Gay Patriot Header Image

Dan Savage and the Politics of Hate Speech

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 9:06 pm - April 29, 2012.
Filed under: Mean-spirited leftists

How often do we hear gay activists — and their allies on the left — label those who oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage as “haters” or, more subtly, “h8ers”, even when such folks express their support of traditional marriage in the most civil of terms?  Recall, for example, how the Southern Povery Law Center, dubbed certain social conservative groups, “hate groups“.

Given the rhetoric of Dan Savage, will they know include him on a list of “haters”? He has, reports Ben Shapiro. . .

. . . has personally insulted virtually every Republican candidate for higher office. Last year, Savage said on Bill Maher’s show, “I wish the Republicans were all f***ing dead.”

But he saved some special vitriol for Herman Cain. When Cain stated that he thought that homosexual activity was a choice in October 2011, Savage responded by telling Cain to “show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick, Herman.”

Now, to be sure, we may disagree with those opposing state recognition of same-sex unions, but just because social conservatives have views different from our own doesn’t mean they hold their opinions out of animus for people like us.

That said, someone who wishes Republicans were dead does seem to harbors a good deal of hatred for Republicans.  Is he then a hater?

Wondering why Mr. Savage was “speaking at a conference on journalism in the first place“, Chris Barnhart reminds us that

By his own admission, Savage commits what the Left would call hate crimes. He willfully attempted to infect a politician with the flu, including licking doorknobs. On an episode of “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Savage voiced the wish that all Republicans should be dead. He also wished a Green Party candidate would be dragged behind a truck until there was nothing left but rope.

We ask again, why does this man hate so much?  And why do his ideological allies call those who disagree with them on gay issues hatred, yet refuse to condemn Mr. Savage’s speech?

Share

79 Comments

  1. He is a hater, plain and simple. Haters are drawn to the left because the left tolerates… even encourages… hate so long as it is directed as conservative, Christians, Republicans, and capitalists.

    Comment by V the K — April 29, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - April 29, 2012

  2. I think most people know that “h8t” means “hate,” so I disagree that it is subtle. I don’t know why people spell it like that; maybe it is just “hip” or something. You know, using proper spelling is for squares.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 29, 2012 @ 10:07 pm - April 29, 2012

  3. Dan Savage exemplifies my theory about so-called “progressives:” at their core, they are miserable, seething, angry and bitter people. They absolutely HATE that the world doesn’t work the way they think it should, and they are only too happy to kill a few million people to “mold” society to fit their cold, black, rotting heart’s desire. Oh, and by the way, I’ve met Dan Savage. I can assure you he’s every bit the hate-filled, angry asshole you think he is.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — April 29, 2012 @ 10:41 pm - April 29, 2012

  4. To the Christians upset with Dan Savage’s comments at the journalism conference, I would say: “You can’t handle the truth.”

    Comment by Richard R — April 29, 2012 @ 10:51 pm - April 29, 2012

  5. Now, to be sure, we may disagree with those opposing state recognition of same-sex unions, but just because social conservatives have views different from our own doesn’t mean they hold their opinions out of animus for people like us.

    I’m not sure who you are referring to with the pronoun “we” or by “people like us.” If you are referring to gay conservatives in general, keep in mind that there are gay conservatives who oppose gay marriage and who are social conservatives.

    That said, someone who wishes Republicans were dead does seem to harbors a good deal of hatred for Republicans. Is he then a hater?

    No, not when the subject is Republicans. You see, Republicans deserve to be hated, or something, so it is perfectly fine to hate them.

    By his own admission, Savage commits what the Left would call hate crimes.

    That is silly. The left would never call something targeted towards Republicans or Christians a hate crime.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — April 29, 2012 @ 11:25 pm - April 29, 2012

  6. To the Christians upset with Dan Savage’s comments at the journalism conference, I would say: “You can’t handle the truth.”

    Comment by Richard R — April 29, 2012 @ 10:51 pm – April 29, 2012

    And to you, I would say, “Sure they can….when you actually provide that instead of your recycled antireligious bigotry and hate that you try to hide behind your sexual orientation.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2012 @ 12:27 am - April 30, 2012

  7. Gee, the head of the anti bully campaign turns out to be the BIGGEST BULLY, what a bunch of frauds. If this marriage thing was a real issue, a REAL one, why is it political tool? Why is it used as a weapon? Why can’t it be talked out like decent normal people who want to solve differences? It’s not old school politics anymore with our parents but that’s how the Dems are acting. I have to tell ya, as a Christian I have never been taught to hate gays or anyone else in a church. I think there’s a religious left and from way back and that’s what this is. I haven’t heard anyone bash gays, I have heard, why if gays hate Christians so much they want to be able to participate in a religious ceremony? It doesn’t make sense to a lot of people even some of my friends who are gay, they don’t get it. So what’s up with all this? What do gays really want? Or is this all just political?

    Comment by jann — April 30, 2012 @ 2:04 am - April 30, 2012

  8. I’m glad to see Barnhart asking the question that was being neglected as people were rushing to either condemn or defend Savage’s obnoxious remarks, specifically, what was Savage doing there in the first place? It was a high school journalism conference and Savage writes a column about dildos and blowjobs. Thus, his work as a ‘journalist’ was totally inappropriate for the forum, and the issue of bullying was even less relevant.

    Comment by Sean A — April 30, 2012 @ 3:25 am - April 30, 2012

  9. Dan Savage exemplifies my theory about so-called “progressives:” at their core, they are miserable, seething, angry and bitter people. They absolutely HATE that the world doesn’t work the way they think it should, and they are only too happy to kill a few million people to “mold” society to fit their cold, black, rotting heart’s desire.

    While this exemplifies my theory about so called “conservatives”: at their core they are so unhinged, desperate, and detached from all reality that they are willing to accuse their opponents of wanted to orchestrate outright genocide in order to score a cheap political point.

    Actually, that’s just you. Most conservatives are perfectly reasonable people, you’re just a very nasty exception.

    Comment by Serenity — April 30, 2012 @ 4:11 am - April 30, 2012

  10. Homosexuals are diseaae-spreading paedophiles. Are you OK with that statement, Richard R, or can you not handle “the truth.”

    Dan Savage and the Westboro Baptists are two sides of the same bigoted, hate-filled coin.

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2012 @ 5:56 am - April 30, 2012

  11. One big difference, no one takes Westboro seriously.

    Well that and no one looks to them as people to be celebrated. The left embraces their haters.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 30, 2012 @ 7:59 am - April 30, 2012

  12. 3 – “They absolutely HATE that the world doesn’t work the way they think it should, and they are only too happy to kill a few million people to “mold” society to fit their cold, black, rotting heart’s desire.”

    The thing that amazes me about progressive activists is that they are really a small number. In my experience, here in Stalinist NYC, the same “activists”, str8 and LGBT, can be found writing newsletters for GLAAD, High Times or any of the other progressive causes du jour. Start attending some of the meetings, you’ll be amazed at what you find. A good number of them are non-profit/not-for-profit funded on the tax payer dime.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 30, 2012 @ 8:31 am - April 30, 2012

  13. Does anyone know where Mr.Savage gets his funding?

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 30, 2012 @ 8:34 am - April 30, 2012

  14. It is interesting that a guy whose claim to fame is writing a sex column for the kind of free weekly newspaper they hand out at public transit stations has risen to such prominence in the activist left.

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2012 @ 8:48 am - April 30, 2012

  15. V,

    One might call it a pattern.

    A huckster responsible for slander and the death of an innocent is treated as a respectible member of society and given legitimacy in a run for the White House.

    A self admitted terrorist is embraced as a university professor and scholar.

    A tax cheat is promoted to secretary of the treasury.

    A leader in the KKK is the voice of the senate.

    Comment by The Livewire — April 30, 2012 @ 9:06 am - April 30, 2012

  16. We ask again, why does this man hate so much?

    It’s the New Bullying(tm). Bully people in the name of pretending that you’re somehow against bullying.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2012 @ 9:16 am - April 30, 2012

  17. Livewire… Also, a woman who never hired a black person to work in her law firm despite practicing in a majority black city, and who also has written that she supports abortion because it rids society of “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” becomes a president of the ACLU and a liberal Supreme Court justice.

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2012 @ 9:33 am - April 30, 2012

  18. Anti-Bullying fail of epic proportions.

    Comment by LadyLiberty1885 — April 30, 2012 @ 9:36 am - April 30, 2012

  19. Let us imagine Dan Savage as an Obama Czar with a staff and a mission to promulgate political payback regulations for the Cass Sunstein Information and Regulatory Affairs Office for Fundamentally Transforming America. As Sunstein succinctly put it, the Bill of Rights lack social and economic guarantees. Dan Savage would be simply marvelous in doing social justice to the haters and homophobes who hide under his bed and lurk in his closet.

    It is not as it the Obama administration is not already hard at work on the Catholic Church and the Zionists. Why not pump up the volume on the Christian right?

