text:
Talk about pandering. Watching Dems try to placate the gay agenda while not alienating the mainstream is always entertaining.
Just wanted to link this as a reminder of how much we could lose next year if social conservatives don't work together.
UPDATE: As Joe would say, this thread has reached doctoral thesis length. I am not able to keep up with the deluge that will probably continue for some time to come. If anyone sees anything inappropriate, feel free to shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dem Presidential Candidates at Homosexual Forum.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1306
226 Comments
I thought Hillary was in power when HillBilly signed those bills? She was the nag pushing the agenda. Now she wants to back-up and say it was a ploy to prevent the republicans from inacting stricter verbage? The second lady president. It worked the first time. I wonder if there are enough suckers out there to do it again.
Well – we've been dealing with the Christian agenda for the last 7 years and many are getting sick of it. Gays are part of this nation and have the right to be heard. Let's embrace them instead of alienating them. Heck, how many Christian leaders and anti gay politicians have been caught not practicing what they preach – hypocrisy at its best, that's what we have seen these last 8 years.
your arguments are weak betty black. if only, they were as good as the song black betty.
people are just as sick now of your gay agenda as they were 7 years ago. People get tired of war, not your lifestyle.
You exhibit what I see as classic liberal ignorance, hypocrisy is NOT extolling an ideal and failing to live up to it. Go find a dictionary.
As for the Christian agenda, being against the murder of children is an agenda that I am happy to push and support. Sacrificing children on the alter of the God-of-Choice so that one does not have to be burdened with the consequence of ones own actions is the height of narcissism. Convenience is a lousy bedrock on which to build an ethical framework.
As for the gay agenda, Singleton hit it on the head. VA is sick of it, please note the pasting your side of the argument took in the last election. The marriage bill passed with overwhelming numbers. Care to explain that if everyone is sick of the Christian agenda?
The way the Christians extremists made same sex marriage an issue during the last election was absolutely sickening! Fortunately the acceptance and understanding of gay citizens in our country is growing, it's just too bad there are sites out there (like this one) that preach intolerance towards others that are not like them.
As black women with a gay daughter, I can't imagine that she could possibly have fewer rights to marry the person she loves than I had.
It wasn't too long ago your state of Virginia and many others discriminated against people of color, so it doesn't surprise me one bit that Virginia hasn't evolved as some of the more educated states have – give it time, they will, I promise you that!
I will leave you with this; getting married is a legal right, not a Christian right, so please stop pushing your hate filled agenda onto others, because that's all it is.
Fact is, a certain percentage of all animal forms of life are attracted sexually to members of their own gender, that it's not a matter of conduct but rather an innate characteristic.
You exhibit what I see as classic conservative punditry!
guilty as charged!!
Wise man,
So what? Men also have been known to molest sheep and dogs have been seen humping the legs of humans. This behavior is not the product of an innate drive. It is just what is convenient and available. An itch needs to be scratched. Whether one uses ones own nails, or, a stick it does not matter to the one who is itchy.
The most basic drive I see at work in the above conversation is that of Betty defending the actions and rightousness of her daughter. This is a deep and basic drive and one I would not be critical of.
That does not mean I will agree with Betty, but it puts her in a different light.
Betty, I know at least two conservative Christian gay men who were in favor of the marriage amendment. They are comfortable with their homosexuality and are openly gay. I do not know the rationale behind their support of the amendment, but I bring this up to demonstrate that for many, many people, this issue is not about intolerance or hatred (though I am sure there are a minority of folks who do feel that way).
For the record, I am a moderately conservative Christian and I voted against the amendment, not because I am in favor of gay marriage but because I felt an amendment to the state constitution was too drastic a measure.
However, a large majority of voters supported the amendment, and I hope you will understand that their vote had to do with many issues ... religious values as well as economic and societal considerations.
It must be hurtful to imagine that people are being hateful toward your daughter, and so what I am trying to say here is that I don't think they are. At all. I don't believe the vast majority feel any animosity at all toward gay individuals (though they may dislike the gay activist movement). Some don't even have an issue with the "gay lifestyle" (e.g., the two aforementioned men). But they do see a societal value in prescribing that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. IMO, that is neither extreme nor intolerant.
Regarding your last paragraph in your 11:18pm comment, I could not have said it any better myself. Bravo and thank you.
"It must be hurtful to imagine that people are being hateful toward your daughter."
Indeed, it must be hurtful for Betty to believe that her daughter suffers from discrimination when it's just all in her imagination. I'm sure she imagined all the hateful statements she sees in the media every day and the hurtful things that friends, co-workers and family members occasionally let slip before quickly apologizing. I'm sure you know much better what her experience has been.
I'm not sure which is worse: outright hatred, which at least has the couage of its convictions, or the kind of condescending disdain on display here.
Of course you don't hate gay people. You just don't like their "lifestyle" (whatever that is) and you hate the uppity ones, the "activists."
Of course, there is nothing in the least hateful about believing that the relationships of gay people are not as worthy as those of straight people, that they represent some kind of undefined "threat" to our society.
Of course, there is nothing hateful in believing that gay people are not worthy of serving in our armed forces (although many do), that they just don't fit in to military life, that their presence would cause a disturbance.
Of course, it's not hateful to believe that gay people are immoral, that they are going to hell, that their expressions of love for their partners are an abomination. There's nothing hateful at all about implying that gay people are dangerous to children, that they shouldn't be allowed to teach or adopt or be scoutmasters. Nothing hateful at all.
Of course, there is nothing hateful in implying that gays are diseased, unhealthy, that they have shorter lifespans, that what they do is unnatural.
And yes I know Linda that you didn't express all of these feelings in your sunny protestation that you don't hate gay people and don't know anyone who does, but all of these ideas have been expressed by anti-gay marriage activists and can all be found on this very blog.
I'm sorry that the very unpleasant gay people have led you to believe that they should not have the rights that married straight people have because denying them those rights has "societal value" which for some reason you have declined to define. Many Virginians saw "societal value" in making it illegal for blacks and whites to marry until the Supreme Court overturned those laws in the Loving v. Virginia case exactly 40 years ago. I bet those people didn't think they were "extreme or intolerant" either. And while you might be unable (or unwilling) to see the comparison, Mildred Loving certainly does. Here is what she recently said:
"When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn't to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married. Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. I am proud that Richard's and my name are on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
While I applaud your compassion for the suffering Betty's delusions have caused her, I suggest you actually ask some gay people if they have ever experienced discrimination and how they feel about their relationships being considered unworthy by a majority of Virginians. Besides your Christian gay friends, I mean.
I'm sure you can find some gay people opposed to gay marriage, just as it is possible to find black people opposed to civil rights laws and women who wouldn't vote for a "lady president." But that does absolve you from your own feelings about gay people.
Has it not occurred to you that your gay Christian friends are telling you what they think you want to hear, that they want your acceptance and approval, that the forces of animosity toward gay people are so powerful in this society that they have even internalized those negative feelings against gay people in the same way that many women for example feel they are not worthy enough to aspire to be CEOs or Presidents or mathematicians when it has been drummed into their heads since the time they were little girls that they just aren't worthy enough?
I imagine there are people who will say they supported these amendments for reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia just as many people who opposed civil rights laws claimed it was really a matter of "state's rights." I don't think many people buy that argument today. They realize it was just a cover for people who refused to confront their negative feelings about black people, who wanted to believe despite all evidence to the contrary that they really were good people after all.
"There's nothing hateful at all about implying that gay people are dangerous to children, that they shouldn't be allowed to teach or adopt or be scoutmasters. Nothing hateful at all."
Would you put a recovering alcoholic in a job as a bartender? Would you put a petaphile in a job as a daycare worker? A homosexual as a Scoutmaster? Do you work for Levi Strauss? Same sex couples adopting? No influence there as far as what's okay and possible future tendencies.
"Gay bashing" and "gay hating". SOS, different day. I don't hate them and I don't feel sorry for them. It is againest my religious beliefs (immorality) to accept that lifestyle or behavior. There are those that do outright hate and that is their issue. Why don't you give it a break and come back to reality. I think most of us on this blog site have explained it to you before (exponentially) that it is an immoral issue to most of us.
"Would you put a recovering alcoholic in a job as a bartender? Would you put a petaphile in a job as a daycare worker?"
...you forgot about the fact that most violent crime is perpetrated by males, and yet most of our law enforcement officers are also men! What is wrong with this country!?
damnit activist you crossed a line. If you parse it out, what you are expressing is a fear of gays. Isn't there a word for that?
It's like zomzo said, "I'm not sure which is worse: outright hatred, which at least has the couage of its convictions, or the kind of condescending disdain on display here."
why don't you own up to the truth? You don't hate gays? Fine. Homophobia isn't rooted in hatred, it's rooted in fear.
LOL. (at you)
'hatred, which at least has the couage of its convictions ... (blah blah, etc)'
You as usual stand everything on its head; and it is sad, as always. The real pitiful part is you see yourself as some white Knight; the windmalls are over the hill and through the woods boy.
Try reading the Bible, you will see that hating is considered a sin. So is lying, and telling someone they are not sinning when they are is a lie (and a sin).
The Bible calls for obedience in all things, it also calls for beleivers to discern, to encourage and to CORRECT. Correction is not the same thing as judgement, but as usual when reading is anyting but fundamental (as it appears to be in your case) it all gets lost in translation.
Furthermore, because you are so d*mn predictable, Christians (the ones I know) all TRY to be obedient in all things, and aknowledging that we cannot live up to that ideal, call on Christ to take our place, and wash us clean of our sin. So please spare me the question, "Are you obedient in all things?" (add snarky, superior tone if it comes from zimzo) The answer is no, which is why I seek repentence everyday you tiresome little man.
While I do not agree with ACT's last comment, I think your comparison
"...you forgot about the fact that most violent crime is perpetrated by males, and yet most of our law enforcement officers are also men! What is wrong with this country!?"
is off the mark as well.
"nothing hateful ... that they have shorter lifespans ..."
Then why do they keep dying sooner than the rest of us?
Linda, I am very happy to hear that you did vote against this discriminatory amendment, thank you!
You say you know at least two conservative Christian gay men who were in favor of the marriage amendment? Well Linda I too know many Christian's who where and still are against it, including some Priests, what's your point?
My point is that NO ONE'S rights should ever be put to a popular vote, never!
What many people don't understand is that a state marriage license is just that, it's a license provided by the state, a legal document, "without" any religious ties. The license is granted to protect the two people that are committed to one another, period.
How would my daughter's marriage to other women affect another person's marriage? Make it less?
I don't understand how anyone's marriage is threatened by gay marriage, or any couples for that matter, marrying? If my marriage is threatened by another couple marrying, then it seems to me that my relationship can't be that strong to begin with.
If you're against gay marriage it's simple, don't have one. I just want my child to have the same protections that my husband have had for some 20 years, is that too much to ask for?
For the ones here that have wrote many nice things in my favor, thank you! This battle is very difficult and emotional, it's nice to see even some of the more conservatives here coming to my support.
of course it's off the mark!
this whole court is off the mark!
"Then why do they keep dying sooner than the rest of us?"
What was that you said about lying, Jason?
I assume this notion you have that gay people "keep dying sooner than the rest of us" comes from the studies of anti-gay activist Paul Cameron, which have been thoroughly debunked. Cameron's "research" consisted of comparing obituaries in gay newspapers with obituaries in general newspapers.
Unless you have some other evidence and weren't just pulling this idea out of thin air. It does serve as a perfect example of the hateful and malicious falsehoods that anti-gay activists typically spew. Thanks for proving my point, Jason, as always.
Oops. I meant Jacob. I must have been confusing you with the monster from Halloween for some reason.
This is an argument in which we have gone round and round and round, so lets not go there again.
My point w.r.t. your exampleis that it did not match ACT's example from a tautological sense.
as usual going for the BIG lie, to scare others. Its like a poker tell, when ever you get this upitty it means you are bluffing
for example, and the scientist is very apologetic to the gay community. face it zimzo, the aids epidemic in the 80's and 90's has killed a lot of people in the gay community. That does tend to drive down the life expetancy. And you know it.
so take your hatefull statement:
"Unless you have some other evidence and weren't just pulling this idea out of thin air. It does serve as a perfect example of the hateful and malicious falsehoods that anti-gay activists typically spew." and put it someplace dark, like your heart, you annoying little man.
Furthermore, Camerons study was not the first to note this, and you knew that as well. The US davis report calling the Cameron study worthless was a hit piece, and you knew that as well. You oh so annoying little man.
Countering your lies is so easy, it's hardly worth the effort. Yes, AIDS had a great impact on the mortality of gay men (though not lesbians) just as it is having a great impact on heterosexuals in Africa. The fact that AIDS happened to affect this particular segment of the population says nothing about the inherent mortality of gay men.
