a legal definition of what now constitutes marriage where that law applies. No?

 

-MKL

 

OK, I challenge you to research one of the states that has made this change, find the definition in law, and show us the changes.

 

Scott, I will look. I'm @ work now so limited in time, but surely you agree with me that one law which defines marriage was, in some states, replaced with another law which redefined marriage. This is fact - not subject to disagreement.

 

I am not saying I agree, or you agree, to the redefinition. I am only saying that obviously, as a matter of law, a redefinition exists in those areas where the law was changed, modified, or replaced to allow for marriage equality. You with me?

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Scott-

 

I must disagree again. A cursory glance at any state or municipality which allows equality under the law surely has defined such law. It cannot overturn an existing definition without providing a replacement, or it would be legally meaningless.

 

I cannot speak to whether the replacements meet your satisfaction, or mine. Hell, I do not even know if the replacements match from state to state or county to county. But your point about definitions cannot be true, by virtue of the fact that one law was replaced with another. And so the other MUST offer a legal definition of what now constitutes marriage where that law applies. No?

 

-MKL

 

OK, I challenge you to research one of the states that has made this change, find the definition in law, and show us the changes.

 

Scott, I will look. I'm @ work now so limited in time, but surely you agree with me that one law which defines marriage was, in some states, replaced with another law which redefined marriage. This is fact - not subject to disagreement.

 

I am not saying I agree, or you agree, to the redefinition. I am only saying that obviously, as a matter of law, a redefinition exists in those areas where the law was changed, modified, or replaced to allow for marriage equality. You with me?

 

-MKL

 

I would not be so sure about that. It will be interesting to see what you find. I was involved in the legislative process too long, at the state level, to have any confidence that they did anything other than put in a proscription regarding "gender" into the code. Which may make for some interesting results when the legal definition is looked at in toto.

 

No hurry, I'll be out of action for a couple of days. Let me say that I appreciate how you've represented your views. That handshake across the fence is gratefully accepted.

[moshe_levy]

Well I did say we are getting close, not that we are there yet. And of course theres a difference between prosecution and persecution, but I dont think we are very far from when Muslims in the USA will begin to be prosecuted just because they are Muslim. 5 -10 years from now depending upon the results of the next election. Oh they wont call it that; theyll say "aiding and abetting terrorism" or "treason against the State" or some such catch phrase. But underling it will be belief/faith based prosecution.

 

 

I "never say never" but I don't agree with this, at all. I see no proof to that effect and if anything, we have seen many cases in which law enforcement agencies treading lightly missed some golden opportunities to shut down some shady cells, especially in New York. This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, of course. This is also not to stick our heads into the sand and argue that the attacks both against us and by us over the past 12 years have not been primarily committed by and aimed toward fundamentalist Muslims.

 

Them's the facts. And compared to how, say, Europe is dealing with the rising Muslim populations there, the US has been the definition of "restrained" and respectful of civil rights. I think you would have an enormously difficult time arguing otherwise.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

Have we not seen this with gay marriage?

 

No, we have not. We've seen it in the area of proper civil rights for gay people and gay couples. You've reverted to conflating the definition of marriage with the issue of full rights and dignity for gay people.

 

This brings us back full circle, IMO, to the issue of definitions, and their importance.

 

For the record (geeze this gets tedious) I am in full support of absolutely full rights for gays, and gay couples and their standing before the state. They must be recognized before the state as having the same dignity, person hood, and rights as any other citizens of thie nation. And to put some personal context to this, I have two gay couples as friends.

 

The issue of the definition of marriage is a different subject altogether. If we broaden it to include same-sex couples, fundamentally changing its definition in culture, tradition, and law, we need to ask ourselves what boundary conditions we should leave, or "put in" to the definition of marriage so that it has meaning and purpose. So far, the only ones anyone has been willing (here) to proffer is "human" and "of consenting age to enter into legal contract." James has conceded to the appropriateness of marrying mother, father, sister, etc. and to the number of participants being irrelevant. Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

I've already admitted that I'm a bonehead. Several times in this discussion I have read the posts carefully and I haven't been able to see the forest for the verbiage. Do we need to figure out how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, in order to reach a conclusion on the best way to vote on a measure like amendment 1?