    Attacking and dividing in the name of social justice and diversity is the very essence of “The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas” (out today), by Jonah Goldberg.

    Obama has now decided to own eating dog in hopes to wear it out and get rid of the running joke he ignorantly brought upon himself.

    It would be delicious beyond words if the whole game the left plays in the “tyranny of clichés” came crashing down on them like the house of cards that it is and left them naked on the schoolyard yelling about “fairness” and “meanies” and “dirty birdies.”

    Serenity is so bereft of ideas that she is back hoping to get a red meat piety dance started over anyone who would take Dan Savage at face value and see real tyranny in his character. That is the ultimate cliché of the left: “wish(ing) a Green Party candidate would be dragged behind a truck until there was nothing left but rope” is just the turn of a phrase. Anyone who reacts to such innocent chatter is not only over-reacting, he is about to go full Godwin’s Law. That is how the left explains the perverse insanity which it owns and proudly struts upon its one script only stage.

    Dan Savage is a useful idiot who can be thrown under the steamroller of the Progressive movement if his end also justifies their end. Any means possible, including cannibalizing your own, if necessary. Meanwhile, Dan Savage, get out there and savage the right. You go, boy!

    This is not about debate, the public square, the combat of ideas, the evolution of society. No. This is about raw power and seizing the moment and the tyranny of regulation and the real use of fear. This is the reign of terror moment, complete with the tricoteuse knitting away as the atavistic crones cheer “The National Razor” of destructive regulation that deals “justice” to those suspected of “crimes against liberty.”

    Comment by heliotrope — April 30, 2012 @ 10:30 am - April 30, 2012

  20. [...] MORE: This story is blowing up all over the place. Even some who identify as gay are upset about Dan’s attack. [...]

    Pingback by Dan's Savage Response to Christian Kids | EveryDay Thoughts Collected — April 30, 2012 @ 12:23 pm - April 30, 2012

  21. While this exemplifies my theory about so called “conservatives”: at their core they are so unhinged, desperate, and detached from all reality that they are willing to accuse their opponents of wanted to orchestrate outright genocide in order to score a cheap political point.

    Comment by Serenity — April 30, 2012 @ 4:11 am – April 30, 2012

    Projection, since Pomposity fully supports and endorses accusing Republicans of mass murder to score political points.

    Made even more epically hilarious, since Pomposity fully endorses and supports calling Tea Partiers Nazis and comparing Republicans to Nazis.

    You are neutralized, repulsive little toad. You have nowhere to go except to condemn your own Obama Party, and you can no more do that than you can actually get a job and earn a living.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2012 @ 12:57 pm - April 30, 2012

  22. This discussion brings to mind a question I’ve been asking for a few months. If people on the opposite side of gays are “anti-gay,” then are gays on the opposite side of heterosexuals “anti-straight?”

    Comment by Dottie Laird — April 30, 2012 @ 2:43 pm - April 30, 2012

  23. Wow, Serenity! You sure took me down, didn’t you?

    Alas, I WAS one of those progressives…a real true believer in my mid 20s. I know EXACTLY how they (and, presumably, YOU) think. During the 20th Century, “progressive” ideologies and the governments they spawned MURDERED OVER 100 MILLION people.

    Care to tell me again that progressive thought isn’t a murderous, evil ideology?

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — April 30, 2012 @ 2:50 pm - April 30, 2012

  24. Do you recall all of the obnoxious drunken queens at gay bars? Savage reminds me of them as his mouth gets ahead of his brain, much like those hideous queers at bars.

    Comment by davinci — April 30, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - April 30, 2012

  25. It gets better. Today, my city council leader, soon to be first NYC lesbian mayoral candidate, walked off the stage at a rally for “living wage” legislation because one of the supporters yelled out “everybody but Pharaoh Bloomberg was at today’s event”. Ms.Quinn said, “we don’t have a right to call people names”.

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 30, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - April 30, 2012

  26. 4.To the Christians upset with Dan Savage’s comments at the journalism conference, I would say: “You can’t handle the truth.”

    Comment by Richard R — April 29, 2012 @ 10:51 pm – April 29, 2012

    My goodness. This guy reveals himself as a bully and hater, which should disqualify himself from his own advocacy in bullying and hating. He should fire himself. Short of that, it is clear that Liberals are still in good graces with him. It is so sad that the Liberals can only see hate coming from Conservatives, which isn’t even accurate to begin with. Now, they shield their eyes and ears from the real thing. Shame.

    Comment by anon23532 — April 30, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - April 30, 2012

  27. We could apply a test to all such utterances, not just those of Mr Savage. Let us call it the “If Palin had said this” test.

    Positive flags (either/or/both):

    1) Democrats would be up in arms.

    2) Loyal Republicans would be cringing and facepalming.

    That is how you know the Left are being hypocritical anuses.

    The obverse is the “If Obama had said this” test.

    Positive flags (either/or/both):

    1) The left media coo and cluck in awestruck wonder.

    2) The left blogosphere/media/politicians do not explode in incoherent rage.

    This is how you also tell the Left are being hypocritical anuses.

    The test can be suitably modified in other nations for their own domestic use.

    Comment by perturbed — April 30, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - April 30, 2012

  28. I gotta say, I was expecting a more spirited defense from the house lefties, but most of them just posted an obligatory comment to the effect of “He’s right, you know,” but aside from Evan Hurst (last seen toddling off to find a “Christian activist,” whatever that means), they haven’t really gone to the wall for him.

    I suspect it’s because they recognize that defending this is a losing cause. Yeah, they have to make some obligatory noise to support the herd, but they really just aren’t feeling it.

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2012 @ 6:24 pm - April 30, 2012

  29. What, specifically, did Dan Savage say about Christianity, including the Bible, at the journalism conference that was not true? While I can understand how some people may find some of Dan’s word choices objectionable, they are rather superficial compared to the underlying truth of his comments.

    Comment by Richard R — April 30, 2012 @ 8:00 pm - April 30, 2012

  30. 29 – “While I can understand how some people may find some of Dan’s word choices objectionable, they are rather superficial compared to the underlying truth of his comments.”

    Bwahahahaha, Bwahahaha, Hohohehehe, Bwahahahaha……………

    Comment by Richard Bell — April 30, 2012 @ 8:42 pm - April 30, 2012

  31. Shorter Richard R: “I also hate Christians, so what’s the big deal?”

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - April 30, 2012

  32. “Hate speech” and “social justice” are completely Left-infected terms. Even using them against them continues their currency.

    More simply put, in ordinary English we can all use, regardless of politics, Savage was being an ignorant and arrogant jerk.

    Comment by EssEm — April 30, 2012 @ 9:52 pm - April 30, 2012

  33. What, specifically, did Dan Savage say about Christianity, including the Bible, at the journalism conference that was not true? While I can understand how some people may find some of Dan’s word choices objectionable, they are rather superficial compared to the underlying truth of his comments.

    Comment by Richard R — April 30, 2012 @ 8:00 pm – April 30, 2012

    That’s easy, Richard R.

    Dan Savage bleated that the Bible requires Christians to stone non-virgins. It doesn’t, as anyone who has actually read it would know.

    Dan Savage whined that the Bible requires Christians to enslave everyone. In fact, it does not, and even contains dicta about releasing slaves, as anyone who has read it would know.

    That’s two lies right there, so we can state unequivocally that Dan Savage is a liar who lies about Christians.

    Furthermore, we can state that he’s a hypocrite, given how he openly advocates for and actually carries out namecalling and insults against teenagers because of their religious beliefs.

    That’s why Bareback Dan is spinning and whining and getting ignorant and desperate wannabes like John Shore to scream and cry that namecalling and insulting teenagers based on their religious beliefs really isn’t bullying. But fortunately for us, these fools like you, having never actually had to think due to being coddled and emotionally retarded by leftists, don’t realize that they’re just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2012 @ 9:55 pm - April 30, 2012

  34. I have attended hundreds of church services in my life, in seven different states and on three different continents, across several denominations and non-denominational congregations. And in none of these church services did I ever here anyone urged to bully, harass, or otherwise mistreat gays. Where do lefty gheys get this paranoid notion that Christians are out to hurt them? Not even the Westboro Baptists threaten gays with violence.

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2012 @ 10:51 pm - April 30, 2012

  35. Where do lefty gheys get this paranoid notion that Christians are out to hurt them? Not even the Westboro Baptists threaten gays with violence.

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2012 @ 10:51 pm – April 30, 2012

    Very simple, V the K.

    Realize that Dan Savage has deliberately tried to use an infectious disease to sicken, injure, and harm people.

    Dan Savage has stated on national TV that he wants Republicans dragged behind pickup trucks and that he wants all Republicans dead.

    And, for something that people need to remember, Dan Savage published addresses of houses with Republican political signs and encouraged people to, quote, “drive a stake through the heart of zombie Dino Rossi or blast a shotgun into the chest of zombie Dave Reichert”

    This guy knows full well what he would do to Christians, Republicans, and conservatives if he could get away with it.

