GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/10/07/rejecting-domestic-partnerships-for-gods-sake/trackback/

  1. Sullivan, the potsmoking, outdoor anonymous public group sex Barebackerist really cant be taken seriously on marriage considering what he apparently thinks marriage should be.

    Hey, heres an idea, why dont we tax barebackers extra to pay for healthcare for all the people who get HIV because of them?

    Eh Andrew?

    Also, please notice Miss Milky Glutes lie, that this ad was put out by the GOP, or in some way has something to do with the GOP. It doesnt. It was put out by a group called “Protect Marriage Washington” which has nothing to do with the GOP.

    But it does go to show how f*cked in the head Andrew has become, and how all his protestations that his fallout with Bush and the GOP wasnt over gay marriage is just one of his many packs of lies.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 7, 2009 @ 9:23 pm - October 7, 2009

  2. AE, thanks for the clarification about the source of the ad. Not everything anti gay comes from the GOP.

    Comment by Leah — October 7, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - October 7, 2009

  3. Ummm….ELCA, Episcopal, UCC…hellooo!!! I think that religion has a lot to say about gay relationships. I hope that people will look at the human sexuality document I linked in another thread. Thoughtful Christians have much to offer–especially to other Christians who could respond to a Scripture-based approach to same-sex couples. Why not create a counter-ad with Lutheran, Episcopal, Reformed Jewish, and moderate Muslim gay couples? The Muslims could recite the poetry Rumi wrote to his male beloved.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — October 7, 2009 @ 9:39 pm - October 7, 2009

  4. Sure Leah,

    I’d actually argue that very little that is anti-gay comes from the GOP.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 7, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - October 7, 2009

  5. I don’t know about that approach, Ashpenaz. While I think that a religious case can be made for acceptance, I distrust the way many of the mainline protestant denominations have taken up the issue of gay rights as part of their push for a generally left-wing agenda. I say this as someone who used to attend the Episcopal Church, but have stopped because I got tired of all the Bush-bashing at the Episcopal churches in my city (and the neighboring one); and I refuse to go these days and hear how we must pass health care reform now. I guess you could say I distrust the motives of some of those in the church leadership making pro-gay arguments.

    Comment by Kurt — October 7, 2009 @ 11:12 pm - October 7, 2009

  6. Seems silly really. Since when does an advertisement produced by any group (thanks AE), speak for any particular movement. The truth, as I see it is that most conservative and republicans, I suspect, support all sorts of unions with the exception of same sex marriage. For me this is because of a simple reason, the Bill of Rights. I have only seen one argument on this point and that is from Steven Crowder at PJTV. The issue is not the sanctity of marriage, per se, it is the protection of religious institutions to conform to their religious edicts as they see fit. If marriage is a right then what is to stop the Government from requiring priests, pastors, preachers and clergy to perform these rites regardless of doctrine. For better or worse, tax exemption carries a lot of weight.

    Comment by Croft — October 7, 2009 @ 11:35 pm - October 7, 2009

  7. Kurt, you SHOULD distrust the motives of churches that make pro-gay arguments, and you should do so for the simple fact that such arguments TOTALLY contradict Scripture. Churches are supposed to uphold the commandments and morals of God, not the far-left of the Democrat party. I can’t speak on other faiths, but in the Bible God gives mankind quite a few “thou shalt nots”, and one of them has to do with men not lying with men as with women. If churches choose to reject that commandment they should at least be honest enough to admit that they’re choosing to stand against the sexual/domestic order ordained by God. But don’t hold your breath, Kurt. I doubt such an admission will ever come.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — October 7, 2009 @ 11:35 pm - October 7, 2009

  8. It would be interesting if they turned against Islamofascists if they ever became an big enough force in America to oppose gays but sadly (what?) that will never happen.

    On another note, Andy should attack Islamochristianist Mikey Moore for asking, “What would Jesus do?” about capitalism:
    http://mitchellblatt.com/blog/2009/10/michael-moore-sean-hannity-religious-fanatic

    Also, am I a libertarianist?

    Comment by Mitchell Blatt — October 8, 2009 @ 12:54 am - October 8, 2009

  9. This post contains a mistake. I believe it is the fact that the post was written. Sullivan isn’t worth it. And a post which was a confused mish-mash of both disagreement with Sullivan and a kind of implicit or unadmitted promotion of certain of his views, wasn’t worth the time it took me to read it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 2:11 am - October 8, 2009

  10. Wow, colour me almost agreeing with Seane-anna,

    When a denomination of people decides that the will of their aspect of the Divine ‘makes execptions’ that they can’t find basis for, then they’ve lost the path. With my (nominal) church, my issue is more the allowing non-married clergy to not be celibate if they’re gay. You can’t get married? Sucks to be you. Being ordained isn’t a right in any sense. You pick up the robes, you play by the rules, no matter who your choice of bedmate is*.