The study you cite in fact was called "Modeling the impact of HIV disease on patterns of mortality in gay and bisexual men" and it studied mortality rates for gay men from 1987 to 1992 at the height of the AIDS epidemic!
I look forward to your study on the mortality rates among Christians using data from 1347 at the height when the bubonic plague swept Europe proving definitively that Christians have shorter life spans than non-Christians.
"your exampleis that it did not match ACT's example from a tautological sense."
...and you felt that this was important to point out... why?
"round and round and round"
What argument exactly are you referring to? Is it the argument that drawing comparisons between gays and pedophiles or murders is definitively homophobic? That's not an argument, it's a fact.
You are a mathmatical illiterate, and calling me a liar does not change that. Calling me a liar is easy, all it requires is for you to type 'l-i-e-r' but it does not make it so, you annoying little man.
Furthermore, it does not matter WHY someone died when computing the life expectancy, what matters is in the sum total of birth v. deaths over time. Trying to norm this sort of thing is insane. If in the future AIDS is cured or stops being a factor inthe gay community, then life expectancy will rise.
In Africa, where people are dying from HIV-AIDs in their millions the life expectancy is falling through the floor. No one is norming it out there.
As for the when the study was done, duh! I picked it because of the tone of the researchers, they have been cowed by morons like you.
Life expectancy of every group changes every year, it is what it is. And yes, being a Christian in europe meant you had a low life expectancy in 1347. That was because no one knew about deseases, those who washed and stayed clear ofthe cities, lived. That difference is a 'behavior based variance in outcome.' In 1300 being Chinese also led to having a lower actuarially computed life expectancy because the plague was raging in China, those who were hermits (like Monks) had a better chance. What we do matters, trying to pretend it does not matter is delusion.
The current un-normed life expectancy of gay men has the impact the AIDS epidemic rolled into it, rightly so, there could be other behavioral elements as well, but currently the signal from epidemic swamps out all else. Trying to ignore that and claiming it to be a invalid is classic bit of Orwellian thought-speak, a language you are fluent in, you annoying little man.
The argument I am referring to is the morality of homsexual behavior.
I have never equated homosexuality with pedophilia, that is someone else.
The point was you were making a comparison as invalid as the gay=pedophilia one. That is all.
Why are you talking about life expectancy? It's not like you'd start supporting gay marriage if they found a cure for AIDS and the gay life expectancy increased because of it, would you?
"I have never equated homosexuality with pedophilia, that is someone else."
OK, then I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to ACT, and others in the past (Jack?) who have made similar comparisons.
"The point was you were making a comparison as invalid as the gay=pedophilia one. That is all."
indeed it WAS invalid, that was my point! : )
And while we seem to be agreeing, let me just say that morality doesn't matter, this is democracy! so I say we ought to have a county-wide referendum for EVERY marriage. If the majority of the people in your community disapprove of your marriage, it doesn't happen! Why not?
...and we should extend this model to other aspects of our personal lives, too. Why not? It would take care of a lot of other problems, too. ie: "If the majority of people in this community feel that Christianity is the one true religion, you don't get a permit to build a mosque."
That's the way it should be because this is America, where the majority rules!
So we don't need to talk about morality at all. If you look at the data, globally, Muslims tend to live shorter lives, predominantly Muslim countries generally have a lower standard of living than we do in the US, so there's evidence that Islam is harmful to society. So why should Muslims be allowed to build mosques?
Don't get me wrong, I have no negative feelings towards muslims, I just don't accept them. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to practice their ...lifestyle, behind closed doors. But since it isn't the Right lifestyle, the government shouldn't be doing anything to encourage it! I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose to be muslim in private, just that they shouldn't be allowed to build mosques.
OK, first let me just admit up front that I did not read all of the comments posted after mine ... because frankly, gays and gay marriage is not a big issue to me either way and I have lots on my plate tonight.
But zim and Betty, my only point in my post was to say that (IMO) the majority of those who voted to ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman are not doing so out of hatred but for other reasons. Because I do know lots of people (in addition to the two gay men) who voted that way and my observation of those individuals is that they are not hateful people.
I am not going to speak to why they voted that way, because I don't know. But I do not believe it is out of hate.
I do not expect that to make you any more accepting of what you consider to be a discriminatory vote. But Betty, you had referenced a "hate-filled" agenda and I was simply giving my two cents on that concept.
Thanks, zim, for taking my comments and extrapolating so much about me. I had no idea I felt or believed half of that stuff and greatly appreciate your insights.
This insanity is the result of me talking to zimzo. He brought up the point to begin with in one of his rants. I remember reading a long time ago that gays had shorter life spans, the factors are not important. I said so, contrary to one of his many claims, and was called a lier, at which point I replied in kind. All of which reminds me of a proverb regarding arguing with fools. So I got brought down to the lunatic's level, again. I need a bath.
As for your comments regarding life span etc, we are on opposite sides, and no even if being gay turned out to promote longevity would I not change my position. What is wrong is wrong. Yes, I am sure you will see that as narrow, but some things are not up for sale.
As for you outrageous and hilarious statement ...
"let me just say that morality doesn't matter, this is democracy!"
LOL! Oh contrair mon petit malade I would say that "democracy cest meme vertu", but since you are pulling my leg and not out of your gourd I will let this matter drop.
Personally I really like you idea regarding how people can get married. Put it to a vote. It would stop things like Madonna and Sean Penn from ever getting a marriage license. Only problem is 7000+ years of tradition where two free adults, of the opposite sex, not living in the homes of their parents can get married w/o anyones say so. You see marriage is about _creating_ children, the ultimate right.
"It would take care of a lot of other problems, too. ie: "If the majority of people in this community feel that Christianity is the one true religion, you don't get a permit to build a mosque."
Excellent, you actually have flipped, and here I was thinking parody, my mistake. I will go cry in the back now. Please read the constitution, while silent on marriage, it definitely says this is a no no.
As for your last para again, read the Bill of rights. Unlike you I do not 'like' Muslims; the Koran espouses violence and deceit, (have you ever read it?) considering the whole whahabism thing well... But, I will defend unto the death their right to build Mosque and practice their religion.
I question whether marriage has "7000+ years of tradition where two free adults, of the opposite sex, not living in the homes of their parents can get married w/o anyones say so" behind it. I guess I'll have to read up on the history of marriage and get back to you.
we all know what the constitution says about religion. You get the right people advising the pres., the right people appointed to the supreme court, and the right sort of grassroots campaign, and all of a sudden BAMN! a ban on mosque building is completely within the letter of the law!
Linda, I specifically said that you had not expressed all of those ideas about gay people but that they were ideas that have been expressed by anti-gay marriage activists and by people on this blog. It's a little bit ironic, however, for you to object about assumptions made about what you think after you dismissed Betty's experiences as the product of a wild imagination.
You say that "gays and gay marriage is not a big issue" for you but I bet it is a big issue for Betty and her daughter. Funny how important an issue seems to be when it's your rights or the rights of your loved ones that are being taken away. I bet they don't think it's as trivial as you apparently do and I bet they remember every hate-filled comment they have read and seen, while you have not really been paying that much attention.
I know it is difficult for you to see your friends and neighbors, who seem like such awfully nice people, as having hateful views about gay people. You seem so certain that they voted the way they did not out of hate but you seem unable to come up with an alternative explanation. I guess it's better not to think about it at all and just think happy thoughts.
Jacob, whenever you say "you annoying little man" I imagine you looking a little like Queen Victoria or some other queen. It's an image that suits you perfectly. Let me just say that whenever you write something, unlike Queen Victoria, we are amused.
Puffy, if there is a Pulitzer Prize for blog comments this year, I am nominating you. I bow to your brilliance.
Zim, I neither dismissed Betty's experiences nor said she had a wild imagination.
Nor did I call this a trivial issue. My comment that I do not consider this a big issue was my way of saying that I personally do not have strong feelings pro/con. If forced to choose, I would say I generally take a "live and let live" stance on it. Surprised?
I am guessing I won't get any further with you here than others on this blog ever have, so please feel free to go ahead and have the last word.
Bamn!? What are you, an Emeril wannabe?
I know its that whole pesky Constitution thing. Annoying how it does not fit our preconceived notions of fairness. Look, it is the law we have. You do not like it, change it. I mean that w/o rancor or sarcasm, it is the American way. Mind you, there will be some guy like me trying to stop you, that is also the American way.
As for the particulars of marriage customs in Mesopotamia, let me know, I love reading history from that time.
Look, you tried to play peacemaker with Betty. A noble thing. That has been tried on other occasions with other folks. zimzo loves to run up overturn the card table at that point. It is as predictable as the sun rising come morning; it is what he does.
Linda, again I thank you for supporting my daughter's right to marry the person she wants; Unfortunately, prejudice and religious persecution will always remain, but with time society will become more educated and evolve…
Example: Did you know that slavery and women's oppression were once ENDORSED by the Catholic Church?
Betty, I don't know that I would necessarily use the word "support." It was not so much that I believed it was a right, but more that I didn't necessarily feel I had the right to take away that option via a measure as strong and lasting as a constitutional amendment. Again, I tend to be more of a "live and let live" person.
I know, I'd make a great politician. But obviously I have some conflicting feelings on the topic.
As for the Catholic Church and women, well, that is a bit off topic, so let me just say this: I grew up Catholic and went to 12 years of Catholic school, and while I continue to have a great appreciation for the religious ideals my parents instilled in me and the great education the church provided me, I left in my 20s due to their refusal to allow women a role in the heirarchy. They may no longer endorse oppression, but they still have a ways to go as far as women's rights are concerned.
(Zim, I hope the idea of a conservative feminist shakes up your dearly held stereotypes a little without sending you into any kind of apoplectic seizures.)
Crossed the line? Maybe you miss understood the point I was trying to make. I wasn't equating anybody to anything. Nor do I have fear of "gays". Since in many earlier discussions on this issue we have never discerned if the homosexual lifestyle is brained mis-wired or BY CHOICE, I am saying that you don't put people into jobs or activities that are tempts to their way of life or thinking. I would never go for a teacher who is homosexual teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle. Just as I would never allow same sex adoption of a child for the influence it would have on the childs' rearing. The young mind is so impreasionable that it is way to easy to sway. If you grow up in a household of smokers or you see your dad drunk every night and smacking your mother around, that's the way it was done for some in the old days and was acceptable. You don't think many of the kids today who may have lived in that setting haven't taken that behavior forward in their own lives? And are now confused because it is NOT an acceptable life style? That is my point. You fill in the blank. Homosexuals will always be people and they are capable of doing any job or profession of a heterosexual. I just don't think they should be in a position (job/profession) where they can further the beliefs of their lifestyle.
I apologize if you missed my point to zippo. If you still have issue than show me "what line".
"we all know what the constitution says about religion. You get the right people advising the pres., the right people appointed to the supreme court, and the right sort of grassroots campaign, and all of a sudden BAMN! a ban on mosque building is completely within the letter of the law!"
You have a good point, puffalump. That is, essentially, what happened with Roe v. Wade, Social Security, and Campaign Finance Reform. This is the problem with appointing judges who are not strict constructionists.
As someone who is constantly reduced to a stereotype by your husband and others on this blog as some sort of America-hating leftist, I certainly sympathize with your desire not to be pigeon-holed. And while I'm glad you are not one of those women who makes excuses for the Catholic Church's misogyny or worse agrees with it, it is after all an issue that affects you directly since you are a woman. It is much more difficult to empathize with someone who is not like you at all and try to see things from their perspective.
Though you now deny that you intended to be dismissive of Betty, that is exactly how your comments sounded. The fact that you don't believe anti-gay marriage activists are "hateful" or have used hateful rhetoric, but you can't quite figure out what their motivations are leads me to believe it is not something you have thought about much. The point of my comment was only to get you to take what Betty was saying seriously, since she is after all speaking from experience, an experience you don't share, and get you to think about it a little.
Indeed, you may be right that the vast majority of people who voted for this amendment did not do so out of deep animosity toward gay people, but I don't think they thought about how their vote affected people like Betty and her daughter. For most of these people gay marriage has no effect on their lives whatsoever but it has a very profound effect on people like Betty and her daughter.
So all I am asking is that you think about these issues a little, that you take what Betty says seriously, that you open your mind to people that have a different experience and different point of view from yours and that you don't accept the protestations of some of the more strident anti-gay marriage activists that they don't have animosity toward gays when their rhetoric shows otherwise.
Zim, I appreciate your reasonable tone, and so I am happy to respond to your post.