 

There are more measures like this coming up in November and I'll be facing a decision. I'll base my vote on how it is most likely to affect people I know and some people I don't know. I'll also take into account how it could effect future erosion of civil rights in general. I wish it was a non-issue but that is not the case right now.

[Couchrocket]

 

the US has been the definition of "restrained" and respectful of civil rights.

 

“Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you.” Islamic Cleric: Archbishop of Izmir

 

 

Is there any concern about such rhetoric? I honestly don't know.

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

There is no shortage of similar phrasing from Christians either, unfortunately. Some is on the front page today from our progressive friends in North Carolina. All religious wingnuts are to be feared, not just Muslims. Concerned? Yes, of course. Vigilant. But not to the level of prosecuting innocent people because of their beliefs, unless we are to become everything exactly the opposite of what we were founded to protest.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

North Carolina Pastor : Trap Gays and Lesbians Behind Electrified Fences.

It's hard to tell what's more digusting: That Rev. Charles Worley of North Carolina is preaching about rounding up gays and lesbians and putting them behind an electrified fence to die out, or the fact that he has a congregation cheering him on.

 

"Build a great, big, large fence — 150- or 100-mile long — put all the lesbians in there . . . do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out," said Worley in a May 13 sermon hate speech that was posted on YouTube yesterday.... "Feed ’em, and you know what...In a few years they’ll die. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce."

I'm currently in Delaware, returning to Georgia this coming weekend, and wishing I could do so without travelling through North Carolina. Unfortunately, I would have to pretty far out of my way.

 

Preachers like this win either way. Out lawing gay marriage furthers their agenda. Where gay marriage is legalized it confirms the prophesized moral decay. Sooner the better to cash in their confirmed space ticket on the rapturvator.

[Couchrocket]

There is no shortage of similar phrasing from Christians either

 

Granted. The disgusting picketing of military funerals hardly equates to the deaths of 3,000 people +\- , however. At least that's my sense of things. Add in the Cole, the barracks bombings, the previous bombing of the WTC, etc. and the comparison fades further.

 

In addition, your use of "similar" strikes ms as borderline disingenuous. The "God hates .... " idiots have hardly voiced their intention to overthrow, subsume, and dominate the political structure of the U.S. (I personally think they might like to, but their global impact is hardly a serious threat). I wish that were true of their islamo-wacko counterparts.

[Huzband]

 

 

... This is also not to stick our heads into the sand and argue that the attacks both against us and by us over the past 12 years have not been primarily committed by and aimed toward fundamentalist Muslims.

 

...

 

-MKL

 

No, extremist.

[moshe_levy]

 

 

... This is also not to stick our heads into the sand and argue that the attacks both against us and by us over the past 12 years have not been primarily committed by and aimed toward fundamentalist Muslims.

 

...

 

-MKL

 

No, extremist.

 

No, fundamentalist. I was accurate in my choice of words to describe how I feel. Fundamentalist is far more accurate than the more relative "extremist." To the extremist, he is not extreme. The funamentalist, however, usually acknowledges himself as such.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

There is no shortage of similar phrasing from Christians either

 

Granted. The disgusting picketing of military funerals hardly equates to the deaths of 3,000 people +\- , however. At least that's my sense of things. Add in the Cole, the barracks bombings, the previous bombing of the WTC, etc. and the comparison fades further.

 

In addition, your use of "similar" strikes ms as borderline disingenuous. The "God hates .... " idiots have hardly voiced their intention to overthrow, subsume, and dominate the political structure of the U.S. (I personally think they might like to, but their global impact is hardly a serious threat). I wish that were true of their islamo-wacko counterparts.