    Thus he assumes that, since he and his fellow Obama Party members want to injure, maim, and kill Christians, conservatives, and Republicans, that all people want to kill anyone who they disagree with politically or religiously.

    That’s also why they never can actually believe that Christians aren’t going to kill them. They are so used to lying themselves to cover up their true motives that they assume everyone else does.

    In short, it’s projection. They are violent bigots who would take any opportunity to maim, slaughter, murder, and run people they dislike into camps; since they are unable to view anyone’s perspective other than their own, they simply believe that everyone else thinks exactly the same way that they do.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2012 @ 11:14 pm - April 30, 2012

  36. I have one question…I always thought “pansy ass” was meant to insinuate that someone was a wuss, which is a take on certain female anatomy, meant to deride one’s masculinity and thus in school yards equates to something along the lines of “you’re so gay.” At least, where I grew up, it was used to slander those boys who were a bit effeminate or closeted/or acknowledged homosexuals. So, was Mr. Savage attempting to deride the teens who chose (heaven forbid, they were “pro-choice” in this case) to not listen to his diatribe by equating them with a stereotype used to bully gay teens? Things that make you go hmmmm…

    Comment by hellocat — April 30, 2012 @ 11:25 pm - April 30, 2012

  37. “Dan Savage bleated that the Bible requires Christians to stone non-virgins. It doesn’t, as anyone who has actually read it would know.”
    That’s not true… Deuteronomy 22:13-22, tells of what happens if a new husband claims that his new wife isn’t a virgin. If it’s proven that she is, he must pay a fine to the father of the husband. If her virginity can’t be proven… “then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.”
    Dan Savage whined that the Bible requires Christians to enslave everyone. In fact, it does not, and even contains dicta about releasing slaves, as anyone who has read it would know.”
    First, Savage didn’t say that the Bible requires Christians to everyone, anyone who had actually seen the video would know.
    Second, The bible clearly allows for slavery, and sees these slaves not as bondsman but as property.
    However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

    When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
    Now I’m willing to except that some type of interpretation is necessary, in understand the contemporary meaning of such passages. As is with the prohibition on Shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-10), or menstruation women (Leviticus 15:19-30), or farming (Deuteronomy 22:9) or mixing fibers for clothes (Deuteronomy 22:11) etc. These passages are in the bible, they are real. However, as Savage pointed out we ignore them, or they are meant to be interpreted differently then they are literal meaning. But not so for the passages on Homosexuality. Somehow, all these other verses need to be interpreted, the verses’ temporal context needs to be considered, the verses are figurative, or etc. All except the verses on homosexuality, somehow these verses are special they are literal and must be interpreted as such. Homosexuality is a sin and therefore society, individuals, and the government are granted the ability to harass, discriminate, deny equity, and bully gays. Even if you don’t believe that gays are harassed, discriminated, denied rights or are bullied, the point still exists, that somehow the verses on homosexuality must be interpreted as literal and not ignored, whereas other verses can be interpreted other then their literal meaning, and/or ignored. Why is that?

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 1, 2012 @ 2:15 am - May 1, 2012

  38. @V to the K @ #28:

    I’m not a regular commenter here, so you can’t expect me to obsessively refresh my screen to see if you people have replied. Also, I have a paid job writing, and have shared my thoughts there. My blog commenting is, thus, occasional, as I am busy. That said, no one who has had any experience in the real world of fighting anti-gay bullying has condemned Dan Savage. Guess we know something you don’t.

    @ND30 I can’t believe you haven’t personally mentioned me in this comments section. It makes me worry that your little shame boner for me is losing steam.

    Comment by Evan Hurst — May 1, 2012 @ 5:05 am - May 1, 2012

  39. Guess we know something you don’t.

    Unlikely.

    Comment by V the K — May 1, 2012 @ 5:37 am - May 1, 2012

  40. Savage, to be sure, is a bully. However, violent attacks on churches are also of great concern.

    Case in point: The Mars Hill Church appears to have been vandalized by a militant gay group.

    http://global.christianpost.com/news/mark-driscolls-mars-hill-church-vandalized-by-angry-queers-group-73913/

    Comment by Ben — May 1, 2012 @ 6:02 am - May 1, 2012

  41. Ok, so we’ve gone from “He didn’t really say that” to “No one is reporting it, except for you right wing wackos” to “Well he did say that but it’s not in context” to “No one in the real world has condemned it.”

    So I assume then, Evan applauds Savage’s actions?

    Comment by The Livewire — May 1, 2012 @ 7:56 am - May 1, 2012

  42. Wow, Serenity! You sure took me down, didn’t you?

    Not that I expect you to admit any fault.

    Alas, I WAS one of those progressives…a real true believer in my mid 20s. I know EXACTLY how they (and, presumably, YOU) think. During the 20th Century, “progressive” ideologies and the governments they spawned MURDERED OVER 100 MILLION people.

    Communist regimes, not progressive governments. Distinction is clearly lost on you, no idea what happened to make you this mad, would like to know though.

    Care to tell me again that progressive thought isn’t a murderous, evil ideology?

    Yes, and I will happily tell you again later if you’d like.

    Comment by Serenity — May 1, 2012 @ 8:07 am - May 1, 2012

  43. I gotta say, I was expecting a more spirited defense from the house lefties, but most of them just posted an obligatory comment to the effect of “He’s right, you know,” but aside from Evan Hurst (last seen toddling off to find a “Christian activist,” whatever that means), they haven’t really gone to the wall for him.

    Well I for one didn’t defend Savage because I couldn’t be bothered to find out what he said (these lower-level ‘outrage’ pieces interest me less and less with each passing day). I was aware of some sort of controversy but it wasn’t until today that I saw The Young Turks and Truth Wins Out reporting on it and I actually found out what was said.

    I suspect it’s because they recognize that defending this is a losing cause. Yeah, they have to make some obligatory noise to support the herd, but they really just aren’t feeling it.

    Well believe whatever you like, as you most certainly will, but my opinion is that this is another nontroversy like many others before it. Dan Savage cited parts of the Bible people prefer to gloss over, referred to it as ‘bullshit’, and called some kids who walked out ‘pansy-assed’.

    The only part I can see that could be termed bullying is the last part, for which Savage later apologized (“my use of “pansy-assed” was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it”). The rest was an aggressive critique that I think Savage was perfectly right in doing and I agree with all of those parts myself.

    So again, go ahead and quote me. With the exception of the ‘pansy-assed’ comment for which Savage later apologized, I agree with him.

    Comment by Serenity — May 1, 2012 @ 8:18 am - May 1, 2012

  44. Given that Amy believes in killing inconvient children, that she supports Christian bashing doesn’t surprise me.

    I’m sure she finds faith and morals equally inconvient.

    Comment by The Livewire — May 1, 2012 @ 9:25 am - May 1, 2012

  45. And so Serenity reveals the truth: Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee. (H.T. – Nat Hentoff}

    Serenity will prosecute anyone on the suspicion of hate crime or bullying if it fits the political agenda of the movement and cause wherein Serenity lives and breathes. However, if the double standard of suspicion of hate crime or bullying is called out against one of the pack that Serenity runs with then Serenity does not have a “dog in the fight” and is too busy and too unmotivated and too indifferent to actually care.

    So, Dan Savage is left all alone to defend himself, because the pack charges on nipping and barking and howling. The pack knows it is all about snarling threats and instilling fear. When one of them gets cornered, he is abandoned and left to foam and snap and growl all for himself. Packs are cowardly like that.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 1, 2012 @ 9:45 am - May 1, 2012

  46. that she supports Christian bashing doesn’t surprise me.

    That’s really the fault line. If you approve of bashing Christians generally, you find no fault with anything Savage spat.

    As Questioner pointed out in teh other thread, when you cherry-pick the Bible’s language on slavery out of context, as Savage did, you can make a bludgeon out of it to bash your opponents, but it is still every bit as dishonest and despicable as cherry picking language from the Bible and using it to rationalize gay-bashing. And, again, I don’t think that Christians are bullying gay kids. I have never heard any Christian leader encourage this or even say that it was okay to bully kids.

    Comment by V the K — May 1, 2012 @ 10:14 am - May 1, 2012

  47. @JPerry2006 ” Even if you don’t believe that gays are harassed, discriminated, denied rights or are bullied, the point still exists, that somehow the verses on homosexuality must be interpreted as literal and not ignored, whereas other verses can be interpreted other then their literal meaning, and/or ignored. Why is that?”

    You have a strange way of interpreting the Bible. Leave it to Christians to tell you what they actually believe. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are referenced by Christians for the sin nature, but they don’t subscribe to the penalty. Get it. Christians had Jesus Christ who died for their sins.

    Basis theology. The books of the Old Testament was before Christ. After Christ died, he created a new religion where the sins are paid. So Gays should be more concerned about Jews and Muslins than Christians.