I DID take Betty's experience seriously and in fact that was the reason I posted a comment at all. I don't often chime in here so you can be assured I did so because I felt compelled. Perhaps you can go back and reread my original post with that thought in mind and see if it strikes you any differently.
And I DID give the issue of gay marriage a good bit of thought, which is why I voted the way I did.
You can think what you want about anti-gay marriage activists, but I am just telling you that in my experience, I have not found the majority of them to be hateful toward gays or others. And I am hopeful that Betty's daughter and others affected by the issue, though they may view the law as wrong, will not view it as an indication that the majority of Virginia voters hate them. I just think that would be a very sad way to think and live, and I don't think it's true. That was and is my only point.
Gee, zimzo, maybe if you stopped writing like an America-hating leftist, you wouldn't get stereotyped as one.
Activist, seriously. Yeah, you have no fear of gays, you just think they pose a threat to our children and the fabric of society and as such they need to be silenced.
"brained mis-wired or BY CHOICE, I am saying that you don't put people into jobs or activities that are tempts to their way of life or thinking"
First of all, explain to me how saying that gay scout leaders are a threat is not tacitly equating gays to pediphiles?
next, using your line of reasoning, explain to me why we let hetro males teach high school classes with females students.
yeah, you're not equating gays to anything, you're just drawing comparisons to pedophiles, alcoholics, and abusive husbands.
Well, guess what? I know kids with gay parents and kids with alcoholic parents and guess who's more well adjusted?
"And are now confused because it is NOT an acceptable life style?"
Acceptable to whom? Let me tell you, when a kid who grew up with gay parents runs into someone like you, the most confusing thing is trying to understand what your problem is.
"The young mind is so impreasionable that it is way to easy to sway."
"Nor do I have fear of "gays""
"I just don't think they should be in a position (job/profession) where they can further the beliefs of their lifestyle."
"Nor do I have fear of "gays""
"First of all, explain to me how saying that gay scout leaders are a threat is not tacitly equating gays to pediphiles?"
Well let's see, men commit the vast majority of child abuse. 3% of the population is gay, but one-third of the victims are male. Thus, homosexuals are 10 times more likely to be child molesters.
BTW, pedophilia is still regarded as a mental disorder.
Heterosexual men are usually steared away from teaching in the lower grades. More so nowadays, than when we were in grade school. So some of the thinking w.r.t. male teachers teaching HS females is already in effect for the lower grades.
HS proper? OK interesting point, guess heterosexual men have the advantage of being in the mathematical 'norm'.
First off, thanks Zimo for your posts, I'm glad I'm not the only one that tries to make others understand what some families have to go through because of their vote.
ACTivist, That's a real raciest remark…."I would never go for a teacher who is homosexual teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle"…. That's like me saying, "I would never go for a teacher who is Christian teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle"
Everyone is different; I've had people reject me for daycare positions because I am of color, why? Because they didn't want me to "influence" their children and having them listen to as they put it, "my kind of music" "my way of eating" and "my way of dressing" same thing ACTivist, same thing. No matter how you slice it, it's bigotry to the root!
Puft, "Activist, seriously. Yeah, you have no fear of gays, you just think they pose a threat to our children and the fabric of society and as such they need to be silenced. " Yes, I do. I don't think they need to be silenced other than when in a position dealing with children. That's MY belief.
"First of all, explain to me how saying that gay scout leaders are a threat is not tacitly equating gays to pediphiles?"
Because I say so.
"next, using your line of reasoning, explain to me why we let hetro males teach high school classes with females students."
I don't know that the public school allows all female classes with male only teachers (certainly not gym). If they do that in private school (and they do), you can see that it is a path to disaster and we hear about it. Then again, I also believe that the church should clean out its petiphile/homosexual priests ( that one sure doesn't look good, does it).
"Acceptable to whom? Let me tell you, when a kid who grew up with gay parents runs into someone like you, the most confusing thing is trying to understand what your problem is."
Exactly my point!
As your bunny shows (being as it is facing, not crossing the line), I guess I didn't either. Puft, there are too many things becoming acceptable that are tearing the fabric of society apart. My beliefs are what they are and I apologize to no one for them. There are things that will always be unacceptable to me and that won't change. That is from my up-bringing and God. We'll have to disagree for now.
BeACTivist, That's a real raciest remark…."I would never go for a teacher who is homosexual teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle"…. That's like me saying, "I would never go for a teacher who is Christian teaching my child that there is nothing wrong with that lifestyletty,"
If that is what you believe then say that. You get to make those choices. Racist? You are sounding like zippo. I may look ignorant to you from your side of the fence just the same as you may look to me. Because I don't take your understanding and beliefs this makes me racist and bigoted? I can only wonder what the lima beans think of me because I don't like the taste but I do like the green beans.
Linda, It doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, or how you personally view a particular person, or group; When you try to prevent people from protecting their family, I'm sorry but that IS hateful!
Linda, I'm sorry but the "you" wasn't aimed at "you" I should have wrote "anyone" sorry for that..
Who's trying to prevent anyone from protecting his family?
Oh, yeah, the gun-banner liberals!
Jack, people who signed that hateful marriage amendment. Before you respond, it would be best to read some of the posts that have been going back and fourth.
Your slam was un warranted to the conversation.
Boo-hoo. The marriage amendment WAS hateful -- of sin. What does it have to do with protecting your family, anyway?
If you read the post you would know I have a gay daughter, and for YOUR information mister Jack, marriage has "nothing" to do with religion, it's a license granted by the state.
I read the post. So you have a gay daughter. Why does that make you special?
The state regulates marriage, and the people of the state make the rules. Would you have the state open marriage to everyone? Should siblings be allowed to marry?
Jack you are being totally ridiculous with that comment and you know it!
This Country is about liberty and Justice FOR ALL not just a few or those who believe in a particular religion. When your religious beliefs infringe on my families rights, you better be ready for a fight…By the way I'm sure you've heard of the separation of church and state.
And no Jack the people of the state don't' make all the rules, that's why we have elected officials. If that were the case some states in the south might still have segregation in place and you know it!
Now you are going off the deep end. Who do you think puts the 'elected officials' in office? The people of the state, as if you did not know.
Marriage is regulated by the state, but, it is an institution far older than the state. Therefore it comes with historical traditions that preceed and trump in my mind the perogatives of the state. The stated original purpose of Marriage was the union of man and woman in order to facilitate the creation and rearing of children (the whole point behind the honeymoon was to kick start the process) in a 'till death do us part' institution. It is a recent and hopefully fleeting phenomina that the status of marriage has been reduced to that of a tax bracket.
Frankly I would prefer if the state got out of the marriage business. But it is the world we live in.
The people of the State also voted (overwhelmingly) for the Marriage Amendment. The elected officials were doing their jobs -- representing the people.
You still haven't told me what the Marriage Amendment has to do with one's being unable to protect his family.
"it�s a license granted by the state." Thanks Betty. This is the key. The state, which is supposed to represent all citizens, has an obligation not to be exclusive. This marriage amendment isn't democracy in action; it's mod rule.
It's a bit funny that Linda is posting about the anti-gay activists not being hateful right alongside this guy who even calls himself ACtivist who's going on about the dangers that gays pose to our children.
so it's not that you're afraid of gays, and you're not equating them to pedophiles, you're just worried that they might molest your kids.
you're a homophobe, by definition. I'm not asking you to apologize for your beliefs, just own up to them.
"Because I say so." ?? oh please. I'd say you're pretty much down for the count.
"Well let's see, men commit the vast majority of child abuse. 3% of the population is gay, but one-third of the victims are male. Thus, homosexuals are 10 times more likely to be child molesters."
This wins the award for most unconvincing statistics-based argument ever.
it's also implying that anyone who would want to have sex with boys is be homosexual, so you're still lumping gays in with pedophiles.
first of all, where did this 3% number come from? 2nd, it's nonsense to assume that child molesters who abuse boys come from the same segment of the population that identifies as gay.
You could make the same kind of claim that heterosexuals are a threat to society because girls have been molested by men before. This is just looking for anything you can use to support an anti-gay position. It's a bullshit argument, and honestly it's starting to make me queezie
Betty wrote, "When you try to prevent people from protecting their family, I'm sorry but that IS hateful!"
I disagree. Those who voted for the marriage amendment may have acted out of many motivations, including:
(1) fear
(2) desire to protect their own families and communities from something they believe to be unnatural/sinful/risky/whatever
(3) desire to maintain tradition
... and I am sure there are many others I have not thought of off the top of my head.
I am not saying all of these are rational motivations, just that they are not necessarily rooted in hate.
I wonder, though, if maybe you prefer to believe people hate your daughter, if maybe it is easier for you to vilify these folks as hate mongerers than to consider the possibility that they might be good people who disagree with you.
I would ask that you consider that possibility.
I hope you will continue to fight for what you believe and call your opposition out when they make claims you find unreasonable, but if you reduce the issue to "it's hate," I don't think you'll be as effective as you might if you try to understand the other side and work from there.
"Mod rule"? Is that like the Mods vs. the Rockers from 1960's England?
The 3% number comes from several sources. One is a 1992 NYT poll. Another is a Guttmacher survey, taken in 1991, of 3300 men, in which only 2.3% had a same-sex experience in the past 10 years.
Let me try to work it out so that even a liberal can understand. A man is male. A boy is male. Man-boy sex is a same-sex activity. The Greek word for "same" is "homo." Thus, man-boy sexual activity is homosexual activity. Therefore, the man is homosexual -- otherwise, he'd be molesting girls.
I am sorry that logic and mathematics make you queezie. I guess that's why you're a liberal.
it's not the math. The math is just wrong. It's this endless talk about man-boy sex that's disturbing...
"Therefore, the man is homosexual -- otherwise, he'd be molesting girls."
what a joke! Are people who identify as gay, or who lead a "gay lifestyle" the same people who are molesting boys? Parsing the meaning of greek words is not relevant. I think you know that.
2.3 percent had, or ADMITTED to having? NYT poll? seriously?
So what you're saying Jacob is that if a married couple can not have children they shouldn't wed – right?
Jack, if my daughter finds women that she is devoted to for the rest of her life, without a marriage license they do not have the same hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and over 1000 others. Jack, you know what I'm talking about don't be so coy.
"so it's not that you're afraid of gays, and you're not equating them to pedophiles, you're just worried that they might molest your kids."
Puft, I think you being off your blood pressure medicine is affecting your vision. Show me ANYTHING where I said I was afraid of homosexuals molesting my kids? Maybe you are thinking of what Jack said. I don't want them in teaching positions where they can influence kids about their lifestyle. It is the indoctrination of youth that I am concerned with. I didn't tacitly equate anything-you did. Scout leaders are teaching positions also. Originally I mentioned not putting pediphiles as scout leaders. Your assumptions run amuck. Read. If you need clarification, I'll give you that. I know what I meant and stated it. You just want to believe something else.
OK, puffalump, explain the errors in my math.
BB -- Inheritance rights? Write a will. (Married people write wills, too.)
Hospital Visitation Rights? A Power of Attourney can fix that right up -- you don't even need a lawyer.
Get real, Betty.
Jack, what's wrong is you mislabel your answers.
"man-boy sexual activity is homosexual activity. Therefore, the man is homosexual"
what you're doing is exploiting the fact that words have multiple meanings. You go from using a technical definition of homosexual to using homosexual to refer to gays in general. You prefer to think of someone who molests boys as a homosexual rather than a pedophile.
answer these questions:
Are people who identify as gay, or who lead a "gay lifestyle" the same people who molest boys? Parsing the meaning of greek words is not relevant. I think you know that.
2.3 percent had, or ADMITTED to having?
act: what did you mean by:
"A homosexual as a Scoutmaster? Do you work for Levi Strauss?"
If you've got better numbers, puffalump, put them up. Put up or shut up.
A man who molests boys a is both a pedophile and a homosexual. A man who molests girls is a both a pedophile and a heterosexual. A homosexual is ten times as likely to be a pedophile also.
The reason dejour for marriage was to have children. People usually did not find out that they were barren until after marriage. Barren couples in some cultures were pitied. In other cultures, if the couple failed to have children then a divorce could ensue.
Jack, my time is too valuable to waste it on ignorant close minded individuals like you!
Jack answered your concerns regarding inheritance and visitation. Are you interested in the right to inherit and visit or is marriage the end all and be all?
Jacob, Jack didn't answer my concerns; he only addressed a couple of examples. There are hundreds of state laws and over 1,100 federal laws that provide protections, rights and responsibilities to married individuals and couples.
Only marriage brings a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. The word itself is a fundamental protection and it represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people, understood by all. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.
As a typical liberal, you resort to ad hominem attacks when you do not have a legitimate argument.
