I've had sex with hundreds of men and I still don't like it!

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality has nothing to do with discrimination, but everything to do with sin. The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. For any Christian to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes us no more "gay bashers" than we are "adultery bashers", "premarital sex bashers", "kidnapper bashers" or "murderer bashers". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals."

1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers."

That's wonderful, Albert, if you happen to believe in that kind of thing.

I tend to side with the people who wrote the Constitution on matters of government, though.

Kidnappers, etc. violate the rights of other people. Homosexuals, by their very existence, do not. BTW, you couldn't marry another man under the Taliban, either.

I'm so sick of this argument. Keep your bible out of my Constitution!

You've totally harshed the mellow I had from the Nature Anthem.

"All Americans - all peoples - deserve the same rights and protections."

My thoughts exactly. Every person in America, Man and woman, staight and homosexual, already has the right to marry another person of the opposite sex. This right has always existed in America.

Virginia is merely codifying that existing equality into a constitutional amendment.

Man, I love right-wingers.

On the one hand, socially-progressive folks get the whole smugness (Virginia merely codifying, Demonrats are now irrelevant, Bush won, get over it). But on the other, we get the full spectrum of what I like to call the "Coulter whine". This is the rather interesting phenomenon of the right-wing "majority with a capital M" crying about the "fact" that evangelical Christians are being persecuted and that there is a liberal bias to the media.

Make up your minds, guys - are you smug, insufferable poor winners or whiny poor losers?

On the topic at hand? I just wonder if there is any reason beyond the biblical that right-wingers hate homosexuals. Maybe it has something to do with that guy from Talon News being a gay prostitute. I dunno.

I'm just getting sick of the whole, "We don't hate you - we're trying to bring you closer to God" deal. They sure managed to bring Joan of Arc closer to God, didn't they?

I'm not anti-religion, folks. I'm pro-American. Just like Madison and Jefferson and Washington were. You've seen the quotations, I'm sure. I won't cut and paste them again.

As a passing shot, although I'm sure someone will find a nice apologist viewpoint for it, the bible says that it's bad for Jews to marry Gentiles as well. When do we see the amendment on that?

The bible's respect of women know no bounds...

"For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does..."
1 Corinthians 7:4

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Timothy 2:11

I could go on for days.

To what end? You find the bible to be outmoded and contradictory, and quote from it merely to make mockery. You won't cause any Christians to say "Duh! I've been duped!" and trade in their bibles for copies of Darwin or Nietzsche.

To those who believe, the teaching of scripture is above transient social conventions. Christians of good faith may disagree on the interpretaions of doctrine, but we don't allow secular society to dictate them away because they are inconvenient or "unenlightened". Simply put, true Christianity does not evolve with the times.

The first Christians wouldn't kiss Caesar's ring for the sake of public order, and Christians today won't kiss it, either.

Oh and by the way Albert. Get you quotes right.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,"

1 Corinthians 6:9

I don't see the word homosexual anywhere. Broad interperation there.

and btw, the next line might apply to a certain lying president, or priest.

"Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Corinthians 6:10

Here's how you fucked up the Timothy quote to help make your "point"

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"

Timothy 1:9

Not quite what you typed eh?

You can make or defend any point with the some silly quote from the bible.

But isn't all of this irrelevent since we have a seperation of Church and State.

What? You mean we don't anymore...aww shit.

Mike,

"Abusers of themselves with mankind" is rather clear, as is the line from Romans 1: "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Koine Greek has no word for "homosexual" or "lesbian" (and neither did English, until the last century or so, hence the King James language).

And no one, absolutely no one, including priests and sitting presidents-no matter how vigorously they label themselves "Christians"-will inherit the kingdom of God unless they beleive and repent (which involves grieving over sin and seeking to avoid it, not merely admitting it).

"Virginia is merely codifying that *existing equality* into a constitutional amendment."

Jeff, What you are calling *existing equality* is nothing of the sort and you know it. It is discrimination and you justify it based on an ancient book called the Bible. It's in the Bible... that's why! Jeff, for many Americans - many people - it is nothing but a book of legend and myth. It is their right to believe that, just as it is your right to believe it is divine word. Not every American believes in the Christian Bible and its teachings, but you can't respect that. You can’t respect what others want for their lives and their families. Nope. You want to see laws made from the book you follow for a country of vastly diverse people because it is what you believe. Who cares what those other people believe, those non-Christians. Not everyone believes in the same god you do. Some don't believe in any god and some believe in simply a vast universal spirit. You are free to believe what you want and worship how you want. Christianity and your faith are not under attack. Homosexuals are not trying to end Christianity or take it away from you or tell you that you can’t be a Christian. Those who don’t believe what and how you do simply just don't want your beliefs/religion applied to their lives, or to the government of the state. Go to your church and worship in your way. Ban homosexuals and gay marriage from your church if you want to. Don’t give them any rights in your church, but keep church and state separate! The Constitution of the United States was written that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. They should also have included women in that. No exclusions were written into it, but you want exclusions. You want discrimination because the Bible says it’s okay and that’s how you justify it. Live and let live man.