    Comment by anon23532 — May 1, 2012 @ 11:10 am - May 1, 2012

  48. @heliotrope: I’ve not had much interest in ‘defending’ Dan Savage for a few reasons. First, I don’t really care that much. Second, Dan Savage is more than able to defend himself. Third, my posting here isn’t really much of a ‘defence’ since it changes nothing of consequence and will not impact positively or negatively on Dan Savage to any measurable degree.

    Also, I skipped this initially because my instinct was that there wasn’t any ‘hate crime’ or ‘bullying’ to be concerned about. Then, when I come back to it, lo and behold! I was right. I should skip more of these stories.

    As Questioner pointed out in teh other thread, when you cherry-pick the Bible’s language on slavery out of context

    This is the one part of your post that actually interests me. What exactly is out of context about saying that the Bible endorses slavery? The old testament goes into great detail about buying and selling slaves, and what treatments is permissible of slaves, but never condemns it. Then when the new testament comes around, the old testament gets reaffirmed and there is still no condemnation whatsoever.

    So how do you get around that? On what basis do you say that slavery is immoral?

    Comment by Serenity — May 1, 2012 @ 12:32 pm - May 1, 2012

  49. Evan, my situation is similar. I should have saved my comment # 40 posted in response to NDT under Maybe Dan Savage Was Confused? I hate to have mine as the last when I have dedicated a lot of time thought. I, too don´t have the luxury of passing the whole day on the computer.

    Comment by Roberto — May 1, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - May 1, 2012

  50. Exodus 21:16
    He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.

    Comment by sara beth — May 1, 2012 @ 3:05 pm - May 1, 2012

  51. I was late to this ‘incident’ so didn’t comment with initial reaction. As I’ve watched this unfold – all I have to say is Thank You Everyone. This has been quite entertaining from an Independents perspective. There have been emotional ups, and emotional downs, but all in all, quite entertaining. Again, Thank You.

    PS. I really enjoyed the transition from gays should quit playing the victim, to gays are the pawns of of the left. Brilliant.

    Comment by Jason — May 1, 2012 @ 4:05 pm - May 1, 2012

  52. PSS. Too bad I can’t come up with my own opinion on the topics, as I’m just beholden to whatever someone else tells me. Though, as an Independent, I’m not sure who exactly that might be, perhaps one of you can tell me, since you are all so great at reading a complete person from just a few internet comments.

    Comment by Jason — May 1, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - May 1, 2012

  53. All except the verses on homosexuality, somehow these verses are special they are literal and must be interpreted as such.

    Conclusion, not question.

    Homosexuality is a sin and therefore society, individuals, and the government are granted the ability to harass, discriminate, deny equity, and bully gays.

    Conclusion, not question.

    Even if you don’t believe that gays are harassed, discriminated, denied rights or are bullied, the point still exists, that somehow the verses on homosexuality must be interpreted as literal and not ignored, whereas other verses can be interpreted other then their literal meaning, and/or ignored.

    Conclusion, not question.

    In short, JPerry2006, you have stated three specific conclusions that you claim pertain to all Christians, despite not being one yourself.

    And then you state this:

    Why is that?

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 1, 2012 @ 2:15 am – May 1, 2012

    And the answer is very straightforward.

    “Because you are an anti-Christian bigot whose only concern regarding the Bible is how it can be used to attack and belittle Christians.”

    That is why you end up with the conclusions and “contradictions” that you do . You are not reading the Bible with an eye to understanding it; you are reading it with a view toward discrediting it. You have no interest in actually knowing what Christians do, say, and think, or how they interpret Scripture; you are only interested in finding information that fits your predetermined conclusions that Christians are all hypocritical bigots who want to kill gay people.

    You and your fellow bigots like Evan Hurst have not mastered one of the most basic of intellectual exercises, which is to be able to read and understand something without having to agree with it. You and Evan Hurst have a worldview worthy of Torquemada, in which all that is not in agreement must be destroyed lest others be tempted to question.

    Hence, I cannot explain this to you. Your mind is not ready to accept the thought that the Bible could be consistent, because doing so would destroy both your predetermined conclusion that it is not and your “therefore” insistence that brands all Christians as hypocrites. You lack the intellectual discipline, maturity, and selflessness sufficient to acknowledge that your view of it could be incomplete or even (horrors!) wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 1, 2012 @ 4:24 pm - May 1, 2012

  54. Wow! I must hand it to you! You guys have a brilliant strategy!
    Groups like AFTAH, CWFA, FotF, various state family institutes all claim that homosexuality is not normal, that it is a perversion, its sinful, etc. They use that reasoning to oppose anti-bullying laws, anti-job discrimination laws, and same sex marriage.
    Then when you point out that there are numerous of other moral standards in the bible which are not in practice today, one gets the response that those moral standards need to be interpreted “with an eye to understanding it.”
    Then when you ask, well why is that those moral standards need to be interpreted in such a manner, but the restrictions on homosexuality are taken literally by the aforementioned groups as well as many Christians, and said literal interpretation is used to justify restricting rights to gays, one gets the response
    “You and your fellow bigots like Evan Hurst have not mastered one of the most basic of intellectual exercises, which is to be able to read and understand something without having to agree with it. You and Evan Hurst have a worldview worthy of Torquemada, in which all that is not in agreement must be destroyed lest others be tempted to question.”
    Such a strategy means you don’t even have to deal with the question. If someone poses that question they are a bigot, and it can be left at that. Meanwhile such verses like the restriction on shellfish are ignored, and the verses against homosexuality are used for public policy making.

    Well done! I wonder how much longer that will work for you guys?

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 1, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - May 1, 2012

  55. 7. Gee, the head of the anti bully campaign turns out to be the BIGGEST BULLY, what a bunch of frauds. If this marriage thing was a real issue, a REAL one, why is it political tool? Why is it used as a weapon? Why can’t it be talked out like decent normal people who want to solve differences? It’s not old school politics anymore with our parents but that’s how the Dems are acting. I have to tell ya, as a Christian I have never been taught to hate gays or anyone else in a church. I think there’s a religious left and from way back and that’s what this is. I haven’t heard anyone bash gays, I have heard, why if gays hate Christians so much they want to be able to participate in a religious ceremony? It doesn’t make sense to a lot of people even some of my friends who are gay, they don’t get it. So what’s up with all this? What do gays really want? Or is this all just political?

    Comment by jann — April 30, 2012 @ 2:04 am – April 30, 2012

    The initial response was directed toward the “religious ceremony” part:

    My brother has been married twice, both times were at the courthouse. He has never been to a church as far as I know, owns no bible, and the same goes for both the ex-wife, and current. How is that a religious ceremony? And since he’s had two, and the kids have had to suffer for it, what so called “Sanctity” is being protected? For my brother, it was only legal. At least as far as I see it.

    I can’t speak for your friends, or all gay people. Just as Savage, or anyone else doesn’t speak for me. I want equal legal rights for the person I fall in love with. I want that to include, if it came to it, not being questioned at a hospital to visit said love interest. Or for said love interest to be in a legal fight with family, if I were left in a vegetative state. Call it a Civil Union if you want. I don’t care, as long as legally it is the same thing.

    I will not, as some think I should, keep my relationship to myself, as if I should be ashamed of it, because of their religious beliefs. Just as I don’t expect them to keep their religious beliefs to to themselves. And just because my personal beliefs don’t include hating myself, or forbidding my love, doesn’t mean they aren’t equally protected under the law.

    If we can’t just agree to disagree, then I don’t know why anyone expects less than constant tension. If someone can question a gay persons adherance to the their own personal beliefs, why can’t the reverse be true? Most of the students walked out before the offensive remark, that he almost immediatly appologized for. As simply as I can put it, since I like science… Equal and opposite reactions. I don’t attack, but I’ll defend.

    So, what does walking out on a speaker mean? It sure isn’t a sign of respect. It isn’t a respectful discourse, or “talked out like decent normal people who want to solve differences.” Hello? United Nations ring a bell to anyone. When the USA walks out on the Iranian leader, we are saying “We don’t believe a word you say! Screw you guy, I’m going home.” More dignified than standing up and saying it, but the message is the same. And since some here have claimed there is just understanding of the Bible that is needed, and Savage wasn’t calling for the wiping out of all Christians, at least in this instance, that I can tell. Perhaps there could have been a discussion. We’ll never know now.

    One last point. If the “drop dead” comment by the other guy was only a bad choice of words, then so are Savage’s comments. If it was worse, then the same applies. If it is no big deal, and just the students, and Savage’s free expression, then the same goes for ‘drop dead’.

    Comment by Jason — May 1, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - May 1, 2012

  56. Yes indeed.

    That’s because you’re not asking a question; you’re demanding that people confirm your previous conclusions.

    When you state that you are not a Christian, not informed on the Bible in the same manner a Christian would be, and are willing to accept that your understanding may be incomplete or even incorrect, then I will be more than happy to provide it, whether you ultimately end up agreeing with me or not.