I have addressed the concerns you pointed out. Your assertion that "[only] marriage brings a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections" is patently false. CONTRACTS provide those as well. I can only think of one single legal right that marriage provides that contracts cannot -- I'll leave it to you to see whether you can figure out what it is. Even so, there is a simple way around that problem, too.
If you want gay marriage so badly, go to Canada.
That's good Jack, I'll tell my daughter to go get 1000 + contracts written and tell my son that instead of him marring his girlfriend to do the same, ok?
As always, your rebuttal is TOTTALY ridiculous! By the way, so goes Massachusetts so goes the nation; same-sex marriage WILL happen throughout the country, its evolution Jack, face reality instead of your own stupidity!
She doesn't need 1000+ contracts. That is a BS exaggeration put out by the homosexual lobby. One or two will probably cover everything relevant.
Your assertions regarding Massachusetts may or may not be correct. Considering the success of Marriage Amendments throughout the nation -- I do not expect that the nation will sink to such depravity in my lifetime, and I will do my part to see that it does not.
(BTW, use a possessive before a gerund so you don't sound like an ignoramus. Furthermore, you might consider upgrading to the latest version of Internet Explorer -- it has a built-in spell-checker.)
You don't need a 1000 contracts, that is a myth perpetrated by your side of the argument to bring us back to marriage and only marriage. Write the contract as the need arises. You will find the number far less than 1000.
As for Mass, being the cultural weather vein, God forbid! You can't prove it any way. So each of us can hope.
As for Jack's alleged stupidity, he has from what I can see addressed your concerns in his usual warm fussy way. Calling him stupid is not only incorrect, it demeans Betty Black. Don't go zimzo on us, please.
"I wonder, though, if maybe you prefer to believe people hate your daughter, if maybe it is easier for you to vilify these folks as hate mongerers than to consider the possibility that they might be good people who disagree with you. I would ask that you consider that possibility."
Once again Linda you seem unable to listen to what Betty is saying without being condescending. How dare you say that she "prefers to believe people hate." Have you ever considered the possibility that these "good people" are perhaps not as good as you think? What do you think homophobia means? It means fear of gay people. Fear is what motivates bigotry. Go to a website like the Traditional Values Coalition's or the American Family Association's and tell me honestly it is not full of hate. Read some of the other comments on this blog from people like Jack, Jacob, ACTivist and Sophrosyne and tell me they are not motivated by fear and hatred. Look at your own disparaging use of code words like the "gay lifestyle" and "gay activists" and your recoiling from using the word "support" for Betty. Why can't you support the right of another human being to live their lives as they choose when it has no bearing on your life whatsoever. What is it you think anti-gay marriage activists "fear"? What "threats" do they perceive? What kind of "traditions" do they seek to uphold other than the tradition to consider gays as second-class citizens? Why do you make excuses for their fear and bigotry and attack Betty who has been the victim of their attitudes? You say you are a "live and let live" kind of person. Does that include looking the other way when some people don't want to let other people live and let live or does that make you an accomplice?
Zim, You are unable to listen to what I am saying without being condescending, so at least we're even on that count.
I am NOT saying there is NO hate. I AM saying that the majority of Virginia voters voted for the marriage amendment and I don't believe that the majority of them did so out of hate. If you believe the majority of voters are hateful people, well, I think that is sad.
I make no excuses for those who do participate in vitriolic attacks. My point is not to sweep the hatred that does exist under a rug, but to state my belief that those people are in the minority.
I do think many people, maybe even most, prefer to believe the worst about their opposition rather than trying to understand them. In fact, I would "condescend" to say that about myself in many instances. On either side of any given issue, it is unproductive.
I specifically put "gay lifestyle" in quotes because that is what anti-gay activists call it and I was addressing their feelings on it. I make no apologies for "gay activists" (except that really what I meant was "activists who advocate for the gay cause" not that they are necessarily gay themselves, so maybe "the gay activist movement" would have been more apt).
I did not *recoil* from the word "support" ... I know plenty of folks who do support gay marriage rights and I find nothing offensive about that ... but I did not want to overstate my personal position, which falls short of that word. Sorry, I know I will not make you happy unless I can say I "support" it, but at this point, I do not explicitly support it.
As I said, I realize that fear is not a rational motivation, and I do know that it can lead to hatred, but I don't think the two are synonymous. You may feel that is semantics, but I do see a distinction.
"Homophobe" is a label liberals liks to use in ad hominem attacks, so that they can avoid a reasoned argument which they cannot win. Other favorites are "bigot" and "racist."
No, zimzo, they do not want "to live their lives as they choose when it has no bearing on your life whatsoever," they want us to affirm their choices and reward them. That is why they want marriage -- to get that affirmation.
Nothing short of unconditional surrender would satisfy zimzo. For him there is no compromise. Nor does he answer questions. He just talks right past you.
Please note that when he cannot convince with his sloganeering, he will insult you by disparaging your intentions. I believe you already have experienced this.
His trump card is where he provides a link, and he appears to think this settles the discussion given the accompanying verbage that comes with the link. I am not sure what he is expecting because you follow the link and poke holes in it, he squeals like stuck pig. You have not yet seen this, but you will.
After the crying, when that fails to silence you he begins the to employ the 'commie mind reading trick'. He will tell you what you were thinking and how everything you say is actually code for something else. (I think you may seen this as well.)
The something else is always hateful and bigoted and zimzo is the truth squad or white knight in his little make believe world.
What he really is an annoying form of thought police and like some blogger version of a fascist Barney Fief, he walks around with an unloaded gun threatening to run you in.
This is done by latching onto one statement, employing the reading comprehension skills of a second grader, and twisting its meaning to the point of being unrecognizable. zimzo then levels a charge against you (you are hateful etc) in his standard outraged tone. You can almost see the .38 shaking in his hand.
Jack, you're a hate monger, have you heard that one yet? I'm sure you'll get me with some kind of blanket come back, you pathetic human being.
Betty some words of advice. First off, Jack / Jacob, same person. You can't argue with them, they're totally close minded, try to move a parked car, same thing. Both are bullies; they try to hit all your buttons. Facts, they use a few, and when they do, they exaggerate them. Remember this, 80% of statistics are made on the spot. They try and put holes in your facts but will absolutely reject yours when you do the same.
They will dispute most if not all of this, or, they wont comment at all, that's the way they work. If they do respond, look at the facts I wrote above, they will use all my examples. I forgot one thing, they love name calling or labeling.
Betty and others, you're wasting your time, while at the same time making them "feel" more powerful when you respond.
Last thing, look at all the names here, you will find that it's the same 4 or 5 people, some (like Jack and Jacob) are the same person, they do this to gang up on a person argument with different angles.
Jacob: LOL.
Alick: "You're a hate monger" ... "blanket statement." Pot ... kettle.
A past blogger: I have met Jacob. I have not met Jack, but I know who he is. They are two different people.
These people aren't worth your time.
By all means, go to the zoo and check out the monkey house every once in a while. It's nice to see a monkey now and then- we don't have our own monkeys, we don't know any monkeys personally and it's sort of novel to see them from time to time. It's almost nice to refresh your memory as to what a monkey looks like.
Go to the zoo, check the monkeys out but try to avoid playing with them too much or you get covered in feces.
Best of luck to you and the family
A past blogger,
I won't speak for others, but if someone is polite and does not make blanket statement like "you're a hate monger" I refrain from that as well.
Humor me in this, show me where someone has been polite, and I have not. I have run over Kevin once or twice but I also apologize to him. SPMM, whom I call Marshamallow almost never gets the zimbat treatment. Does not mean that I don't get under his skin. Can we agree on that at least?
The nastier someone gets, well the nastier I get in responce. It is the law of the jungle. Ignoring personal attacks only goes so far. If you are judging me based on my interaction with zimzo alone, well then I am guilty as you charge.
Please note that AFF has been invited in the past to engage in constructive dialogue. He has yet to take up the offer. Since I am just a monkey in a cage to him, then I hope he has the decency to not be surprised when I throw something smelly at him. If I decide to not to ignore him altogether.
Jacob, I remember our introduction fondly. I believe it was me running over you, though. . .
Jacob: "show me where someone has been polite, and I have not."
Here is Betty's first comment in this thread: "Well – we've been dealing with the Christian agenda for the last 7 years and many are getting sick of it. Gays are part of this nation and have the right to be heard. Let's embrace them instead of alienating them. Heck, how many Christian leaders and anti gay politicians have been caught not practicing what they preach – hypocrisy at its best, that's what we have seen these last 8 years."
Here was Jacob's response: "Betty,
You exhibit what I see as classic liberal ignorance, hypocrisy is NOT extolling an ideal and failing to live up to it. Go find a dictionary."
Yeah. That was real polite.
Alick -- thank you, I had forgotten to add "hate monger" to the list of ad hominem attacks the liberals like to use.
You libs are great -- just when I say zimzo goes for the ad hominem attacks with "racist," "homophobe," and "bigot," you libs jump in with yet more, offering not one shred of evidence or logic to support your Weltanschauung.
I really do appreciate how you libs feed my superiority complex.
See, what did I tell ya? Jack did EXCALLY what I said he would do and will continue to do if you let him. HA HA HA!!!! Jack you are SO amusing and predictable! LOL!!!!!!
Glad I could provide you with a little entertainment, PB!
Lets take this slow. OK?
Recall that Betty has posted here before, do you remember "So how much support does the KKK actually give this site?" I am sure you think this is real sweet, but I am of a different mind.
Betty was pulling out the ol' "you hateful Christian's canard", and "Christian agenda" spiel with Jack in earlier postings. So before I wrote "You exhibit what I see as classic liberal ignorance, hypocrisy is NOT extolling an ideal and failing to live up to it. Go find a dictionary." I had seen more than her one relatively innocuous comment above.
It takes a few comments before I get my back up. Everyone is entitled to a bad day. But she was falling into a pattern so I responded. Do you see what I am getting at up to this point at least? I am not asking for you to agree, that might kill you, but only that do you get the logic train.
BTW, I back pedaled when she mentioned her kid. Justifying your own sin is one thing, standing up for your child is another. I even said as much, see above.
You where first? I still have the t-shirt with the tire tracks, but I thought I was first. Next time I am gonna back up!
Guess I also can take back one apology now? Obviously one of the times I ran you over, it MUST have been revenge! ;-)
You left something out and so pathetic!!!
I feel sorry for him actually, it must be so sad being Jack
Jacob, your August 19, 8:55 am post was a thing of genius. Thank you. And the world thanks you.
Glad you have joined us here at nova, care to say something other than your opinion of Jack as a person?
It was Sunday, and I was inspired.
C'mon, Jacob, you're expecting reasoned discourse from a liberal? How much wine did they give you at that holy-roller church, anyway? ;-)
Puft, http://www.saveourscouts.com/hall.html, go to this link and read.
Because of the way that Levi Strauss bullied and the way The United Way knuckled under, I won't buy Levi's and I won't contribute thru the United way.
AFF, Monkeys? I am so happy that you are entertained. One thing I would not and could not do would be to "ape" your style of dialog (pun intended).
Jacob, thing of beauty. I think a .38 is a bit small for zippo at times. More like a howitzer so that he can blanket the whole area.
Don't take it too hard, ACTivist. To the libs, we are all just hairless monkeys, and the morality of the monkeys is the height of their spiritual aspirations.
saying we're not hairless monkeys doesn't make it true
I didn't say it, did I?
I keep reading Jack's ridiculous come backs using the bible as his source for information.
The bible is a book written by people who did not have nearly as much education as we do now, who made some guesses based on their own ignorance about what should and should not be.
Let's keep in mind this was THOUSANDS of years ago! If a new interpretation of the bible were written today, it would be decidedly different based on the information of today, and a modern perception of God. You are a bigot Jack, plain and simple, and please stop spewing your ignorance because you are afraid of the reality that the world had changed. Well unfortunately for you it has, I suggest you move with it. "
Oh and Jacob, thanks for welcoming me here with open arms. LOL!!!
I write about Jack so that others will know the type of person they are dealing with before they decide to challenge him. His mind is closed, no matter how many facts you throw at him he tosses his own fabricated ones at you. He's a real piece of work that Jack.
When have you posted a fact, Dumbalick, and when have I fabricated one?
Wow, a lot has been written since I was away. I appreciate some of you that have given me some insight on Jack; you're right, he is a bully and does throw stuff out there without checking or understanding all the facts.
I will try to refrain from calling people names, if I offended anyone, I am sorry. I say this because I was offended by some that attacked my family. I can not feed into some of the hateful messages that have been posted here, I can only pray that those people find God and accept that we are all his people.
It's an old saying but true, don't criticize until you've walk in another persons shoes. Also, don't be so close-minded, listen to what others say and stop with the hate filled attacks. If I attacked just know I was reacting to the bullets that came my way.