 

Scott,

 

My use of "similar" is spot-on with regards to this specific issue we are discussing in this thread. You and I both know it would be no problem whatsoever for me to find vicious, violent anti-gay direct quotes from prominent Christian leaders / pastors which are every bit as low rent as what comes from the Imams and Ayatollahs of the middle east. Why, another pleasant one just came forth from North Carolina today. Is that what Jesus teaches us? Really? (Note: There was a cry after 9/11 about "Where are the moderate Muslims?" Where are the moderate Christians today to shout down pastors like this? Crickets...)

 

I would not argue that in modern times, certainly Christians have embraced modernity and tolerance far more than the Muslim theocracies of the middle east. That said, there is also absolutely no question that there is an element in this country of Christian fundamentalism that is every bit as "wacko" (to borrow your phrase - not aimed at anyone personally) as Muslim theocracy. And in fact the aim of this sect is nothing less than theocracy right here at home. It is called Dominionism. I'm positive you're aware of it and some very famous names on the political scene are avowed Dominionists who really do believe it is the Lord's calling to put as many Christians into power as possible. In this country. (Some of them are skewered in Bill Maher's funny mockumentary, "Religulous.")

 

Do not doubt for one second, back to the subject of homosexual equal rights, that wacko is wacko. It doesn't matter in the least if the banner behind the crowd chanting "round 'em up and kill 'em!" has a Crucifix or a Koran on it. In regard to this sentiment of using the state to punish minorities because they do not fit into one's narrow interpretation of the bible, it's the same sh*t with a different wrapper.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

I don't like it any more than you do. But our country has survived much worse.

 

Frankly, this is the kind of thinking that has me concerned for our future. If one cannot see the difference between an abuse of ID, and the highest court in the land overturning an established limitation in law on ID - one that allows "the state" to take your property for merely a "more appropriate" use - well then there's nothing much else to be said. This isn't a "small thing" IMO, nor is it "more of the same that we've seen before." It is a fundamental change in the view of private property in this country, in LAW.

 

It is the equivalent, IMO, of the laws concerning things like yelling fire in an auditorium, where the justification for the infringement of free speech is based upon a clear danger to others - and that being changed to "if the state feels that your speech is inappropriate" there can be a suppression of free speech.

 

As I've mentioned often before, the lack of critical thinking about such things alarms me.

 

The similarities I saw among the three examples (New London, Owens Valley, and Supreme Court packing) were these:

 

1. All were were subject to exhaustive review and ultimately found to be legal.

 

2. All were radical departures from established norms.

 

3. (My opinion) All represent abuses of power.

 

There are always those within government who are working to subvert government to their own ends. They work continually, and often succeed. It is no different now than it has been throughout our history. We need to maintain our vigilance or we will lose our liberty. I think we are in general agreement on these conclusions. I just don't think we are in any particularly greater danger of losing our liberty now than we ever have been. But then, with my limited abilities of critical thinking, I'm sure there are many important points I'm missing.

[Couchrocket]

There is no shortage of similar phrasing from Christians either

 

Granted. The disgusting picketing of military funerals hardly equates to the deaths of 3,000 people +\- , however. At least that's my sense of things. Add in the Cole, the barracks bombings, the previous bombing of the WTC, etc. and the comparison fades further.

 

In addition, your use of "similar" strikes ms as borderline disingenuous. The "God hates .... " idiots have hardly voiced their intention to overthrow, subsume, and dominate the political structure of the U.S. (I personally think they might like to, but their global impact is hardly a serious threat). I wish that were true of their islamo-wacko counterparts.

 

Scott,

 

My use of "similar" is spot-on with regards to this specific issue we are discussing in this thread. You and I both know it would be no problem whatsoever for me to find vicious, violent anti-gay direct quotes from prominent Christian leaders / pastors which are every bit as low rent as what comes from the Imams and Ayatollahs of the middle east. Why, another pleasant one just came forth from North Carolina today. Is that what Jesus teaches us? Really? (Note: There was a cry after 9/11 about "Where are the moderate Muslims?" Where are the moderate Christians today to shout down pastors like this? Crickets...)