“Christians of good faith”

“true Christianity does not evolve with the times.”

True. Good. How comforting. All wrapped up in pretty gold leaf. So sure, so safe. Predestined. Sweet.

No, I don’t think that line is all that clear. I interpret that differently. Your point about the word(s) not existing is a perfect argument against the thing. My point is the same. The book is subject to way too broad a set of revision, re-writes and plain manipulation through the ages to be used as a device of social construct. Period. If you believe God to be a supervising editor, be my guest.

You being such a history buff, can’t you name ONE instance in history where a human has used the bible for his own greed and desires? Justified killings? Come on. Why are we worried about it’s interpretation? That one’s easy.

I’m not looking for you to be a bible apologist. I really don’t care what you believe as long as it’s got the don’t hurt others, be respectful, honor all, be truthful, share and don’t be a jerk, parts. You know all that stuff they teach you in Kindergarten. And imagine, I don’t need it repeated to me every Sunday to get it.

Also, I’d like you not to “classify” me as a Nihilist or Darwinist, neither of which are correct. Thank you very much.

I don’t appreciate you attempts to try and sound all moderate. Why not be honest with all of us here. What would Jeff like to see happen with all the “Homos.” Proactive stoning, or just let God sort ‘em out after the rapture? Be honest.

Will:

What is unequal about the current right to marry? You make the argument that it is not equal, I make the argument that it is. Currently, we all have exactly the same rights in this regard. You are the one who wants to change the status quo, not me. Religion does not enter into this argument.

Mike,

You might be surprised that I actually don't have any sort of "final solution" lined up for homosexuals. Gays are people, just like you and me, and we are all sinners in the eyes of God. We all die and face judgement. In the meantime, their lives are theirs to live as they see fit, and I don't have a right or a desire to barge into their bedrooms.

But as a citizen of this nation, I have every right to take a stand on social issues, and especially our common institutions. So I oppose gay marriage. It is possible, in fact, to do so without "hating" gays, but I know you guys like the "H" word a lot. I disapprove of homosexuality, but no more so that I disapprove of adultery.

Sorry I lumped you in with philosophy you don't hold to. No offense intended. How about Kant, or Hobbes? I was just making the point that Christians aren't going to chuck their principals just because there is stuff in the bible that sounds old-fashioned to the modern, progressive ear.

Once again - it's sooo funny to me.

1. American evangelical Christians whine about how they are ousted from government and that secular humanists are turning this Christian nation from the path. They say that they should not have to hear the rantings of secular humanists, or deal with the society that their Satanic wishes would create.

2. American evangelical Christians say that when we prevent them from proseletyzing on the job, in shopping malls, to asian tsunami victims, that we're denying them their right of expression.

It's just funny. Are you the victorious sword of God, or a bunch of whiny little babies?

If you're going to try and base our society on stuff from the old testament, go ahead. Just go at it whole hog. Those who have read me or my blog before know that I'm all about people being able to espouse their own agenda - just don't try and sugar-coat it.

Let's do some heavy Leviticus-quoting. You know you want it.

I understand you guys believe in the concept of sin. Fine. Stone people in your church (and wait for the FBI to come, like they did for those child-raping bastards in Waco), believe what you want. Just don't try and make me believe the same with your cheesy little circular arguments.

And have a nice weekend.

I only support gay marriage if both chicks are hot. =D

*ducks*

Will, why do you go down these paths...

Da-veed, I love ya man and I appreciate your looking out for me and your concern. You are closer to me than my own brothers and your friendship is very valuable to me. I am going to answer you honestly.

To begin, let me say that I am not going to edit my thoughts and feelings for anyone. Not for my family, friends or peers. This is my personal web site where I post & share MY images, MY thoughts and MY feelings. Those who have known me for a long time (and that includes Jeff) know my feelings and stance on issues environmental, social/cultural, political and religious. Newer folks to my growing circles of friends and readers also learn quickly what sort of person I am. If someone doesn't like my photography, my writing or personal views I suggest that they examine their reasons for coming here, especially if it’s for purposes of trolling and starting flame wars.

When leaving a comment here concerning a hot topic the commenter needs to examine their motivation for doing so. Is their motivation to create an intelligent discourse through thoughtful discussion or is it to create a flame war by trolling.