Remember, we are ALL different in one way or another, embrace diversity, don't stomp on it. As someone else wrote (here or on another blog) it's liberty and justice for all, not just a few.
Open arms?! Sure why not, we let anyone play in our park so why not you. As for bigotry, you look like an expert from where I am standing.
Just because someone follows the writing of the Bible, it does not make them a bigot. You show scant tolerance yourself. It is with those whom you disagree that patience is needed. Given what you have thus far written, you don't appear have any.
You seem very cock sure as a matter of fact. Interesting thing is you have not offered up a single fact, or roiginal view point. Yup, you are real impressive, Alick. Aside from name calling and claiming the Bible would oh so different today, could you take the time explain why?
Can you at least demonstrate some wit, and live up to the smart-alick moneker you have claimed for yourself?
And still the libs go on with the ad hominem attacks, having nothing left in their arsenal. So, BB, can YOU give an example of my "[throwing] out there without checking or understanding all the facts"?
Another classic is that "we are all God's people." Sure we are -- all the people were invited to the feast, but the one who did not change for the party was thrown out (Matthew 22). It's not a come-as-you-are party, BB.
Jacob, The Bible is a JOKE as are its followers. One day people will laugh at it - so much more to be spending our time on - life on Titan, one of Saturn's moons, space exploration, etc. The bible helped the ignorant, but it's time to bury it for good. "
I, for one, am glad we have more libs on the blog -- it was getting a bit dull with just zimzo and puffalump as the only, meager fodder for my superiority complex.
I, for one, am glad to come to a site filled with ultra conservative right-wing radical extremists, they are such a treat to feed on – ha ha ha ha!!!
As I stated Jack, you are a bully; I will no longer feed your self-made superiority complex.
Great, Alick -- we're both happy!
I'll miss you, BB -- you were delicious!
Alick -- what is more important than one's soul?
Titan? No, it is Enceladus. It is the gravitational pull of Titan and the other Saturn moons that causes tidal heating of Enceladus, keeping the water inside liquid. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11736311/
(BTW, I have 39 graduate credits in Computational Astrophysics. Again, thanks for feeding my superiority complex.)
I wish I could say the same about you Jack, you're just too bitter.
The Bible (you did capitalize it) is a joke and so are its followers. You probably have always had a good understanding why things haven't gone totally right in your life. You will undoubtably be able to rationalize why they still don't go right in your future. Remember this-while you still live there is always hope. But when you hit that brick wall and things go black (as is probably your belief of death) that light that turns on again is your PONR. That means too late for you. You just keep playing with yout X-BOX and let life pass you by!
Poor poor Jack, always looking to prove someone wrong with misleading facts.
Don't be bitter and stop being a bully. Facts should be sufficient. Just the facts, Jack-just the facts. Computational Astrophysics? Well done!
Things have gone my way, a long way, I am quite grateful for the life I have, I don't need to read / follow a book written by man thousands of years ago to fulfill me. I feel for you, a person who needs a manual to get through life, a manual filled with fairytales, so sad you can't think on your own. So sad ;(
well said Betty, well said! a bitter ol queen that Jack! LOL!!!
Nothing new under the sun. That includes you, Alick. The "book" tells of yesterday, today and tomorrow. I have no regrets having a manual that plans my future. Boy Scout motto-"be prepared".
Try this religion, it's right up there with your book. oh, and your president praises them too! he he he he
Explain something to me, Alick: You (apparently) do not believe in God, because you say the Bible is a joke, but you say you are grateful. TO WHOM are you grateful if there is no God?
Betty -- "Everything's better with CoolWhip!"
There you go again Jack, typical, distorting the facts.
I never ONCE said I didn't believe in God, there are many other religions and beliefs out there you know, didn't you learn that in all the years you went to school?
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You have a little knowledge, very little, and you scream it from the top of your lungs.
The truths in the Bible, if you would bother to read it are truths regarding human nature. Human nature does not change. Human nature is universal, and is something people have studied for as long as there have been people.
In short, we are as greedy, and murderous today as we were 2000 or 3000 years ago. Do you agree or disagree with this point I am making?
The only difference is the technology we have today makes it possible for us to be more efficient with respect to killing and generating wealth.
Do you think that a man born today is inherently more or less noble than one born 2000 yeas ago? The Bible addresses ones heart. The heart is no different today than it was back then. Which is why a modern Cain kills Abel with a rifle or a missile instead of a rock or a club.
A quick question Alick, do you know anything about psychology? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.
"The Bible is a JOKE as are its followers."
A wonderful description of your heart, are you sure you are open minded?
Since the Bible does not live up to your standards, as you see it as beneath you if it is a Joke? What text would you recommend instead of the Bible, when it comes to understanding God?
Now, are all folks who read the Bible ignorant as you stated? Or were you careless in your choice of words?
That's why I asked you to explain it, Alick. So, in which God DO you believe?
Jack, my God is within me, like a microchip that was placed in a piece of electronics.
I have an inner knowledge of him, one that is not written, just understood. This might seem difficult to some, but once you let go and feel his love and guidance, you'll understand.
You are dead wrong with respect to your
"or YOUR information mister Jack, marriage has "nothing" to do with religion, it's a license granted by the state."
Marriage was around long before we had the state. And you know this. It is therefore more than a just license. I recommend YOU read what is posted. Also having a historical perspective longer than 30 years might help as well.
Marriage was the human institution set up to create and raise children. Creating children in a homosexual partnership is impossible for obvious, biological reasons. So why get married if you cannot even try to have children your partner.
Marriage was something respected across political borders and it is only recently in human history that the state began to issue licenses in this matter. Again a larger perspective might be helpful.
Not at all, Alick -- in fact, the Bible mentions those that have the Law "written on their hearts." (Romans 2:13-16)
Perhaps you should consider reading the Bible after all.
was having fun reading all the posts, so now there is one for me?
Jacob, marriage is not about procreation, if that was the case, people not wanting children or can't have them for medical or age reasons shouldn't marry to your point. By the way, I responded to this last week.
Thank you for an honest answer. I wonder if you realize with that theological system or doctrine, God comes out looking a lot like the guy you see in the mirror. Face it, what else can God wind up being in that circumstance?
No thank you Jack, I don't need it.
You keep mistaking the exception for the rule. Historically if a couple wanted children the got married. This was the institutional vehicle.
He's all around us Jacob, look around, he's everywhere, even in the mirror, he's beautiful!
So you criticize a book you have never read? Do you normally offer strong opinions on topic about which you are ignorant?
Lets move to the another item, if those who read the Bible are a joke as well, how many such people do you know personally?
Unfortunate as it may be no one will ever change your mind, I can tell.
I must go to bed now and watch big love on HBO.
Night all!
"He's all around us Jacob, look around, he's everywhere, even in the mirror, hes beautiful!"
That is the first statement you have made that I agree with. And I really like it.
But is does beg the question ... while God is beautiful and perfect, are you, and is your vision undistorted?
And how are YOU any different?
You sound like Jack, I never said I haven't read the bible, I was brought up catholic and went to CCD for many years, I'm in recovery now. LOL!!
When I got older my mind questioned the teaching / reading of this book, you have the capability too Jacob, hopefully someday you'll realize that before it's too late.
Betty, Big Love, I love that show, lucky for me I have TiVo
not at all Jacob, I love him and what I see, I am happy to know him as I do.
Jacob, I think you need to address your questions specifically to which Alick you want the answer from. If he isn't of split personality he has to be of two faces.
I can only read what you write please note ...
Perhaps you should consider reading the Bible after all.
No thank you Jack, I don't need it.
It is a reasonable thing to think you have not read the Bible based upon that exchange.
Was raised Catholic myself. Did not start reading the Bible in its entirety till AFTER I left the Church. I found the teaching of the RCC and the Bible to be different.
As for questioning I do so continuously, but a man is not an island Alick, look outside yourself "before it's too late".
no, I have a soul that come out from time to time
Normally when we have fewer comments per second we don't talk past one another quiet for much. All things considered, frankly, I think Alick has been doing fine with the questions for the most part. I don't think he has been dodging, he is who he is.
What do you see?
you wrote:
"no, I have a soul that come out from time to time" again in English please, and expand.
"Dr. Jimmy and Mr. Jim
Most times I don't notice him
He only comes out when I drink my gin."
-The Who
jacob, a couple hypothesis disguised as facts:
"Human nature does not change. Human nature is universal,"
you can't know this in any scientific sense. Maybe you believe it (and that belief would likely stem from your belief in the bible in general), that's fine.
"Marriage was the human institution set up to create and raise children."
I know anthro is for hippies, but give it a chance
First, puffalump, we must clarify what you mean by "in any scientific sense." If you mean that one can apply the scientific method of repeated, controlled experiments, then you are correct. In that sense, anthropology cannot be a science, nor can archeology, economics, sociology, or astrophysics. If you mean taking the observations that one has and creating hypotheses that fit those observations, and looking for observations that run counter to those hypotheses, then they can be.
Given that assumption, and the observations provided by literature of many cultures going back thousands of years, we see in all such literature jealousy, greed, love, hatred, loyalty, and heroism. In fact, I can see no qualities in modern man whatsoever that did not exist in ancient writings. The hypothesis that "human nature does not change" seems to fit the observations quite well. Do you have any observations which run counter to that hypothesis?
Moving on to marriage and anthropology, and looking for observations that will counter Jacob's hypothesis, can you give us an example of any historical culture which has had marriage and in which it was considered acceptable to have children out of wedlock?
"you can't know this in any scientific sense. Maybe you believe it (and that belief would likely stem from your belief in the bible in general), that's fine."
While I certainly cannot reproduce any experiment for obvious reasons lets look at some known facts, some of these facts are even quantifiable:
1. murder is present in just about every culture
2. adultery is present
3. envy
4. greed
5. theft
6. people lie the world over
7. charity
8. nobility
9. love
The list is not complete, but you see where I am going. The only difference is the frequency at which the above occur. Which is why every culture has a set of laws, either written or unwritten, and a means pf enforcing these laws.
Direct observation, coupled with some statistics in order to quantify what is observed is the first step in science. Humans being have been observing and quantifying for a long time, and frankly at this point Psychology has applied some rigor to the quantification. What is interesting is how much in common people have across the world. That is not to say different cultures do not produce different outcomes, but all cultures are dealing with the same endemic problems.
Now that looks pretty universal to me. I can quantify this as well, actually I am sure someone else already has.
Furthermore based on historical texts both extra-Biblical (the Illiad or Livy's "Early History of Rome") and Biblical it appears that human motivations have not changed much since the dawn of history. One can comb through many historical and mythological texts and find the same issues confronting man in all of these stories. This also can be quantified in cogent manner.
Which brings me back to The fundamental human condition has not changed since the time of Cain and Abel.
As an aside ...
As a manual on humanity the Bible in my estimate does a very good job at describing human behavior and compunctions both noble and ignoble. It is also a fantastic book for the purpose of introspection.
The Bible is God inspired and authored. But even if you do not believe this, and claim it is the handiwork of man, it has many hundreds of years of observation rolled up into its pages. Face it back then we had fewer distractions (no xbox, tv or RV's), and life was harsher. This demanded that an understanding of Uncle Ben's twitchiness, because failure to understand could have fatal consequences.
nicely put.
It's not his dodging the questions but what he is saying. I am wondering how Alick got the word of God? If he was brought up Catholic and studied the Bible, I would surmize this is his root learning. But then he shuns the Bible as fairytale and states that God is within him and teaching him everything. Now, from what I have learned, that inner knowledge is EXACTLY how Satan works. Unless he got the word of God from osmosis or epiphany (I don't pretend to have all knowledge of how God works) I believe his teachings are of the book and that he has had a change of mind. Dicotomy. Which is the real Alick? Is my observation that far off?
First, it is critical that we clear up a common misunderstanding of Christians: that one must believe in Jesus to be saved. This brings up the also-common anti-Christian retort, "Are you saying that Ghandi is going to Hell?" We obviously do not know the answer to that question, but Paul tell us, as I quoted earlier, that some "Gentiles" have the Law written on their hearts. Well, who would write God's Law on their hearts except God/Jesus/TheHolyGhost? Thus, it is indeed through Jesus that they can be saved, even though they do not know His name.
So now the question arises, "How does one know whether it is God or Satan that has written on their hearts?" The answer is that God's Law is no different if written in a book or written on one's heart. If the two conflict, then it is a safe assumption that what is written on one's heart is not of God.