 

I would not argue that in modern times, certainly Christians have embraced modernity and tolerance far more than the Muslim theocracies of the middle east. That said, there is also absolutely no question that there is an element in this country of Christian fundamentalism that is every bit as "wacko" (to borrow your phrase - not aimed at anyone personally) as Muslim theocracy. And in fact the aim of this sect is nothing less than theocracy right here at home. It is called Dominionism. I'm positive you're aware of it and some very famous names on the political scene are avowed Dominionists who really do believe it is the Lord's calling to put as many Christians into power as possible. In this country. (Some of them are skewered in Bill Maher's funny mockumentary, "Religulous.")

 

Do not doubt for one second, back to the subject of homosexual equal rights, that wacko is wacko. It doesn't matter in the least if the banner behind the crowd chanting "round 'em up and kill 'em!" has a Crucifix or a Koran on it. In regard to this sentiment of using the state to punish minorities because they do not fit into one's narrow interpretation of the bible, it's the same sh*t with a different wrapper.

 

-MKL

 

We differ in that I don't equate words with action. I also don't equate very small isolated numbers of idiots, whose identity is clearly known, with a much larger well funded, secret, subversive and murderous global organization.

 

Honestly, this isn't worthy of your normal good sense, IMO.

 

The nut-jobs are not representative of any "Christian" organization but their own small, sad, double-wide congregation. To suggest otherwise, or to conflate their warped views with those who do hold that active homosexuality is morraly inappropriate, is stooping too low to reach for a point. The same sort of broad brush was used two generations ago.

 

Unless, you are so uninformed as to honestly not know this. And I mean that kindly and not as a cheap shot.

 

One of the problems we have that will hasten the bleak future I'm concerned about is the innappropriate "equating" of such things. That's exactly how public opinion was manipulated in the past.

 

I'm genuinely sorry to have to seem so harsh in my comments.

[moshe_levy]

Scott,

 

I don't think you're being harsh, but I think my point was not clear. Part of this of course is that it's an election year and the worst of the worst generally gets some good airplay to stir up the pot, and it works. It's effective, and that's the nature of politics.

 

But broad brush works both ways. Above you mention a "very small isolated numbers of idiots, whose identity is clearly known" but can we indeed quantify this? If we add up the Christian megachurches and what is spouted at some of them, along with the "double-wide congregations" (I spilled my drink laughing at that one - request permission to use again, because that is a GOOD one) I'm not sure the number is very small or very isolated, any more than lumping in all Muslims with "a much larger well funded, secret, subversive and murderous global organization" is necessarily accurate.

 

I am literally an outsider in the discussion of Christians and Muslims, as I am neither. I have had my share of discrimination at the hands of Christians growing up where I did, and I have had family members in Israel killed by Muslim attacks on that country. As a Jew I can proudly tell you, there is NO mainstream thought in my religion, here or in Israel, which advocates anything remotely close to the violence and hatred espoused against gays that come from other religions. Perhaps there is something to learn from this.

 

My point was not to paint some absurd moral equivalence between Pastor Joe Bob ranting about gays and Al Quaeda - surely you know this. My point was to bring it back to the topic here, namely marriage equality for homosexuals, and to point out that religious fundamentalism ("wacko") comes in a variety of lovely flavors and wrappings, and were I gay I would be equally fearful of fundamentalist wacko Christians in this country as I would be of fundamentalist wacko Muslims in this country. Judging by the rhetoric of the fundamentalist wacko Christians as just released today for example (Youtube Pastor Worley from the tolerant state of NC,) if they could, and if the law allowed, they freely admit to wanting to actually kill homosexuals. Round 'em up, put 'em in a big electrified fence stockade, and let them die. He said it, and the congregation cheered, just as the same mindset has actually booed active servicemen publically - you remember that forum. Is it a small number of wackos? I don't know - doesn't feel like it to me. Feels more and more acceptable to speak and act this way. It's scary, quite frankly.

 

Remember Martin Luther King's quote: "But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also."