Daveed, I think your question needs to be redirected to Jeff. He should ask himself why he wants to go down these paths on my web site. Especially when he knows that 99% of my readers and I do not share his views. He has his own personal web site where he can share his worldviews and address the issues important to him and to his readers. Maybe he should do so there.

Peace and friendship,
--Will

Righto!

Hello Will,

Since you redirected David's comment to me, I'll go ahead and answer it. The reason that I respond to "controversial" threads on any site is because the internet is a free marketplace of ideas. When we express an idea strongly, we may expect a conterpoint of similar passion. I don't consider this a flame, and I am surprised that you do.

Based on the original post alone I find myself labeled "unreasonable", "illogical", a "champion of discrimination, fear and hatred" and "infinitly wrong". The temptation to respond in kind was strong, but by and large I avoided it. In fact, all of my posts have been impersonal attempts to set forth my side of the argument, not attacks on you or your friends (unless you take the fact that someone disagrees with you in itself to be a flame, which some obviously do).

As for the reason I come here, I am interested in what my friend thinks, although I don't always agree with him. I usually won't post on political topics (you may check back to see how few MoveOnDotOrg and "it's all Bush's fault" threads I posted to) , but sometimes the language seems "pointed" in my direction, and I just can't help myself.

Once again, though - the point of the discussion gets lost in the rigamarole of who said what about whom.

Forty years ago, the OFFICIAL POSITION of most churches in the United States of America was that marriage between people of different races was abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Thus position was backed up with - imagine this - scriptural references.

Whether those references are correct or incorrect is academic to me - what is not academic is that people were denied equal protection under the law for getting married to someone the church said they shouldn't get married to. Were it not for the brave fighters for civil rights in the 60's, THAT SITUATION WOULD STILL STAND. The churches certainly had no interest in changing it.

This is why this nation must stand vigilant against any and all attempts to subvert government with religion. A majority mandate does not give any group the right to interfere with the rights of others.

I personally don't want to label you personally as anything, Jeff. Because I don't know if you're a fundamentalist crusader bent on replacing our Constitution with Old Testament laws or not. But those who lay claim to that mantle ARE "unreasonable, illogical, champions of discrimination, fear and hatred." And they are also "infinitely wrong".

If one puts their religion before the good of the United States, it is a bad thing. Period.

Dear Jeff,
On many issues social, political and religious (to name a few) you and I are diametrically opposed. You stand on the right and I stand on left, and because we are both so committed to our causes and beliefs I can understand how you would find my language “pointed” and how you may even be offended by what I write from time to time. I can not change that and I am not going to edit myself (and no, you have not suggested or implied that I should do so), but I want you to please know this, my posts are not personally directed at you.

You said that “based on the original post alone I find myself labeled "unreasonable", "illogical", a "champion of discrimination, fear and hatred" and "infinitely wrong".” Jeff, you have applied those labels to yourself and maybe you need to personally reflect on that. About being "infinitely wrong", that was also not directed at you. It’s your choice to take it personally. My comment was that “writing discrimination of any kind into law is WRONG! times infinity.” Jeff, can you give me examples of when and where discrimination is a good policy? You’re a very smart and well-read guy and you know that discrimination is wrong. Sadly there are people who champion discrimination and they generally do so out of fear, hatred and ignorance.

Furthermore the issue here is not that you make opposing comments - I don't fear opposition - on my site for the hot topics; but that your comments are circular arguments and they rarely directly address a point or answer a question. Others ask you direct questions, they ask for clarity and specifics and like both Presidential candidates at the 2004 debates you won’t make any. You want to comment on the hot topics go ahead, but make a clear point and be truthful with yourself and us about it. Tell us how you really feel and what you really want.
Peace, --Will

Well said Steve.

So Will, The kid poked you with the stick???

well said Will.. such a shame that the comments got hijacked by zealots again.. Why can't people just get along :\

Will, you really have to stop taking this stuff so, so personal. I quit reading this blog because if I posted something you did not agree with you would contact me outside the blog and complain. I love you like a brother too man, but what is the point of having a blog if you do not like what some people have to say on it. Really, most of thes entries I can not even comment on because the rath I catch from moveon.org types is just to much. AND I VOTED FOR KERRY?!?! I mean WTF you know. Everyone just needs to F-ing calm down here.

Will, just please block my IP address, I am punching out and moving back to the farm I grew up on.

Secrest out!!!!

COMMENTS ON THIS ENTRY HAVE BEEN CLOSED!
Sincerely,
--Corporal Obergruppenfuehrer Wolfcastle