The problem is that Satan is extremely subtle. His lies are not outright lies, generally, but distortions of the truth, so that they are easier to believe. In the case of same-sex marriage, Satan has taken what is right and good, Holy Matrimony and one's desire for his spouse, and perverted that into something sinful. By convolving sex with love, as is proper within marriage, Satan has convinced people that, if there is love, then sex is not sinful outside of marriage. It is not love that sanctifies sex, but marriage, which Jesus tells us plainly is for a male and female (Matthew 19 and Mark 10).
I told Alick that by only seeking god from within oneself one will find oneself in the place of God.
Satan does not need to lift a finger in this matter, the person in question is doing all the work for him.
To push the matter at that point would be for the most part fruitless. Brian Withnell(sp?) very correctly pointed out that the argument becomes one of opposing axioms. As such there can be no 'winner' or 'loser' in the argument.
Therefore to continue would only breed bitterness and anger. Which is a sin on my part. We are called to care for all, especially those who are lost. I cannot convince Alick, or Betty they are lost, because we do not share the same premises with me or other believers.
If the premises are that different, logic and wit will not suffice.
I did ask Alick to expand on his last comment, which was unintellible, but he has chosen not to.
Please face reality. You've already lost. Just look at the desperate measures anti-gay activists will take; announcing that they are married to somebody of the opposite sex because "it never hurts to say that these days", joining with Iran and Syria to propose national legislation opposing same-sex marriage, interfering with the majority of fortune 500 companies, calling out the state police to interfere with prayer vigils, lying about conservative assimilating couples ( http://www.equalityloudoun.org/2007/08/01/a-season-of-sin/ ), conducting push polls, parading their own children in incestuous mock weddings, ... It's very funny to watch the spectacle. Please keep it up.
"you already lost"
LOL, of course!
Why did I not see that? I will go home now, thanks. I guess I can cancel the incestuous wedding and buy a bass boat.
Jonathan, that would explain all the Marriage Amendments that have passed with overwhelming majorities recently!
I looked at your link (and I highly recommend that others do, too -- I got the last word!) and I see nothing about "conservative assimilating couples" there? What's that about, anyway?
Considering that YOUR side wants to force Fortune 500 companies to grant benefits to "partners," how is it WE want to "interfere" with them?
So Iran, Syria, and the United States have laws about same-sex marriage. So what? Are ALL laws passed in Iran and Syria wrong by definition? Is it really so surprising and horrible that two off-shoots of Judaism have some values in common?
Jacob -- Forget the bass boat, too few seats. With your family, your need this: http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/boa/396827674.html
Jack, I think we are agreeing that such a statement about human nature can only be a hypothesis, and not a given, as it was presented...
Jacob, "As a manual on humanity the Bible in my estimate does a very good job at describing human behavior and compunctions both noble and ignoble. It is also a fantastic book for the purpose of introspection."
Sure. I don't want to argue that there is no such thing as Human Nature. I just wanted to point out that the existence of an unchanging human nature is debatable. Philosopher types have been debating what or if human nature is for quite some time. Sure you can make a list of things like eating and screwing. Is that what you mean by human nature? (are you sure about murder being part of human nature? If so, how do you figure?)
Of course there's no way to make an argument about whether the human condition (which we seem to be using interchangeably with the term human nature) is the same for people today as it was for Cain and Able. We don't really have an exhaustive autobiography, do we?
In the Old T., what we have is a legend that was passed down for who knows how many generations. Even if it is an authentic account of historical figures, it's little more than an impression. And the thing about impressions is they're very much open to interpretation.
It could be argued that it's human nature to make the abstract familiar -- Show a person 2 dots and a curved line and they'll say it's a face. Can you be sure that you're interpreting what was, and not searching for familiarity in an ancient story?
the point is we don't know. if you want to believe that human nature is unchanging, and that the bible is a valuable aid in understanding it, that's great. I'm not arguing with you. One doesn't have to believe that the entire text represents the inspired word of g-d to recognize that there is wisdom in the bible.
"I just wanted to point out that the existence of an unchanging human nature is debatable."
Then try -- show some evidence that human nature has changed in the last 5000 years. Yes, it is a hypothesis that human nature has not changed in 5000 years. The way to disprove a hypothesis is to present evidence that does not fit the hypothesis. Saying, "it's just a hypothesis" is not debate. (BTW, a hypothosis that has remained established through many tests is called a theory, and a theory that has remained so established is called a law. Even Newton's Laws of Motion, though demonstrably false in some regions, is valid enough for the majority of cases to be called a Law. Einstein's Theories of Relativity, although corrections to Newton's Laws, still have not passed enough scrutiny to be called Laws.)
"Philosopher types have been debating what or if human nature is for quite some time."
True, but I cannot think of any such philosopher that has argued that human nature has changed over the centuries. Can you?
Jack says:
"A man who molests boys a is both a pedophile and a homosexual. A man who molests girls is a both a pedophile and a heterosexual. A homosexual is ten times as likely to be a pedophile also."
I'm sorry, Jack, but this is simply incorrect. I understand that your expertise is in computational astrophysics, not psychology, and you have no knowledge of the actual diagnostic criteria for pedophilia (a genuine disorder); you are just making up what seems logical from your point of view. Here is the information that you are missing. Pedophiles are people who have an attraction to pre-pubertal children. Usually, they have a specific "type" to which they are attracted, based on gender and/or age, and sometimes other attributes. The vast majority (95+%, IIRC) lead lives as heterosexually married men. There is, however, zero correlation with people who are attracted to adults of the same sex.
As for the idea that a person's behavior affects their lifespan, that is rather obviously true. With regard to sexual behavior, people who are promiscuous put their health at risk more than people who are monogamous. This, of course, is independent of one's sexual orientation. Encouraging monogamy is also a very good argument for marriage equality, especially in light of the fact that the primary purpose of marriage has changed over time. It is now viewed (except by some commenters here) as more about the partnership between the two people involved.
BTW, would you like us to reopen comments on that post?
p.s. This thread would have been a lot shorter without all the useless sniping at each other.
We are in agreement that human nature exists. We disagree as to the overall statistical immutability of our nature. Correct? I will assume yes (I still would like confirmation), and proceed.
BTW, I want to make this a fresh post and will include your reply below and your question above, if you do not mind. This means i can scrub the mess I just wrote as well.
First argument for immutablility of human nature:
There are two schools of thought regarding human origins.
1. Humans were created by G-d, and as such have no reason to change since the fall in the garden of eden.
2. Humans evolved from the apes.
If there are other possible origin scenarios you wish to entertain, please feel free to do so.
I will use the second scenario, as it is the one you are more likely to beleive. This is assumption is based upon a year's worth of argument with you over the existance of G-d etc.
If evolution occurs over millions of years, how can anything about us change in a span of 2000-5000 years? Even with the punctuated equalibrium model, (which is under attack as the gradualists are busy killing it) a change takes many tens of thousands years. From Chimp to Chump it is a ~7M+ year march, according to Leaky.
Given the timespans in play here we are immutable relatively speaking over any 10K year period. The OT Bible was written down ~2.5K years ago, the new testment is 500 years younger.
second argument for immutability of human nature:
You asked what is our nature. You also had questions regarding the veracity of the tales,
There are hundreds of morality tales in man's written and oral history. All of these tales in some way or another are attempts to explain the human condition. Whether the murderers name was Cain or Fred, it does not matter, he killed someone becaause of jelousy. This particular sequence of events, X is murdered by Y because Y is envious happens over and over.
Then there is the old stealing someones wife leads to a big problem tale. King Arthur's Tales, the Illiad, and several parts of the Bible have such tales. Hindu and Chines and American Indians have such tales as well.
These themes revolve around common behavior that is repeated and whose results are repeated, usually ending with someone laying in a pool of blood, with plenty of broken hearts to go around.
Behavior is a function of nature, and environment (external stimulus). Both are in play. Both are difficult to repeat intentionally. But simular external stimuli do lead to similar behaviors.
Please note, I am focusing on bad behavior for no particular reason. Noble behavior also occurs in everyday life as well. And there are tales about it as well.
My hypothesis is that since the tales seem to repeat given themes, time and time again then these themes are universal. Since these themes describe human behavior, then human nature is unversal (statistically across groups).
Since these tales have occured over the course of thousands of years, then it appears that the condition is not changing and therefore for the nature of man is not changing either.
Please note west side story and romeo and julliet, the only difference is the level of technology and about 400 years.
"Pre-pubertal"? I think you mean "prepubescent." Obviously, you don't have much knowledge of the subject yourself.
"The vast majority (95+%, IIRC) lead lives as heterosexually married men. There is, however, zero correlation with people who are attracted to adults of the same sex."
A fine assertion. Did you find that somewhere, or did you just make it up? Please give references. In any event, we know that many homosexuals "lead lives as heterosexually married men." Examples include Bishop Vicki Gene Robinson and that Colorado minister whose name escapes me at present. So even if we accept your statement as fact, it does not show that these pedophiles are not homosexual.
I suspect (granted, with NO evidence -- it is a suspicion) that the reduced life-span of homosexuals can be attributed to the tendency for promiscuity. With that assumption, it is fitting that we discuss monogamous relationships.
"[The] primary purpose of marriage has changed over time..." Really? Upon what do you base this assertion?
"It is now viewed... as more about the partnership between the two people involved."
Then write yourselves a contract and be done with it. Why try to hijack marriage?
"BTW, would you like us to reopen comments on that post?"
It's your blog. Go right ahead.
"This thread would have been a lot shorter without all the useless sniping at each other."
But, mama, that's where the fun is!
Thank you David
I said it is debatable, not that I want to debate it.
but I'll make you a deal: if you give me a working definition of "human nature" I'll keep my eyes open for ways that it's changed over the past 5000 years (as best I can, since we can only resolve the past through modern lenses)
It seems that human nature was seen as a mailable thing by the likes of Hagel, Marx, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Sartre, and of course, Chuck Darwin
Jacob -- according to the biblical revisionists, the nature of homosexuals HAS changed over the centuries. According to some, there were no "committed homosexual relationships" 2000+ years ago, so Paul could not have been speaking of them when he condemned homosexual activity. Apparently, at some unspecified time in the recent past, the Holy Ghost descended upon homosexuals and granted them the ability to love one another.
Yes, thanks David.
And I'm not poking fun but it just struck me as funny, SPMM, the idea of receiving human nature in the mail from Sartre. What a great gift! I know, I know, "malleable".
You're kidding, right? Prepubertal; Before puberty, the period during which secondary sex characteristics start to develop and the capability for sexual reproduction is attained (Source: www.medterms.com). You are way out of your depth with regard to this particular topic. This is not the time for hubris, you will embarrass yourself. I say this as someone who has found you to be receptive to factual information in the past - at least at our blog. You are correct about some gay people living a lie, pretending to be straight, but that is certainly a rapidly shrinking fraction, and in any case has nothing to do with the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia. This disorder BY DEFINITION excludes gay and straight people, whose attraction BY DEFINITION is to other adults.
Btw, I thought that poor Ted Haggard was now "100% heterosexual." It seems that the facts change according to the point you wish to make.
OK -- the docs have come up with another word for prepubescent, which is the word everyone else uses. I'll leave it to you to alert Microsoft to add it to the Internet Explorer spell-checker.
What, may I ask, is YOUR background in this area? I ask because YOUR definition does not match that of the DSM: http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZUZRUZGLC&sub_cat=355#DSMIV_Criteria_for_Pedophilia There is no requirement that one be exclusively attracted to children, as you say. So one can certainly be gay or straight and a pedophile.
We are also discussing not just pedophilia, but adults who have sex with adolescents. NAMBLA is a case in point. I am not aware of a similar organization espousing the elimination of statutory rape laws for Man-girl sexual relationships. Furthermore, the evidence is against you: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html Homosexuals are more likely to have sex with underage partners than are heterosexuals.
When did I say Haggard was "100% heterosexual"?
Just to quote your ridiculous pamphlet:
"– Of 52 child molesters in Ottawa from 1983 to 1985, 31 (60%) were homosexual."
OMG, it's laughable. You know better than that, and the rest of that crap on there, Jack. Geez. Haha ha! You make yourself look so imbecilic.
Why is it "laughable," Kevin?
And furthermore, not that anyone actually cares, the correct term for sexual attraction to post-pubescent adolescents is "ephebophilia" (not "homosexual") and is not listed in the DSM-IV-TR.
HA! Thank you Kevin
"according to some" I've never heard anyone seriously make those arguments
I'll respond to your comment in a new thread. (I'd start it myself but I seem to have misplaced my login info)
You know why it's laughable. Without addressing any claims to the statement's verisimilitude, you don't do statistics that way. In this example, in effect, you are taking a small sample of exactly what you are looking for and generalizing it to a larger population. . .and only by implication at that!