 

With regard to gays, the ONLY difference between the fundamentalism of a Christian Worley here and of an Ahmadinejad overseas is that our laws prevent Worley (and the people that were clapping and cheering in the pews for him and others of his ilk) from doing what he says he wants to do for fear of punishment. Imagine a Muslim cleric calling for the death of a segment of the population - we would call him a savage, a barbarian. But Worley is Christian, so crickets....

 

Imagine for a second, being gay, and living in North Carolina right now. Tell me honestly how you would feel with all this swirling around you.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

Wow, you two have gone deep, with a few folks poking their heads in every once in a while, and I suppose that's what I am doing right now.

 

Moshe, I get your point, that we are often completely blind to how we look when we let our religious fervor prompt us to say things that we ordinarily might not say, and gets us to reveal views that are hateful and/or hurtful that we might not otherwise share. And I would absolutely agree with that assessment; I also feel that religious people are totally blind to how they look and come across to others as they simply assume they are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

But I have to agree with Scott here in that rare is the christian who promotes violence and hate. You quote King, and that's great, but King also often spoke of the "indifference" or "inaction of the masses" as being the ultimate problem of race in America. Even King felt that the agitators and supporters of racism in America were the vocal and violent few, not the passive and indifferent many. And in fact, King saw his job as being that of waking up the true silent majority to rise up for justice for all. Even in the 1950's and 60's, clearly the majority of white Christians in America had no beef with the black man as evidenced by their support for Civil Rights -- once they got up off the couch and voiced their opinions on the matter at the voting booth and elsewhere.

 

Because Scott and I do come from the Christian Church, we appreciate just how rare and isolated these promoters of violence are. The vast majority of Christian churches, even the ones that oppose same sex marriage, would reel in horror if anyone stood up and promoted anything but an all out agape love approach to our gay brothers and sisters. That's overwhelmingly the norm, even among those opposed to same sex marriage. Those churches are having services and meetings late into the night pondering and praying about how God can use them to reach out, to baptize, to convert these lost souls to Christ. That's the real deal behind what these churches are up to.

[moshe_levy]

James, Scott-

 

Inside I'd lean toward agreeing with you, definitely, that in a country as overwhelmingly Christian as this one, that the truly "wacko" pastors and priests are the minority, and that the average Church is just that, not a breeding ground for gay assassins. I've been to plenty of churches for services for Christian and Catholic friends and have never heard this type of talk firsthand, so I must assume that is what the average church is.

 

I was just trying to point out to Scott, "it's there" for Christians, as it is obviously there for other religions as well, with Muslims far and away the worst offenders for gays (and women and minorities and Christians and.... well, you get the point). They CAN be the worst offenders because in theocracies religion IS the law, so you can be as wacko as you like, because reason, fact, logic, and history don't matter.

 

WRT to this issue, we have now pretty clearly established on this small sample here that "religious" is the only real type of opposition to gay people. To me this opposition (out there - not in here) is 99.9% misguided, either in an honest but narrow interpretation of the bible (re Leviticus - not commenting on Christian bible here) and sliding down the scale into outright bigotry and hate like the Worleys and Phelps of the Christian world. It's just a matter of where on the scale the message is coming from. I tend to adjust myself accordingly and try not to come out all guns blazing unless it's a Worley or Phelps we're discussing, but admittedly I am truly disgusted when anyone advocates using the state to oppress others.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

... but admittedly I am truly disgusted when anyone advocates using the state to oppress others.

 

-MKL

 

As am I! And that's what ultimately disgusts me about how religious people are attempting to address this issue -- via the STATE of all things! Jesus never attempted nor advocated using the force of anything other than voluntary individual choice when encouraging a person to honor his values. He was only ever about voluntary individual choice and decision making. So where Christians get this idea of a secular government being an extension of Gods will is beyond me.

 

Even this question of defining marriage: I contend that all we can ever hope to do is to define it from a secular point of view, how can anyone redefine something in the eyes of God that God has already defined? -- if indeed he has defined it to our satisfaction. God never addresses gay marriage, yet he clearly, frequently, and emphatically addresses hetero sexual divorce.