    But until then, there is no need to bother. You have made your conclusions and clearly have no interest in hearing anything else; otherwise, you wouldn’t have made them in the first place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 1, 2012 @ 7:15 pm - May 1, 2012

  57. Simple answer, Jason: you don’t understand legal rights, and you don’t understand gender differences.

    First off, as the case of Terri Schiavo and numerous others have shown, marriage is a legal default that is only somewhat better and can be outperformed/trumped by wills and powers of attorney, both of which gays have the same access to as straights.

    That leads us to the second point, which is that, inexplicably, gays and lesbians have never pushed to make wills, powers of attorney, and the like more standardized, which would have broad public support and which do not infringe on religious belief. Instead, the only thing in which gays and lesbians are interested is in directly attacking religion.

    Lastly, your brother’s sexual dalliances are demonstrably different than yours, in that they produce children. These children need to be protected, given legal identity, and raised; hence society has devised a mechanism to facilitate, support, and encourage those who produce these children to do exactly that. Your dalliances do no such thing, and thus do not need to be treated “equally”.

    In short, you chose a religious war, and now you’ve got one. Had you been able to put your hatred of religious belief aside in favor of actually fixing the problem, it wouldn’t be an issue.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 1, 2012 @ 7:28 pm - May 1, 2012

  58. JPerry2006 @ #54:

    Wow! I must hand it to you! You guys have a brilliant strategy!

    Groups like AFTAH, CWFA, FotF, various state family institutes all claim that homosexuality is not normal, that it is a perversion, its sinful, etc. They use that reasoning to oppose anti-bullying laws, anti-job discrimination laws, and same sex marriage.

    H-mmmm. There is an enormous difference between “normal” and an aberration. So, if we are forced to a Kelvin type measurement, what is the the actual human population weight (mathematically) of homosexuals to, say, pedophiles? What is the threshold of “normalcy”?

    Until that foolishness is established, JPerry2006 has no argument. Once JPerry2006 has settled the math involved, JPerry 2006 can then go forward and explain how insane asylums get populated and why cockroaches get such bad press.

    Really, has secular humanism informed by bumper sticker logic and cute cliché so overwhelmed the public square that Jon Steward actually is the the Wizard of Smart?

    Comment by heliotrope — May 1, 2012 @ 7:41 pm - May 1, 2012

  59. secular humanism informed by bumper sticker logic and cute cliché

    It is very hateful of you to mock Levi/Cas/Insipidity’s belief system like that.

    Comment by V the K — May 1, 2012 @ 7:54 pm - May 1, 2012

  60. Agreed.

    I will forgo the sherry and cry myself to sleep.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 1, 2012 @ 8:35 pm - May 1, 2012

  61. <blockquote cite=”That’s because you’re not asking a question; you’re demanding that people confirm your previous conclusions.
    When you state that you are not a Christian, not informed on the Bible in the same manner a Christian would be, and are willing to accept that your understanding may be incomplete or even incorrect, then I will be more than happy to provide it, whether you ultimately end up agreeing with me or not.”

    Again, I must say you are employing, a brilliant debate policy making strategy. You don’t actually have to debate, or deal with questions. You simply project, or move a goalpost, or engage in ad hominems. I’ve seen it with your other posts. It’s a strategy that works in moving the discussion away from the initial topic to dealing with the projection, moving of goalpost or dealing with the ad hominem. But I’m not going to do that. Feel free to use any of the aformentioned in responding to this post, which is rehashing of what I’ve asked before. Also feel free tell me how ignorant I am of the subject, my hatred of religion etc, when dealing with this concern.

    So I’m going to assume you have an answer, (actually, I’m going to say that because I don’t really think you have an answer, but I’ll pretend in the sprit of moving forward) to my query. Put in another way what is the mechanism that exists that allows Christian Conservatives, including gay ones such as yourself, to ignore, interpret differently, take into account temporal and/or culture differences for certain passages, but not for homosexuality? There is no clamoring for policy to be made to ban linen and wool shirts, this is despite the fact that the bible prohibits the wearing of such garments. Again, I’d assume that some mechanism exists which results in such prohibitions to not be implemented into policy making. Again, what are those mechanisms? Additionally, why don’t those mechanism exist in policymaking concerning gays?

    One of the most utilized pieces of rhetoric used against policies to extend rights to gays, is that such policy would infringe on religious liberty. Be it proposed policies aimed at addressing bullying, job discrimination, civil unions, marriage or any other policy beneficial to gays, the rhetoric of a negative impact on religious liberty should such policy be implemented, is utilized. This statement isn’t some ill-gotten conclusion, by some “evil Christian hating individual” this rhetoric can be seen on any of the sites of any advocacy group aimed at what they call “protecting the family.”
    Again, feel free to engage in ad hominem, or profess I’ve reached some conclusion based on my “anti-Christian” sentiments but if you actually have a real answer, I’d love to know;
    1. What is the mechanism which allows some biblical prohibitions to be ignored when making public policy, but other biblical prohibition specifically homosexuality to be used as justification in making policy?
    2. How does this mechanism work? (Again, since it appears to be so important to you, feel free to point my ignorance, hatred, evilness etc if it makes you feel better)
    3. Why does this mechanism exist?
    4. Lastly, predicting a response I have a feeling you going to make. If the biblical prohibition against homosexuality isn’t the driving force in making or preventing policy towards gays, a. why is it then that gay marriage for example negatively impacts religious liberty, and b. why is it that such rhetoric is used at all.
    I’d really like to hear an answer to these questions, again feel free to attack me any way you wish. Also, remember that you’re on home turf so no reason to hold back or be insecure.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 1, 2012 @ 9:15 pm - May 1, 2012

  62. <blockquote cite=”H-mmmm. There is an enormous difference between “normal” and an aberration. So, if we are forced to a Kelvin type measurement, what is the the actual human population weight (mathematically) of homosexuals to, say, pedophiles? What is the threshold of “normalcy”?
    Until that foolishness is established, JPerry2006 has no argument. Once JPerry2006 has settled the math involved, JPerry 2006 can then go forward and explain how insane asylums get populated and why cockroaches get such bad press.
    Really, has secular humanism informed by bumper sticker logic and cute cliché so overwhelmed the public square that Jon Steward actually is the Wizard of Smart?.”
    WoW!! That is an amazing come back! The comparison of gays to pedophiles, an oldie but goodie, I always love to see that comparison used. Despite the rhetoric that Christian Conservatives claim that they don’t hate gays, comparing the loving relationship of consenting adults to something as objectively evil as the violation of child, always serves to counteract said rhetoric.
    Comparing, gays to cockroaches and the insane is fresh and kinda new. I applaud your embracing of other anti-gay sentiment, well done.
    I like the avoidance of my questions and the complete non-sequitur of the Jon Steward statement. Again, well done! I already readdressed my questions concerns to the delightfully gay yet homophobic NDT, so no reason to readdress them in this comment. But I would remind you that us “evil liberal gay agenda commie anti-Christians” (or whatever else it is you want to call us) are quite out numbered. So feel free to refrain from using non-sequiturs, and classic avoidance of answering question in your response.
    Now I know you might not feel I’m worthy of any real response, I am after all “sub-human, being gay and all,” but in the sprit of small bit of antagonism, I’m going to assume comments like the come quoted above are all that your capable of. Come on I’m a moderately liberal homo, show me your superior debate skills achieved by being a heterosexual and having to deal with counter-debating all those evil liberal educators.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 1, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - May 1, 2012

  63. And again, JPerry2006, you demonstrate the problem.

    You continue to insist with absolute certainty that the Bible says this, or the Bible says that, or Christians believe this, or Christians believe that, or Christians do this, or Christians do that — and then demand Christians answer your questions about what the Bible says, what Christians believe, what Christians do.

    Did you not bother to gather that information BEFORE you drew your conclusions? Or — as seems far more likely — did you draw conclusions on what the Bible says, what Christians believe, and what Christians do without ever actually reading the Bible or talking to Christians?

    Your game, as is typical for gay and lesbian bigots like yourself and Dan Savage, is to make statements about Christians, then demand that Christians prove that they are not true. This is of course a logical impossibility, as one cannot prove a negative; if someone assumes that you are acting in good faith and proceeds, they soon find themselves trapped.

    The way out is to do what Heliotrope and I have done, which is to require that you provide the basis on which you have made the statements before we engage. The reason for your spitting and sputtering is that this requires you to show your work, and the fact that you hate Christians and blame them for all of your problems in life does not stand up to public scrutiny as a logical or rational basis for argument. Moreover, ironically, requiring you to show the premises on which you made your conclusion requires you to stick to them — and the arguments of moral relativists like yourself require that you never actually take a stand or stick to anything, lest you be hindered by it later.

    You can’t show your work, and you refuse to be held to a set of standards or basis for argument. Hence, you resort to the last option left to bigots, which is to namecall and insult in the hopes of baiting people into moving.