Dave great job with your rebuttals but remember this, Jack only believes HIS stats and facts (which are sometimes flawed); any facts or figures you bring will ALWAYS be questioned by him. It's a one Way Street when dealing with Jack, be careful not to get too worked up.
I'm just sitting back and watching this one.
Thanks for the term, Kevin. I was actually about to ask!
Puffalump, go to the American Anglican Council blog, http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/003403.html , and you will see at least one of the revisionists, Tom Collins, espousing such nonsense. Apparently, this Scroggs fellow he keeps quoting has similar views.
Kevin, you have an interesting point on the statistics. Assuming the numbers are correct, if 3% of the population is homosexual, but 60% of the child molesters are homosexual, then one can conclude either that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters, or that heterosexuals are very good at not getting caught.
Furthermore, although through political pressure the homosexual community got homosexuality removed from the DSM, homosexuals are prone to other mental disorders more than are heterosexuals: http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html So why should that not include pedophilia?
Alick, David presented two "statistics." First, that 95% of pedophiles "lead lives as heterosexually married men." Second, that there is "zero correlation with people who are attracted to adults of the same sex."
For neither assertion did he give sources. I have asked for those sources, and, knowing David, I expect he will provide them in due time.
We am still waiting for you to add any data or logic at all to the discussion.
Anyone who references both NARTH and NAMBLA in an argument against the full inclusion of GLBT people in society has already lost the argument.
It's the law :)
Jack, I'm not going to get into a stats war with you. Even if the 60/40 split were true, even if you could generalize Ottawa to the rest of the world, it wouldn't explain why almost 1/2 of child molesters, according those stats, are hetero. It wouldn't go any further to explain why the group who created that "pamphlet" is misrepresenting the facts; what interest the Family Research Inst. has in doing that. In calling one type of pseudo-scientific research "three kinds of scientific research". . . there is sooo much stuff wrong with the science they are purporting to rely their argument on, as well as the problem they create just by the way they frame the issue, the way they cite their sources, and the fact that the article is essentially ancient in academic standards. Why you continue to rely on them and Narth.com for the sole basis of your specious argument every time is telling. You enjoy wasting people's time. The problem is, people who don't know better, who may not have 1. a grasp on your style of "fun", or 2. the know-how to think critically, are going to take your goof-balling around for fact. And that's particularly problematic about your style and why people rely too easily on the "bigot" word.
David, offering absolutely no contradicting evidence, facts, or logic, you claim I have lost the argument. You must love Nixon -- he, too, declared victory and left. (Which is what the libs want to do in Iraq, BTW: "We ousted Saddam, so we won and we're leaving.")
You may have missed it, but Virginia just amended its constitution to prevent same-sex marriages, and the U.S. has a law to that effect. THAT'S the law.
Kevin, the question is not why half of the child molesters are heterosexual, or even why so many homosexuals are child molesters. The question is, when statistics show that homosexuals are more likely to molest young boys, should groups such as the Boy Scouts be forced to accept homosexual leaders? Should homosexuals be allowed to be drill sergeants in charge of 17-year-old recruits.
You throw out phrases such as "there is sooo much stuff wrong with the science they are purporting to rely their argument on, as well as the problem they create just by the way they frame the issue, the way they cite their sources, and the fact that the article is essentially ancient in academic standards," yet you cannot or will not back up those statements by pointing out the specific faults in the method, nor do you provide facts and studies that counter those that I have presented.
meh. You're ridiculous.
And following David's lead, the lib pulls out his last weapon -- the ad hominem attack.
I'm just tired. You cut one of your ugly heads off and UGH! 10 more in it's place! If you're not changing the subject, "debating" with you is like talking to a man with dementia, just the same thing over and over and over and over again, no matter how many times the point is elucidated. Calling you ridiculous is not an attack of any kind if you're being disingenuous. It's pointing out again that you have lost the argument, a priori.
So how am I being disingenuous? You accuse me of dementia, but I am the only one providing any facts and logic to back up his position. You have provided no facts. Betty has provided none. David has provided none. Alick has provided none.
So explain how I, being the only one to provide research, statistics, and logic, have "lost the argument."
Jack, you find it strange that nobody takes you seriously when you stand there and throw out propaganda, assert that it is fact (which is really troubling; I pegged you as having more discernment. God help us when you apply your ability to note and utilize good research to your actual job!), and then demand statistics to prove you wrong? Ha ha!
I have provided statistics to support my assertions. You may call it propaganda if you wish, but your applying labels to them does not change the results of the research.
If you wish to be taken seriously, provide data and research to back up your assertions.
Some old canard!
Yes, Kevin, it's an old script indeed. The conservatives provide research and logic to support their positions, the liberals reply with neither, the conservatives call them on it, and the liberals go to the ad hominem attacks.
Your August 21, 2007 7:46 PM is an interesting one. First of all Jack is seldom presented with links refuting his links. Furthermore Jack's own canard is "you don't attack the data based on who produced it". Which is the opposite of what you are saying. So, can you back up your assertion with an example?
Stop crying in your milk and get a link refuting Jack's data. Also, put together an argument that is not an attack on Jack's sanity.
I will be happy to concede he is nuts, if only to get you to serve up some data and a tautologically sound argument. Looking at the argument so, far based on data presented you have not done much aside from attacking the messenger. In a scored debate you would have been beaten by crazy guy.
I am not your Google bitch, and neither is Kevin.
Jack has not presented any facts, only a link to the ridiculous and discredited anti-gay propaganda mill known as NARTH, and repeated the same old nonsense about "political pressure" on the APA, which stands reality on its head.
The truth is that you would like for medical science to support your religion-based prejudices, and are angry that you can't make it so.
You are lucky enough to live in a part of the world where you have religious liberty, and no one is trying to take away your right to have your religion-based prejudices. Just be grateful that you have that, and stop demanding that everyone celebrate your prejudice with you.
David, no researcher writes a paper without providing references to the data and statistics that he presents in the paper, then tells the members of the review committee to look up the data and statistics themselves.
You are lucky to live in a part of the world that does not hang you or drop you from a high-dive platform into a dry pool.
Be grateful for that, and stop demanding that everyone endorse your depravity.
Linda, what was it you were saying about people opposed to gay marriage not being hateful?
Jack: "You are lucky to live in a part of the world that does not hang you or drop you from a high-dive platform into a dry pool. Be grateful for that, and stop demanding that everyone endorse your depravity."
Ah, zimzo! You decided to stick your head out of your hole again.
What Linda said was, "I don't believe the vast majority feel any animosity at all toward gay individuals (though they may dislike the gay activist movement)."
How was my statement any more hateful than David's?
Even if I am hateful, which I am not, only disliking the gay activist movement, one member of a set does not quantify that set in any way. A sampling of a few members cannot quantify the set, if the number of samples is statistically insignificant. Even many samples cannot quantify a set if the sampling is skewed.
For instance, most stars in our galaxy are smaller than our sun. However, we used to assume that all stars were the same brightness as the sun, so we estimated their distance by their brightness. Later, through spectroscopy, we determined that some stars were brighter than others. A survey of the visible stars resulted in the conclusion that our sun was actually on the small side. The reason was that the visible stars are visible because they are larger.
Similarly, the more prominent advocates of a particular point of view tend not to be representative of those who agree with that view. The reason is that those who strive for leadership positions tend to have stronger opinions about the subject at hand. You simply do not see the majority of the people who agree with their views.
When I write a research paper, I of course provide such references. That is hardly the equivalent of jumping to refute every laughable nugget of "data" vomited up by the anti-gay noise machine. I'm sorry, but I will not pretend that NARTH is in any way comparable to a legitimate scientific body.
I'm sorry that you found my comment "hateful," Jack, although I don't see why you would. What I have said is true. You are perfectly free to hold your religious beliefs about human sexuality. They are a matter of faith, are they not? So why is it so important to you that they be consistent with medical science?
I suspect that your ugly outburst was posted in anger, and I won't hold it against you.
"A sampling of a few members cannot quantify the set"
...unless we're talking about gay pedophiles in ottawa! Ha!
all of a sudden you're concerned with the sample? You've been using this "3% of the population is gay" without ever questioning that study. What you know for a fact is not that 3% of the population is gay, but that 3% of a sample (how random was it?) responded that they'd had a homosexual encounter in the past several months (were the responders being honest?) in 1991. Then you extrapolated from that that 3% of the population of the world is gay. Would you mind posting a link to this particular study? Alick and Kevin are right: you're starting with a belief, latching on to any scrap of propaganda that supports your belief, and then turn into some kind of stats expert when it comes to undermining other people's arguments. So you believe what you believe, and use some dumb calculations to rationalize your belief as being somehow scientific.
so what's the point in digging up studies and posting them when you're just going to find some lame reason to dismiss them and then say that some NARTH pamphlet is the best available source of information there is?
and what's the point of all this, anyway? As David pointed out, heterosexuals, homosexuals and pedophiles are by definition three different groups in terms of their sexual attractions.
Even IF your facts and figures are correct, which they clearly aren't, what does it mean? hetero males are much more likely to commit rape, yet we let men and women work side by side. 99% of rapists are male, so any given male is almost 10,000 times more likely to commit a rape than a woman. Why do we subject women to this extreme danger by allowing men and women to interact?
is that idiotic? of course. so what's your damn point?
David, I did not ask you to disprove anything, merely to show where you got the "95%" figure. You should at least be able to document your own assertions, even if you are incapable of countering others' assertions.
NARTH, although not itself a scientific organization, DOES at least provide references to the scientific organizations from which they obtained their information. If you wish to have any credibility, do likewise.
I did not find your comment hateful, any more than mine was. What I said is also true.
"You are perfectly free to hold your religious beliefs about human sexuality."
As are you, of course.
"They are a matter of faith, are they not?"
Faith and science are not mutually incompatible. Nevertheless, my RELIGIOUS beliefs about homosexuality are faith-based, as are yours.
"So why is it so important to you that they be consistent with medical science?"
It is not. What is important is the protection of our children. If, in an accident, a child is 10 times more likely to be injured when not in a car seat, should we not put our children in car seats, even though the probability of being in a car accident is small? Similarly, if, as I have shown, a child is ten times more likely to molested by a homosexual than by a heterosexual, should we not keep children out of situations with homosexuals?
I will not hold your ugly outbursts against you, either.
"'A sampling of a few members cannot quantify the set'
...unless we're talking about gay pedophiles in ottawa! Ha!"
You left out the qualifying phrase -- "if the number of samples is statistically insignificant." The Ottawa sample (52) is certainly on the low end for statistical significance, but the other four studies, ranging from 91 samples to 3808 samples, do have sufficient sample sizes.
I have cited several studies that give a 3% approximation. (That's actually the high end of the approximations. I was trying to be conservative in my estimate of the propensity for homosexuals to assault the young.) See my comment posted at 1:48 PM, August 17.
"Would you mind posting a link to this particular study?"
Not at all, but it is not one particular study, but several. Here are a couple of links:
If you dispute my 3% assumption, come up with a different one. Just document it as I have.
"You're starting with a belief, latching on to any scrap of propaganda that supports your belief, and then turn into some kind of stats expert when it comes to undermining other people's arguments."
I am a stats expert. It is a necessity when one studies engineering and science. I have even taken a graduate class in Multivariate Statistical Analysis.
"So you believe what you believe, and use some dumb calculations to rationalize your belief as being somehow scientific."
No. Having seen data, I formed a hypothesis. The next step in the scientific method is to find other data, or to conduct experiments, that can disprove the hypothesis. If you know of such data, please post a link to it.
"so what's the point in digging up studies and posting them when you're just going to find some lame reason to dismiss them and then say that some NARTH pamphlet is the best available source of information there is?"
What ARE you babbling about? When have I dismissed the studies I posted? If you have something better than NARTH, then post it already.
"and what's the point of all this, anyway? As David pointed out, heterosexuals, homosexuals and pedophiles are by definition three different groups in terms of their sexual attractions."
And as I pointed out, with the link to the DSM, the clinical diagnosis of pedophilia does NOT require that the attraction to children exclude attraction to adults. One can crave both veal and steak.
"Even IF your facts and figures are correct, which they clearly aren't, what does it mean?"
First, show me where my fact and figures are incorrect. Second, it means that we should keep children out of situations (such as camping with homosexual scout leaders) in which they are needlessly put at significantly increased risk of abuse.
"hetero males are much more likely to commit rape, yet we let men and women work side by side."
How much rape occurs at work?
"99% of rapists are male, so any given male is almost 10,000 times more likely to commit a rape than a woman. Why do we subject women to this extreme danger by allowing men and women to interact?"