 

Yet how often do you see Christians advocating laws to prevent couples from divorcing and remarrying? I suppose that type of State intrusion strikes too close to home. So the religious community ends up looking blatantly hypocritical and completely unattractive. Everything Jesus disliked about the Teachers of the Law in his day, the religious community excels at in our day. Strangely ironic.

 

For the record, this is why I oppose helmet laws; not because I don't think riders should wear helmets, I think you are highly irresponsible if you ride without a helmet! But because nobody is stopping me from wearing one, so why would I want a law to force others to do so?

 

But let me ask you this: are you opposed to people using the State to deny someone's rights wen it comes to gay marriage, but support this same Stafe intrusion when it comes to law abiding Americans owning guns? Not to start yet another gun debate, but can you see how what you might support, others find as distasteful as you do this idea of the State limiting the rights of law abiding gay Americans?

 

Let freedom ring!

[moshe_levy]

James-

 

In fact what you are bringing up is "consistency" and this is a very rare commodity in politics. Rare indeed. But you must be careful to compare apples to apples.

 

In the case of gay Americans, what you find, obviously, is the same exact crowd whose entire platform rests on the mantra of "Smaller Government" advocating using the state - no, in fact, using the dreaded FEDERAL government (the root of all evil in their ideology) - to enshrine their specific religious beliefs into the law of the land. Beyond the blatant hypocrisy, what is important to remember is that there is no case to be made - NONE - that a gay couple marrying takes away anything material from anyone, or endangers anyone. Zero case. In fact, the opposite case can be made, as CBS reported re Israel, that gay tourism and marriage and so on is actually an economic net plus. A big net plus.

 

Contrast that to other issues, like for example the helmet law you raised. Consistency would say, if you believe in small government, let the rider decide, period. The reality however is stickier - as in, when the rider gets hurt, and has limited or no insurance coverage, the state steps in and makes up the difference. With my tax dollars. I am NOT saying that is the end of the argument. I am NOT saying I believe in helmet regulation per se. My view is irrelevant here. I AM saying there is no parallel with equal rights, because equal rights have NO chance of taking my tax dollars to pay for someone's preventable health care costs. Gays getting married affects me not at all.

 

Same with gun laws. It's a thorny subject, for sure. But beyond consistency, it's got the same murky waters to deal with as the helmet issue. It's complicated and far from cut and dry because examples on BOTH sides can illustrate clearly the pros and cons of regulation.

 

Where can this be shown re gay marriage? It cannot. Why? Because it's already been tried, and none of the doom and gloom predicted by the religious fanatics opposed to equal rights for all have come true. In short, reality has spoken. Hence, this IS a cut and dry issue, where on one side you can argue easily from the position of morality, law, facts, logic, reason, and history. And on the other, you can only argue from a biblical standpoint, and from there seek the state to be the mechanism through which you force that view onto the rest of us - while 5 minutes later telling us all how government is the greatest threat to individual liberty and freedom! This breathtaking hypocrisy is yet one more reason why combating the "arguments" on the anti-gay side is such child's play.

 

Apples, and oranges.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

I also don't equate very small isolated numbers of idiots, whose identity is clearly known, with a much larger well funded, secret, subversive and murderous global organization.

 

The nut-jobs are not representative of any "Christian" organization but their own small, sad, double-wide congregation.

I think it’s hardly accurate to say that the Christian faiths’ attack on gay rights (I’d be tempted to use the phrase ‘war on” but it’s so over abused these days) is limited to a few fringe wackjob pastors. Rather, all the way through the Christian hierarchy, all the way up to and including the Pope himself, there is a renewed anti-gay campaign going on.

 

Just a couple of weeks ago speaking in a holiday address in Cuba, Pope Benedict XVI described behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work" and urged respect for the "nature of the human being as man and woman."

 

In his New Years Eve address this year he said quote, “marriage was "not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies (such as gay couples marrying) which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself."

 

In August last year in Spain he had just started a major anti-gay marriage speech but it was cut short by a thunderstorm (the voice of God? (hee-hee)) but he did manage to get out, “The Lord calls many people to marriage, in which a man and a woman, in becoming one flesh, find fulfillment in a profound life of communion,” before he was cut off.