    Heliotrope and I have nothing to prove to anyone here, or to ourselves. We have credibility with the audience here as long-time commenters. As you (again ironically) put it, we are on our “home turf”, and thus have no particular need to respond to your baiting, any more than failure to respond to Fred Phelps ruins a person’s reputation.

    In short, mud toss away. The desperation of the Savage trolls like yourself to make what their leader did somehow justifiable amuses me to no end, and I look forward to what other excuses you can come up with for his behavior, including his death threats against Republicans and Christians.

    And if, by some odd chance, you actually want to know the answers to your questions, merely state the basis on which you draw your conclusions, or freely admit that your conclusions are based solely on your own perception of Christians, and are not in fact informed by actual interaction with or information from them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 1, 2012 @ 10:29 pm - May 1, 2012

  64. “And if, by some odd chance, you actually want to know the answers to your questions, merely state the basis on which you draw your conclusions, or freely admit that your conclusions are based solely on your own perception of Christians, and are not in fact informed by actual interaction with or information from them.”
    /Sigh. Okay! “I JPerry2006, am an evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, left-wing communist, who hates America, the constitution, and everything good in the world, who if given the chase would whore myself out to Islamic fundamentalists and aid them in their Jihad against America. I am therefore unfit to even pose questions to the mighty and godly NDT about the Bible and policy-making. I say this under no duress and under my complete free will.”
    Happy!?

    Okay, now that we got that out of the way, lets get down to business.
    So….
    Deuteronomy 22:11 (KJB) “Thou shalt not wear a garment of diver sorts as of woolen and linen together.”
    Leviticus 11:10 (KJB) “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:”
    Leviticus 20:18 (KJB) And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
    So lets just start with these. The aforementioned are quotes from the bible. You can look them up, I promise I didn’t make them up.
    “Did you not bother to gather that information BEFORE you drew your conclusions? Or — as seems far more likely — did you draw conclusions on what the Bible says, what Christians believe, and what Christians do without ever actually reading the Bible or talking to Christians?”
    So I gathered these quotes. Now since I’m evil, Christian hating, God hating etc… I’m going to assume that for someone as virtuous, and godly as you NDT, these verses mean something completely different then what I understand them to mean.
    Moving on….
    Leviticus 18:22 (KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    Now, as I understand it, again I’m evil commie liberal homo, this Bible verse means homosexuality is a “bad” thing.
    Here are quotes from various sites that describe themselves as pro-family
    Savecalifornia (In reference to transgendered kids visiting the WH)
    It’s sad and makes God mad. Those who want to promote the unnatural, unhealthy homosexual-bisexual-transsexual lifestyle and political agenda that tramples everyone else’s rights are doing their takeover today under the cloak of “bullying.”
    From the American Clarion
    Numerous studies have shown that depression, drug abuse and suicide rates for homosexuals are much higher than among the normal population—yes, I said “normal”! It is detestable to lie to young people, encouraging them to embrace homosexuality, claiming it will make them happy in the long run…When a person violates God’s natural order for human behavior, whether it is through sexual deviancy or any other sinful behavior which runs counter to God’s natural law, that person will invariably be miserable. All manner of sinful behavior leaves the person who engages in it unhappy and unfulfilled—at the very least. This is especially true of homosexuality, which God has described as abominable and detestable to Him.
    From Bryan Fisher In reference to JCPenny’s hiring of Ellen
    “When a company with the visibility and reputation of JCPenney deliberately chooses as its representative someone who engages in a sexually abnormal lifestyle, it is not an insignificant thing. JCPenney’s choice will futher lower the bar of what Americans consider sexually acceptable behavior. “
    From News with views In reference to gay marriage in Maine.
    ““The issue is not marriage. The issue is not “rights.” The issue is not “fairness.” The issue is sodomy. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. Homosexuality is a behavior. ‘Sodomy is most commonly legally defined as any contact between the genitals of one person, and the mouth or anus of another’.” Gaylib.com.
    Permit me to clarify the definition. Sodomy is one MAN inserting his genitals into the mouth or anus of ANOTHER MAN.
    Say it again. Say it out loud so your ears hear it. Picture it in your mind. Picture Barney Frank and Elton John in action…Barney Frank putting his genitals into Elton John’s…
    That is what they want to tell us is normal…no wait…tell our children is normal. Into that “union” they are asking permission to place children. Would you let them put YOUR grandchild into a sodomy-based family? Why would you let them do it to someone else’s child? Have normal people lost their minds?””
    So again, just to make you happy.
    “I JPerry2006, am an evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, left-wing communist, who hates America, the constitution, and everything good in the world, who if given the chase would whore myself out to Islamic fundamentalists and aid them in their Jihad against America. I am therefore unfit to even pose questions to the mighty and godly NDT about the Bible and policy-making. I say this under no duress and under my complete free will.”*
    Now I have a series of questions
    1. What is the mechanism that you use which permits a different interpretation of D 22:11, L 11:10 and L 20:18 then what I interpret them to mean?
    2. What do the aforementioned verse mean?
    3. Why would it be wrong to use my interpretation of the aforementioned verses in making policy prohibiting wearing of linen and wool shirts, eating shellfish, and sleeping with menstruating women?
    4. Why is your interpretation better then mine?
    5. What is your interpretation of Leviticus 18:22?
    6. If Leviticus 18:22, doesn’t mean that homosexuality that is an abomination, why then does Savecalifornia, and American Clarion use the abominable status of homosexuality to oppose laws dealing with gays and bulling. Likewise why does Fisher use the abominable status of homosexuality to oppose JC Penny’s hiring of Ellen, and why does News With Views use the abominable status of homosexuality to oppose SSM?
    7. And to beat a dead horse, What is the mechanism which allows some biblical prohibitions to be ignored when making public policy, but other biblical prohibition specifically homosexuality to be used as justification in making policy?
    Now as far as I can tell, I didn’t name call, insult, (nor did I in my other posts but whatever) or mud toss. And I even admitted I’m evil and hate everything holy and good, so I should have meet you’re ridiculous requirement of “admit that your conclusions are based solely on your own perception of Christians, and are not in fact informed by actual interaction with or information from them.” So with the aforementioned background information, can I pretty please have at least a kind answer for my questions. And to preempt a repeat of your last to two response, if my evil soulless commie homo mind is misinterpreting or cherry-picking the bible verse and quotes from pro-family groups, could you explain to this worthless godless homo how I’m misinterpreting and/or cherry-picking and then maybe answer my questions? Please!?

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 1, 2012 @ 11:45 pm - May 1, 2012

  65. Well, let’s start with something simple.

    First, since you insist your quotes represent the view of all Christians, then certainly you’ll allow me to use the same rules of evidence in regard to gays and lesbians like yourself and Dan Savage.

    For example, gays and lesbians want to have sex with children and give them HIV.

    Gays and lesbians embezzle money from their employers to make themselves rich and pay off liberal politicians.

    Gays and lesbians violently attack churches and assault parishioners to terrorize and silence them.

    Agree or disagree?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 12:30 am - May 2, 2012

  66. /Sigh x2. Okay! Members of the leftist LGBT community are evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, left-wing communists, who hates America, wants to infect children with HIV, are embezzlers, and violently attack churches and parishioners.
    Again, I JPerry2006, am an evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, left-wing communist, who hates America, the constitution, and everything good in the world, who if given the chase would whore myself out to Islamic fundamentalists and aid them in their Jihad against America. I am therefore unfit to even pose questions to the mighty and godly NDT about the Bible and policy-making. I say this under no duress and under my complete free will.
    Again Happy!? I hope so. In fact say whatever nasty things about me or members of the LGBT community and in the sake of advancing this debate, I will preemptively accept them!
    So again to beat a well beaten dead horse, with my admission of my evilness, the admission of the evilness of the LGBT community, and with the aforementioned posts written by me;
    What is the mechanism which allows some biblical prohibitions to be ignored when making public policy, but other biblical prohibition specifically homosexuality to be used as justification in making policy?
    Noting that religion plays a very large role in policy towards members of the LGBT community, if the bible verses concerning homosexuality are being misinterpreted, why then does religion play such a large role in this debate? Additionally, if as you seem to have suggested in your previous comment, not all Christian Conservatives are not represented from the quotes I listed above, can you provide Christian Conservative organizations that don’t see any threat from SSM, anti-bullying ordinances, anti-job discrimination laws, etc?
    Lastly, given your previous post, if I may be permitted to ask a question about you. If religion and homosexuality are compatible, why then do you appear to disassociate yourself from the gay community on the bases of your religious convictions?

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 2, 2012 @ 1:03 am - May 2, 2012

  67. Oh no, it’s not that easy, JPerry2006.

    Next up, let’s talk about the gay and lesbian community and its leaders like Dan Savage, who certainly would never be inconsistent and endorse a party or politician who did anything that in the least could be considered “anti-gay”. That’s, after all, why they endorse the Obama Party so wholeheartedly, because the Obama Party can never be “anti-gay” and none of its actions could ever be construed as such.