First, women are responsible for themselves. Most women do stay out of dangerous situations as much as possible for this very reason. Children are another matter. As a parent, I am responsible for my children's safety. As such, I put the smaller ones in car seats when driving, even though the risk of an accident is minuscule. Similarly, I would not want my sons camping with homosexual males. Even though the risk of abuse is minuscule, it is ten times higher with a homosexual than with a heterosexual. Under no circumstances whatsoever is an adult allowed to sleep in a tent or cabin with a scout that is not his own child.
"is that idiotic? of course. so what's your damn point?"
Do you get the point, now?
Jack, "NARTH, although not itself a scientific organization, DOES at least provide references to the scientific organizations from which they obtained their information. If you wish to have any credibility, do likewise."
Narth, like you, intends to appear respectable by citing references (in some instances and then completely neglecting to cite references in others) regardless of how reliable or respectable they are. That doesn't make Narth any more legitimate. Furthermore, you asked me to point out statistically unsound work in the Family Research Inst. pamphlet and I think I listed plenty. The fact that they assert that surveys are 3 different types of research when in fact it is only one way to gather information. That they then don't cite any actual survey when stating they rely on surveys of 3 different groups of individuals, or cite how they selected their samples or discuss there method of analysis, operational definitions, hypotheses. . . for one. The fact that their sample in that one stat I highlighted cannot be generalized to anywhere, that the sample is so small. . .Anybody with a brain can go through and pick it apart, Jack. As someone in your field should be able to do and should be able to keep from relying on, which is why I come to the conclusion that you are being disingenuous.
But lets say you're intent on protecting the children, as you so nobly proclaim (and I know, nothing but the most noble from you, Jack); I saw a stat yesterday that said 80% of all children molested are molested by a family member. I didn't post the link because, unlike you, I stick to respectable stats. Further, I wouldn't go about attempting to state that somehow family members are more prone than anyone to be child abusers and therefore should be kept from children. Logical fallacies are not my forte, they are yours. I don't intend on spreading misinformation just for sh*ts and giggles.
I never once questioned Jack's mental health. We all know he suffers. In fact I think I made it clear that his behavior, while like that of someone with Alzheimer's, is strictly for his own entertainment.
Jacob, I rather prefer the term "tear in my beer" rather than crying in milk but ok. Please also provide for me stats that most Conservatives are not racist. As soon as you do I will provide stats that most homosexuals are not child molesters. Fair? You know better than that. You can't measure non-behavior. Conversely, you cannot say "I've found that 60% of all bigots in NOVA are also conservative, therefore, conservatives are more likely to be bigoted than anyone else in the world". Even though I'd like to, it just doesn't work that way.
The difference between Jack and I is that I will not bother to look for a link that indicates bad science, whereas Jack relies on them. AND more so enjoys the attention he receives from posting them. Which I'll kindly stop giving now. And wait for the flood of "Typical Liberal. . ." canards.
"First, women are responsible for themselves. Most women do stay out of dangerous situations as much as possible for this very reason."
Watch out, women. According to Jack if you are raped it's because you weren't being responsible by staying out of "dangerous situations".
"Furthermore, you asked me to point out statistically unsound work in the Family Research Inst. pamphlet and I think I listed plenty. The fact that they assert that surveys are 3 different types of research when in fact it is only one way to gather information."
Let's see: "1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported." How are these the three methods same?
"That they then don't cite any actual survey when stating they rely on surveys of 3 different groups of individuals, or cite how they selected their samples or discuss there method of analysis, operational definitions, hypotheses. . . for one."
You have to actually read the references for that information. That's why we provide references -- so that one need only show the conclusions, not methods.
"The fact that their sample in that one stat I highlighted cannot be generalized to anywhere, that the sample is so small. . ."
So pick the smallest survey (53 samples), and conclude that all of the surveys, up to those with thousands, are invalid. Certainly if the Ottawa survey were the only one cited, you would have a point, but in conjunction with the other, larger surveys, it is not without merit.
"But lets [sic] say you're intent on protecting the children, as you so nobly proclaim (and I know, nothing but the most noble from you, Jack); I saw a stat yesterday that said 80% of all children molested are molested by a family member. I didn't post the link because, unlike you, I stick to respectable stats."
How is that stat not respectable? Anyway, family members have more unsupervised access to children than others do. Are we to assume the same for homosexuals, that they molest children more because they have more access?
"I never once questioned Jack's mental health. We all know he suffers."
Yes, and as Jacob will tell you, I do not suffer fools gladly.
"In fact I think I made it clear that his behavior, while like that of someone with Alzheimer's, is strictly for his own entertainment."
Here's the DSM diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's: http://alzheimers.about.com/od/diagnosisissues/a/criteria_diagno.htm Show us how my behavior fits this definition.
"Please also provide for me stats that most Conservatives are not racist. As soon as you do I will provide stats that most homosexuals are not child molesters."
No-one has ever claimed that MOST homosexuals are child molesters. Most are not, as the evidence shows. Similarly, most car trips do not end in accidents, either, but prudent parents put their young children in car-seats, and Virginia law requires it.
"You can't measure non-behavior."
Nonsense. If we find that X% of people in the U.S. have seen The Simpsons, then we can conclude that (100-X)% have not.
"Conversely, you cannot say 'I've found that 60% of all bigots in NOVA are also conservative, therefore, conservatives are more likely to be bigoted than anyone else in the world'."
You are correct, because if 80% of the people in NOVA are conservative, then LIBERALS are more likely to be bigots. In other examples, we see that the majority of those on welfare are White. (Let's say 60%, I do not have the exact number.) However, since a LARGER majority of the general population is White (74%), a randomly selected Caucasian is less likely to be on welfare than a randomly selected Black or Hispanic. It is necessary to have both the specific (percentage of those who have been convicted of child molestation that are homosexual or Whites on welfare) and the general (percentage of homosexuals or Whites in the general population) to draw conclusions. A valid method of countering those conclusions is to show alternate causes for the correlation, such as the access of family members to children in the case that family members commit a disproportionate about of child abuse.
"The difference between Jack and I...."
...is that I know the difference between the nominative and objective pronoun forms.
"... is that I will not bother to look for a link that indicates bad science, whereas Jack relies on them."
Indeed, you do not seem to look for any evidence whatsoever.
"AND more so enjoys the attention he receives from posting them."
I also know the requirements for a sentence. What I enjoy is showing how logically and factually unsound liberal positions are. When their unsupported assertions are punctuated with grammatical errors, I have even more fun.
"Watch out, women. According to Jack if you are raped it's because you weren't being responsible by staying out of 'dangerous situations'."
Actually, I wrote, "Women are responsible for themselves. Most women do stay out of dangerous situations as much as possible for this very reason." Being responsible, in this sense, means capable of rational thought or action -- that one has the capability to assess the risks in a situation, and determine if an action is worth the attendant risk. Putting oneself in a dangerous situation is not inherently irresponsible. If one has evaluated the risks and determined that they are outweighed by the benefits, then one has been responsible. With thought processes like yours, it is no wonder you are a liberal.
P.S.: I'm jus' havin' fun with ya 'bout the grammatical errors -- we all make 'em.
P.S.: I'm jus' havin' fun with ya 'bout the Alzheimers--we all know you're not that old yet ;)
I'm probably older than anyone else who routinely posts here -- I'm five kids old!
"Please also provide for me stats that most Conservatives are not racist."
"As soon as you do I will provide stats that most homosexuals are not child molesters. Fair?"
No it's not fair. Jack _has_ provided statistic you claim are false. The proper thing to do to refute this statistic is to provide some data of your own.
Instead you have attacked Jack, the data source, and been snarkey toward me. Considering I was snarkey toward you, this is probably the only thing you have done right.
If you do not have data you concede the point and move on. Or, you can try to poke holes in the data through some logical argument. When I wrote 'cry in your milk' you had not done either. I am still not sure what you are doing, but, you might not either.
As for 'tear in the beer', only if it is good beer.
Cry into the pretzels or the beer-nuts -- don't water down the beer.
Jack, Forty-three percent of Virginia was against the so-called Marriage Amendment. If so much mis-information (i.e scare tactics) had not been used by your camp, I dare say it would have been defeated.
There are plenty of good people (of all religions too) who want to see gay people treated like the valuable people they are.
Sadly there are still people that go by the archaic and bestial idea that you have to destroy gay people. They won't win though because the main proponent of all good religions is love for your brother (and sisters).
41.82%, actually, but who's counting? http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=114025&ran=15075
Your side used a whole lot of scare tactics, too.
Anyway, such amendments have passed in 27 states and failed in just one, Arizona.
Yep, you're on a roll.
"[The] main proponent (sic) of all good religions is love for your brother (and sisters)."
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38)
Loving your neighbor is number 2.
"If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
So Jack, if you are quoting the bible I assume you believe in free will. At least you said so in another posting.
Isn't that the case?
My professors would have your hide for using wikipedia. It's not a viable source.
As far as your statistic, the 57% was taken from a conservative blog. Our you saying the people on that blog lie?
I do believe in free will -- up to a point. In one verse, Jesus seems to do the same:
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 17:12)
It seems that it was possible that others would be lost, but it was ordained that one would be.
In other cases, God does not allow free will, that His will prevails: "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said." (Exodus 7:13) Pharaoh had no choice.
But does it say specifically what cases are not covered by free will?
No, it does not.
So if God omniscient and determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, then he would yea or nay by decreeing their actions in advance. The problem is, of course that how can our actions can be free, if there is a being who has determined them for us ahead of time. Also, If He has decreed them then what we are doing must be ok with Him because we are still here. Therefore unless people are really free, they can't be justly held responsible for their actions. And if we have free will then we are able to choose what we will and be responsible for the outcome.
Would you agree with that?
Robin, two points:
1. You've just hit on one of the biggest religious logic problems. If anyone has free will, no one (not even God) can predict the future. If one can exactly predict the future, no one has free will. Can't have both. Jack, however, will likely continue to cherry-pick bible verses he likes and ignore ones he doesn't like and draw life conclusions from them.
2. It's obvious to anyone reading the bible that the old testament God is very, very different from the new testament God. It's not coincidence that Jack found an old testament verse that speaks against free will and a new testament verse that speaks for it. Funny really.
Robin, I am sure I am not the one to ask. I can only tell you what I believe, from my reading of the Bible. God certainly does know some things in advance, or we would not have the prophets. Jesus knew that Peter would deny Him three times. I do not know whether God knows everything that will happen -- everything that we will do. The theologians get around the argument by saying that God is outside of time, having created it Himself. Thus, if He wants to know something about the future, He goes there, just as we would go to another place to see what was there. Some choices, as with the case of Pharaoh and Pilate, God ordained for His own purposes. Other cases, such as Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, were free will. But the ram was ordained. (Happy, Dave? There is an OT reference to free will. The whole book of Job is about Job's free will. Jonah was obviously exercising his free will!)
Judas Iscariot, "the son of perdition," is another example. Was he predestined to betray Jesus, as John 17:12 seems to indicate? Then he was, as you say, not responsible for his actions, and should not be held responsible. We agree on that.
Another interpretation I have heard (I do not give it my endorsement, I only give it) is that it was predetermined only that ONE of the disciples would betray Jesus, but WHICH one would do so was NOT predetermined.
I hope that helps.
So if God is outside of time and can destroy at will but hasn't, wouldn't you say there is a good reason for things to be that way?
The Christian religion lets the Christ (son) be the intermediary for the Father. We have time to see our sins and do pentense. Otherwise, we wait for judgement and only then will we realize that we got away with nothing in our life. Brian would know this subject better.
"So if God is outside of time and can destroy at will but hasn't, wouldn't you say there is a good reason for things to be that way?"
Yes, indeed. The reason is that love cannot be forced. He wants us to love Him, but He cannot force us to.
"Jonah was obviously exercising his free will!" Ahh, a ruse. Free will until a big leviathan snatched his you know what up and vomited him where he was supposed to be. Or maybe that was just the little bit of encouragement he needed to make the right decision. Jeez, that's a great story. Or did I get it wrong, as I do everything else?
No, you got it exactly right, Kevin. God could have taken away Jonah's free will, and Jonah would have gone to Nineveh without the "encouragement."
Jack has got it right. Jonah exercised his free will; the whole way the through book. G-d exercised his sovereignty and made Jonah miserable. Jonah had to change his mind, had he lacked free will he never would have gone west toward Tarsus as opposed to east toward Ninneveh.
Note even at the end of the book after his pitiful preaching, G-d allowed him his will; Jonah goes on and pitches a hissy-fit under a tree at G-d.
nice ;)
hahaha I can't believe this thread is still going. It makes me believe in free will! No way the path this discussion has followed could have been predetermined!
God temporarily suspending free will? I love it: God as the model fascist dictator!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)"
does that even mean anything?
God created us. Human dictators do not create their subjects, nor are they so benevolent.