 

My point is that, far from it just being a couple of extremist pastors in a remote church here or there, the anti-gay and anti-gay marriage agenda is clearly systemic through all of the formal Christian religion/structure.

 

[pbharvey]

 

My point is that, far from it just being a couple of extremist pastors in a remote church here or there, the anti-gay and anti-gay marriage agenda is clearly systemic through all of the formal Christian religion/structure.

 

I don't know any christians who are anti-gay. Most of them believe that homosexuality is a sin just like fornication and adultery are sins. This is the mainstream christian belief, I don't know why that's so hard for people to accept.

 

We christians don't hate gay people just like we don't hate fornicators and adulterers. As a matter of fact, we don't hate liars, gossips, or gluttons either.

[tallman]

Moshe,

The percentage of Americans who identify themself as "christian" has fallen from 86% in 1990 to 75% in 2011.

Given a 1/2% attrition annualy, in 25-50 years I wonder if "overwhelmingly christian" will be accurate.

 

Here is a link on Muslim populations.

About 1/4 of world population is so identified today.

Given changes in America, birth rates in muslim nations, and the blend of religion/politics in many of these nations, it is not unrealistic to anticipate drastic changes.

[moshe_levy]

I don't know any christians who are anti-gay. Most of them believe that homosexuality is a sin....

 

You don't see a major disconnect between sentence 1 and sentence 2? Really? I don't know any cagers who are anti-motorcyclist. They just try to run me off the road. I don't know any Muslim clerics who are anti-semetic. They just want Israel wiped off the map. Should we continue? C'mon now....

 

What Ken is saying is in fact bolstered by what your response is to him. You are proving him right, not wrong. You are telling us that it is part of the institution of your religion - the "mainstream" of its though - to think of gay people in a negative way. Unless we're now going to split hairs about what "sin" means.

 

Let me tell you all something I said earlier. You CANNOT and WILL NOT have the tide turning how it is without Christian support. This is a majority Christian country, overwhelmingly. You are not going to get social and legal change that most Christians deeply oppose. The fact that the tide is turning in fact means that Christian support IS a factor, despite the screaming and yelling of a loud minority within the Christian community.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Moshe,

The percentage of Americans who identify themself as "christian" has fallen from 86% in 1990 to 75% in 2011.

Given a 1/2% attrition annualy, in 25-50 years I wonder if "overwhelmingly christian" will be accurate.

 

Here is a link on Muslim populations.

About 1/4 of world population is so identified today.

Given changes in America, birth rates in muslim nations, and the blend of religion/politics in many of these nations, it is not unrealistic to anticipate drastic changes.

 

Agreed.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

 

My point is that, far from it just being a couple of extremist pastors in a remote church here or there, the anti-gay and anti-gay marriage agenda is clearly systemic through all of the formal Christian religion/structure.

 

I don't know any christians who are anti-gay. Most of them believe that homosexuality is a sin just like fornication and adultery are sins. This is the mainstream christian belief, I don't know why that's so hard for people to accept.

 

We christians don't hate gay people just like we don't hate fornicators and adulterers. As a matter of fact, we don't hate liars, gossips, or gluttons either.

I accept that it’s part of your religion. In fact that’s my whole point – that saying an anti-gay position / propaganda is the product of a few fringe Christian pastors, when it is fundamental to the religion is dishonest. Indeed such is codified discrimination. And that’s fine in and of itself. There are lots of beliefs in all religions that are of the same nature. All I’m saying is be honest about it - Christianity (and yes Islam) is fundamentally ant-gay. Don’t try to hid behind ‘it’s just a few of/at the fringe that think, act like that.’

 

ISFA the old mantra ‘hate the sin not the sinner’, I call BS. It’s nothing more than a word play designed to justify one’s own feelings/actions to one’s self. It’s like the boss that fires you will an off handed, “it’s nothing personal” comment/dismissal. It IS personal. You can’t separate actions toward a person’s actions from the person him/herself.