    Therefore:

    - Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in employment is not anti-gay

    - Discriminating against and sexually harassing a gay person is not anti-gay

    - Endorsing and supporting constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, even at the Federal level, is not anti-gay

    Agree or disagree? After all, to do anything else would be…..what are the words Dan Savage uses….inconsistent? Hypocritical?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 1:42 am - May 2, 2012

  68. Next up, JPerry2006, let’s talk about the gay and lesbian community and its relationship to religion.

    First off, the gay and lesbian community, led by Dan Savage, openly mocks and scoffs at people who believe in prayer and that it protects from “unclean spirits” as superstitious morons.

    Second off, the gay and lesbian community, led by Dan Savage, openly states that anyone who says they are doing “God’s will” or who listens to their “faith” to tell them about the “Lord’s work” is a hatemongering theocrat who allows their religion to shape policy and should thus be barred from public office.

    Third off, the gay and lesbian community, as exemplified by Dan Savage, says the Bible is “bullsh*t” and that Christians are all hypocrites.

    Therefore:

    - Michelle Obama is a superstitious moron

    - Barack Obama is a hatemongering theocrat who allows his religion to shape policy and should thus be barred from public office

    - All gay churches and gay Christians are hypocrites who read and follow “bullsh*t”.

    Agree or disagree? After all, to do anything else would be…..what are the words Dan Savage uses….inconsistent? Hypocritical?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 1:50 am - May 2, 2012

  69. First I must say, I don’t know what your profession is, but if it is not something in law, consulting, lobbying, public affairs, or similar your talents are being wasted.

    Okay moving on the concerns in post 67.

    Members of the leftist LGBT community are not only evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, left-wing communists, who hates America, wants to infect children with HIV, are embezzlers, and violently attack churches and parishioners. They are also stupid tools, who support and equally evil soulless etc party that wishes them harm and is using them for political gain. Since members of the leftist LGBT community are so evil etc and stupid they cannot see this trait.

    As for the comments in post 68, I already admitted members of the leftist LGBT community are Christian hating, God hating commies. See I even said it above.

    I mean what is that you want from me? I’m evil! EVILLLLL! If I had a TARDIS, I would totally take a picture of me blowing OSB and Stalin, to prove that I accept my evil liberalness. But I don’t have a TARDIS. You keep pointing out how evil, stupid, and destructive we leftist homos are and I keep accepting it. I’m totally evil! I’m down with it!
    So I am going to post the question again;

    What is the mechanism which allows some biblical prohibitions to be ignored when making public policy, but other biblical prohibition specifically homosexuality to be used as justification in making policy?

    Or since it seems to bother you so very much, a rehashing of the above question, what is it that we “evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, American hating, constitution hating, Saruman-esque, left-wing communists, who are actively seeking to infect children with HIV, burn down churches, and embezzle money for are evil communist goals” are incorrect about when people like Dan Savage claim Christian Conservative are being inconsistent and to use a stronger word hypocritical in matters of the Bible, homosexuality, and policy making?

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 2, 2012 @ 2:11 am - May 2, 2012

  70. As for the comments in post 68, I already admitted members of the leftist LGBT community are Christian hating, God hating commies. See I even said it above.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 2, 2012 @ 2:11 am – May 2, 2012

    Ah, but you see, that’s not what I asked.

    Again:

    - Michelle Obama is a superstitious moron

    - Barack Obama is a hatemongering theocrat who allows his religion to shape policy and should thus be barred from public office

    - All gay churches and gay Christians are hypocrites who read and follow “bullsh*t”.

    Agree or disagree?

    And I’ll even throw in a bonus: since he invokes God and his faith as reasons for his opposition to gay marriage, Obama is a homophobic bigot who hypocritically uses religion to make policy decisions.

    (And Dan Savage FULLY endorses and supports him.)

    Agree or disagree?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 2:31 am - May 2, 2012

  71. LOL!!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!

    Okay, being the thick headed evil liberal commie homo, I am I don’t actually really understand what you want me to agree with in post 70. But yes I agree Democrats and religious gays are hypocrites as well as the aforementioned. I totally agree.

    Yes, Gul Madred! There are five lights! I totally see five lights!

    On a completely different note, your totally into being Master/Dom in BDSM right? Because, I’m totally getting that vibe from you.

    I actually don’t know what game this is, but I’ve admitted and given you everything you’ve wanted to answer my question so…

    What is the mechanism which allows some biblical prohibitions to be ignored when making public policy, but other biblical prohibition specifically homosexuality to be used as justification in making policy?

    Or since it seems to bother you so very much, a rehashing of the above question, what is it that we “evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, American hating, constitution hating, Saruman-esque, left-wing communists, who are actively seeking to infect children with HIV, burn down churches, and embezzle money for are evil communist goals” are incorrect about when people like Dan Savage claim Christian Conservative are being inconsistent and to use a stronger word hypocritical in matters of the Bible, homosexuality, and policy making?

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 2, 2012 @ 2:58 am - May 2, 2012

  72. JPerry2006, if you want an answer to your questions, you may want to check out the posts by Questioner in the “If it gets better, why is Dan Savage so bitter?” thread. You may not agree with it, but at least you’ll get an answer.

    Comment by Pat — May 2, 2012 @ 7:08 am - May 2, 2012

  73. JPerry2006,

    I apologize for not taking more time and effort in explaining my words in my comment.

    You chose to call homosexuality “normal.” Your entire argument seems to be based on the “normalcy” of homosexuality. The idea is that it is politically incorrect to see homosexuality as an aberration.

    Lord Kelvin got so taken with scientific measurement that he declared: “To measure is to know.” So, we take statistics and determine by gradient what is “normal.” We think we know how many men in 100 are homosexuals and we probably even think we know how the “average” homosexual goes about acting on his homosexuality. All very scientific.

    But Lord Kelvin also noted (in one of his more ecumenical moments) that: “The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he would never be caught.”

    Now that is not science. That is metaphysics. And you don’t do metaphysics in a lab. Metaphysics is carried out in the public square. It is there (the public square) where homosexuality is determined to be “normal” or not.

    You can align the brown shirts against the public square and brow beat the public square into submission. You can work within the public square and hope to change attitudes. You can create regulations and jam it down the throats of those in the public square.

    So, yes indeed I did lump pedophiles with homosexuality in the sense that each has an itch that needs to be scratched by those bearing the itch and in each case the public square is not accepting or approving. Now, there is a far greater indifference toward quiet homosexuals than any pedophile except Roman Polanski.

    The public square and science have cooperated in isolating people who are way off from being “normal” in mental institutions. I would posit that men and women who have an orgy festival with chains and leather and little children and all manner of fetish driven activity are not “normal” in a vastly overwhelming number of public squares.

    As to cockroaches, they far exceed the ability of the human species to adapt and survive. Yet, the public square has attacked them relentlessly and consider them abominable pests. So here is an example of the public square in full attack against something that is, in fact, normal.

    I am sorry that you flamed out over every little sensitivity trap I laid in your path. In that respect, you have shown exactly how predictable you really are.

    Try your argument again without the predicate that homosexuality is “normal.”

    Comment by heliotrope — May 2, 2012 @ 9:30 am - May 2, 2012

  74. Okay, being the thick headed evil liberal commie homo, I am I don’t actually really understand what you want me to agree with in post 70. But yes I agree Democrats and religious gays are hypocrites as well as the aforementioned. I totally agree.

    And yet, you and Dan Savage are not confronting them in public, ranting at them, calling their religious beliefs “bullsh*t”, demanding that they explain their reasoning, and calling them hypocrites. Indeed, Dan Savage was right in front of Obama and instead kissed his ass, fawned over him, and told him how wonderful he was, even though his belief system is causing gay and lesbian children to kill themselves.

    Hence the point being made. Hypocrisy is irrelevant to you when it is a member of your political party. Understanding is unimportant to you when it is Barack Obama being inconsistent. Using religion as a basis for public policy is not anti-gay when liberals do it. Discriminating against gays, harassing gays, and banning marriage does not make one anti-gay when they are politically endorsed by and paying Dan Savage and the gay and lesbian community. Your beliefs causing gay teens to commit suicide are unimportant when it advances Obama Party political goals.

    In short, you were only looking for a rationalization to attack Christians. And now, after a great deal of battlespace preparation on my part, that is blatantly obvious by your own admittance.

    Questioner, out of naivete or simply not caring, assumes that you are actually asking the question because you want to know the answer. I, being more experienced with gay and lesbian bigots like Dan Savage and his followers, have discovered the futility of assuming the best about gay and lesbian bigots and simply recognizing that these are the same people who want us dead and dragged behind pickup trucks with rope. Answering a question for them is akin to answering a question for Fred Phelps; there is no search for knowledge involved, just a demand that you be complicit in your own destruction.