 

To say ‘I hate the (homosexual) things you do but not you’ is hiding behind a façade because the person IS homosexual. It’s not something that they do. It’s something that they are. Fundamentally core to their very existence. It would in be in every sense the same (and it’s just as silly) as saying, “I don’t hate you because you’re a short person, I hate the fact (and think it’s a sin) that you don’t wear longer pants.”

[pbharvey]

I don't know any christians who are anti-gay. Most of them believe that homosexuality is a sin....

 

You don't see a major disconnect between sentence 1 and sentence 2? Really?

 

-MKL

 

Really, I don't.

 

John 8

 

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

 

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

 

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

 

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

 

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

 

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

This is the essence of separating the sin from the sinner

[moshe_levy]

Mr. Harvey,

 

Despite my reservations about this "separation" between sin and sinner (Scott's example of teenagers was superb - carrying it to gay people for merely existing is, shall we say, "beneath contempt" to me) I am not here to debate Christian theology. I prefer to debate fact, logic, reason, and history.

 

I am here only to point out that there is nothing behind the anti-gay agenda BUT theology, whether it's Christian, Muslim, or whatever. And I am here further to point out that theology alone is not enough to justify legal discrimination in a country where equality under the law is supposed to apply.

 

The tide IS turning and CANNOT turn in this country without mainstream Christian support. There is your proof that there is a disconnect between what you see as the meaning of the bible and the actual actions of the people who are majority Christian.

 

This is not a theocracy. Only in a theocracy can you advocate law purely from a religious basis. And so that type of argument frankly falls flat on its face here in a country which is explicitly NOT a theocracy. Yet.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

A Christian friend of mine just posted on Facebook, "the fact that you cannot sell your daughter for 3 sheep and a cow means marriage has already been redefined!

 

Apparently this is a reference to one of the laws in the book of Leviticus.

[pbharvey]

 

 

 

Mr. Harvey,

 

Despite my reservations about this "separation" between sin and sinner (Scott's example of teenagers was superb - carrying it to gay people for merely existing is, shall we say, "beneath contempt" to me) I am not here to debate Christian theology. I prefer to debate fact, logic, reason, and history.

 

I am here only to point out that there is nothing behind the anti-gay agenda BUT theology, whether it's Christian, Muslim, or whatever. And I am here further to point out that theology alone is not enough to justify legal discrimination in a country where equality under the law is supposed to apply.

 

There is no anti-gay agenda, there is an anti-gay marriage agenda. You cannot separate the two but most of us who disapprove of gay marriage have no ill feelings toward gay people. I'm anti-polygamy but that doesn't mean I hate polygamists.

 

 

The tide IS turning and CANNOT turn in this country without mainstream Christian support. There is your proof that there is a disconnect between what you see as the meaning of the bible and the actual actions of the people who are majority Christian.

 

Its a stretch to say that since we are a majority christian country that the majority view represents the christian view. (We are also majority Caucasian, does that mean the majority view represents the Caucasian view? Right handed? High school educated? Height between 5-8" and 6'-2", etc?

 

Abortion is legal in our country. Do most Christians think abortion is OK?

 

 

This is not a theocracy. Only in a theocracy can you advocate law purely from a religious basis. And so that type of argument frankly falls flat on its face here in a country which is explicitly NOT a theocracy. Yet.

 

-MKL

 

Of course not but our law is based roughly on something. What do you suppose that is? The document behind the documents the guys in the wigs signed. Moral code comes from somewhere.

[moshe_levy]

I have not yet started my search to Scott's answer of definition, but I would like to enlist the help of anyone who has the time to Google with me and share findings here.

 

The premise I am working on, as discussed, is that Law A (which defined marriage a certain way) was in some areas of the country replaced with Law B (which redfined marriage in such a way as to allow gay marriage legal status). My premise is that to be legally valid, Law B must in fact define what legal marriage is, just as Law A did. Thus, a definition exists on the books. I would like to find out what those definitions are, and so obviously would Scott.

 

-MKL