    When Dan Savage and yourself can say to Obama’s face the same things that you were so willing to say to teenagers and call him a pansy-ass for not doing what you want, then you’ll have a point.

    But what we see here is gays and lesbians attacking and haranguing teenagers rather than adults — because they’re too terrified of what the adults would actually do to them.

    Picking on the weak because you don’t like them. Classic definition of bullying.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - May 2, 2012

  75. JPerry2006, if you want an answer to your questions, you may want to check out the posts by Questioner in the “If it gets better, why is Dan Savage so bitter?” thread. You may not agree with it, but at least you’ll get an answer.

    I read through the postings your referred to and it didn’t at all deal with my question. Yes, Questioner dealt with the theological issues of homosexuality and noted how theological complex the issue is, but he(or) she didn’t deal with the issue of policy making.

    It’s doing the thing (whether premarital sex, or adultery, or gay sex, or masturbation) that is held to be immoral, and in this case I think “immoral” should not be taken as a sort of stern frown and waggling finger, but rather as concerns (a.) for the person’s best interests, and (b.) for God’s design and intention for human sexuality.”

    So I understand that it’s the action of having sex with members of the same sex, that is what is an abomination according to the bible. But so is the action of eating shellfish. I’m not concerned about the theological implications of the nuance. I’m not seeking salvation, the glory of God, nor to allow Jesus into my heart. What I am curious about is why it is that the biblical verses concerning homosexuality are used for making policy to admonish the “action or behavior of homosexuality,” but the verses on say prohibition of eating shellfish aren’t being used to make policy admonishing the “action or behavior of eating shellfish.”

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 2, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - May 2, 2012

  76. @ Heliotrope and NDT
    I’m really just concerned with understanding the reasoning behind policy-making. Policy-making theory if you will.

    So let’s accept the following premises that both of you are concerned about.

    1. Homosexuality, is like pedophilia, it is abnormal and unnatural. Homosexuality is a mental illness and homosexuals are like cockroaches.
    2. I’m a overly sensitivity pansy who is predictable in everyway
    3. Dan Savage and us liberal fags are hypocrites
    4. Obama and the “Obama Party” is evil
    5. Liberal faggots hate God, the church, Christianity
    6. I’m merely looking for a rationalization to attack Christians
    7. We liberal faggots are bigots, and we want to kill all Christians
    8. We liberal faggot display our evilness and hatred for all that is good by calling Christian teenagers pansy-ass, while not doing it to Obama
    9. We’re afraid of the awesome Godly power of heterosexual adult Christians
    10. We’re bullies

    I’m going to accept these premises. I accept these concessions that are necessary for this discussion.

    Even if we accept these premises, there is no logical link between these premises and using the bible as a justification for producing policy aimed at admonishing the action homosexuality, while not using the bible to produce policy aimed at admonishing the action of eating shellfish.
    For example, you could claim that “Homosexuals are hypocrites, therefore the action of homosexuality should be admonished.” This is logically coherent argument. As long as all people with the quality of being hypocrites are admonished, or if there is something extraordinarily wrong about homosexual hypocrites, which justifies their specific admonishment, the argument is logically coherent and not logically contradictory.

    But that is not the case with homosexuality. As stated the biblical proclamation that homosexuality is an abomination is used as justification in policy making aimed at admonishing the action or identification of homosexuality, or used as justification to oppose policy aimed at making homosexuality a protected class.

    However, the eating of shellfish is also called an abomination. However, that proclamation is not used in anyway in prohibiting or advocating for policy aimed at protecting or admonishing the action of eating shellfish.

    This has the appearance of being logically inconstant, at least to us evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, left-wing communist, who hates America, the constitution, and everything good in the world, so why is this assumption wrong? What is the reasoning behind policy making in regards to one thing that is called an abomination, while policy making is absent in another thing called an abomination.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 2, 2012 @ 1:49 pm - May 2, 2012

  77. It seems the filter didn’t like some of my word usage… This might get posted twice
    @ Heliotrope and NDT
    I’m really just concerned with understanding the reasoning behind policy-making. Policy-making theory if you will.

    So let’s accept the following premises that both of you are concerned about.

    1. Homosexuality, is like pedophilia, it is abnormal and unnatural. Homosexuality is a mental illness and homosexuals are like cockroaches.
    2. I’m a overly sensitivity pansy who is predictable in everyway
    3. Dan Savage and us liberal fags are hypocrites
    4. Obama and the “Obama Party” is evil
    5. Liberal gays hate God, the church, Christianity
    6. I’m merely looking for a rationalization to attack Christians
    7. We liberal gays are bigots, and we want to kill all Christians
    8. We liberal gays display our evilness and hatred for all that is good by calling Christian teenagers pansy-ass, while not doing it to Obama
    9. We’re afraid of the awesome Godly power of heterosexual adult Christians
    10. We’re bullies

    I’m going to accept these premises. I accept these concessions that are necessary for this discussion.

    Even if we accept these premises, there is no logical link between these premises and using the bible as a justification for producing policy aimed at admonishing the action homosexuality, while not using the bible to produce policy aimed at admonishing the action of eating shellfish.
    For example, you could claim that “Homosexuals are hypocrites, therefore the action of homosexuality should be admonished.” This is logically coherent argument. As long as all people with the quality of being hypocrites are admonished, or if there is something extraordinarily wrong about homosexual hypocrites, which justifies their specific admonishment, the argument is logically coherent and not logically contradictory.

    But that is not the case with homosexuality. As stated the biblical proclamation that homosexuality is an abomination is used as justification in policy making aimed at admonishing the action or identification of homosexuality, or used as justification to oppose policy aimed at making homosexuality a protected class.

    However, the eating of shellfish is also called an abomination. However, that proclamation is not used in anyway in prohibiting or advocating for policy aimed at protecting or admonishing the action of eating shellfish.

    This has the appearance of being logically inconstant, at least to us evil soulless, Christian hating, God hating, left-wing communist, who hates America, the constitution, and everything good in the world, so why is this assumption wrong? What is the reasoning behind policy making in regards to one thing that is called an abomination, while policy making is absent in another thing called an abomination.

    Comment by JPerry2006 — May 2, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - May 2, 2012

  78. Even if we accept these premises, there is no logical link between these premises and using the bible as a justification for producing policy aimed at admonishing the action homosexuality, while not using the bible to produce policy aimed at admonishing the action of eating shellfish.

    Actually, I can come up with one quite easily.

    Eating shellfish accounted for 7,444 reported cases of illness in the United States betwee 1934 and 1984, for a rate of approximately 149 cases per year.

    Promiscuous gay sex, as promoted and pushed by Dan Savage and the gay community, results in an infection rate a minimum of forty times the rate of other populations for HIV and syphilis, with the infection rate among children and teenagers who have the type of promiscuous gay sex promoted and pushed by Dan Savage and the gay community running twice the average rate of sub-Saharan Africa.

    In short, your obsession with shellfish seems misplaced when the rate of harm from the type of promiscuous gay sex you and Dan Savage push for children and teenagers is exponentially higher.

    Christians are rational people who are not blinded by the need for gay sex with children and teenagers like you and Dan Savage. Hence they question why someone like Dan Savage who promotes and pushes children and teenagers to engage in behaviors with such extraordinarily high risk rates is cheered as a hero, while people like themselves who tell children and teens to avoid such risky behaviors are jeered.

    Furthermore, one must ask why you and Dan Savage are so desperate to attack Christians as harming gay children when your rate of maiming, disabling, and killing them with diseases you spread is much, much higher. Dan Savage and the promiscuous gay sex he pushes are demonstrably harming more children and teenagers than Christians are. Why, then, do you promote and push him and attack Christians?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - May 2, 2012

  79. JPerry2006 @ #77:

    Do not accept premise #1 as it was never posited.

    No one called you air anyone a pansy or a f*g. Obama and the Obama party being “evil” was not posited.

    Liberal gays hating God, the church and religion was not posited.

    You may “attack” Christians to your heart’s content.

    You liberal gays permit bigotry, but I do not know about you wanting to kill any Christians, let alone all Christians.

    No one labeled you as evil and hate filled. [Presumably this over the top drama is due to how you read NDT: When Dan Savage and yourself can say to Obama’s face the same things that you were so willing to say to teenagers and call him a pansy-ass for not doing what you want, then you’ll have a point.]

    Clearly, you are not afraid of “the awesome Godly power of heterosexual adult Christians

    You are bullies. On that we agree.

    ——

    Your list is as whiney and as distorted a compilation of bugaboos and fantasy as one could imagine. You seem determined to be beset upon, but not by the actual issues, but by the demons you pick and invent.

    Are you capable of coming here with a sentient argument and to stick to it?

    Is your whole purpose to get a handle on shellfish vs. homosexual acts and their place in the Bible?

    Sit down and put your feet in a bucket of ice water and try to work out just one of your bugaboos and lets work together on that one.

    If that is successful, you can have more time on the couch.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 2, 2012 @ 3:23 pm - May 2, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.