    I can’t see the ad (pesky firewalls) but Suli’s belief that we Christians are out to get him is a sign of HIV induced paranoia more than anything. Like it or not, this group has a right to speak and lobby, just as much as the supporters do.

    Now before the ‘seperation of church and state’ trolls come out, let me explain how our society works. The state can’t say “due to X faith’s teachings, we’re making this a law.” The people however, can say “due to our beliefs, we’re pushing for this law.”

    And just to make Seena twitch, there are many BDSM groups who promote a male-Dominant/female-submissive lifestyle, as being biblically inspired. There is/was one in Columbus, but I never went to a meeting. Do you approve of those?

    *disclaimer, my sister’s a youth minister and is supposed to follow those same teachings, we go ’round and round about her dating with benefits. There’s a reason I call myself a Henothesitc Lutheran Heritic.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2009 @ 6:49 am - October 8, 2009

  11. I can’t speak on other faiths, but in the Bible God gives mankind quite a few “thou shalt nots”, and one of them has to do with men not lying with men as with women.

    Seane-Anna, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you don’t follow all of the “thou shalt nots” either, unless you are Orthodox Jewish (and even then). Most Christian churches, even the conservative ones choose to stand against some of the order ordained by God.

    ILC, I think this post could have been made without referring to Andrew Sullivan. But I did check the ad, and as John suggested it is ridiculous on many counts. I’m waiting for the ad banning cheeseburgers, because after God created the universe, and man and woman, etc., He also mandated no consumption of meat with dairy.

    Not everything anti-gay comes from the GOP.

    I agree Leah and AmericanElephant. I haven’t seen the voter breakdown by party for the DP bills, but everything I read indicates that most of the yes votes came for the Democrats, and almost all of the no votes came from the GOP.

    Comment by Pat — October 8, 2009 @ 7:02 am - October 8, 2009

  12. Livewire, if I understand you correctly, then a minister is allowed to not be celibate as long as the non-celibacy is within the confines of marriage. Does your church allow for gay membership, and not require celibacy for those members? Further, is it okay for these members to be in monogamous relationships. If so, it seems to me the solution could be to have the church marry same sex couples (which, of course, would not be recognized for all but a handful of states).

    Comment by Pat — October 8, 2009 @ 7:09 am - October 8, 2009

  13. 1: Believe me, I had to rewrite that first sentence after quoting like 3 times to avoid more colorful language and still wasn’t satisfied. I strongly sympathize with many comments over on Ace of Spades when it comes to Mr. Sullivan.

    3: I was speaking in the context of elections, not religions taking a position on gay relationships one way or the other. Whether I agree with their position or not, such would seem to be part of their function. I find such direct appeals in elections based upon religion to be extremely distasteful – whether pro or anti. Civil law is not based upon the creeds of one religion.

    5: Case in point for #3.

    6: Now that is a legitimate area where religious groups can and should speak up on. As a strong believer in the First Amendment I welcome ideas to strengthen all of our rights, even if I vehemently disagree with some of those giving those views in other areas. Yet this is still about domestic partnerships in Washington, not marriage. I know of no religion that performs anything like domestic partnerships. For those states that have adopted same-sex marriage, the added language reinforcing the First Amendment as we saw in at least 2 New England states may be viewed as superfluous by some by I find it to be positive.

    7: That’s a good argument to have with those who share your faith, to whatever degree you may view that to be, yet such direct pro or anti arguments from churches are out-of-place in civil elections.

    8: Oh you won’t find that on the Left, since Christianity seems to be their favorite target, but the Right has its own weakness on this as well. Some religious folks are perfectly fine with ads like this or public support of religious faith until it comes to religions they vehemently disagree with. Like Islam.

    9: Best I can do when it comes to Mr. Sullivan. I would have rather found this from someone else so my commentary wouldn’t have been clouded. Yet, this was the best I could do with what I had on hand. The inappropriate ad mainly was the point, Sullivan was a side issue.

    11:

    Now before the ’seperation of church and state’ trolls come out, let me explain how our society works. The state can’t say “due to X faith’s teachings, we’re making this a law.” The people however, can say “due to our beliefs, we’re pushing for this law.”

    Absolutely on both counts. Yet when such statements or advertisements are made they have very little room for complaint when they get the inevitable blowback from folks who do not share their beliefs or who may not find basing civil law on religious tenets to be appropriate.

    Comment by John — October 8, 2009 @ 7:37 am - October 8, 2009

  14. Well if by ‘my church’ you mean the one I’m nominally a member of then yes, gay members are more than welcome, as Ash does the happy dance about constantly. But since sex outside the covenant of marriage is a sin, then they’d need to ask forgiveness, just as I would. Lack of desire and oportunity makes me chaste by default, but I never claim to be resistant to temptation. If the ELCA decides to recognize/create an institution to recognize same sex partners, that’s their perogative as mortal men, but don’t suddenly find some justification in the bible saying this is an about face. (‘Look, Jesus hung around with 12 other guys! Same sex marriage must be approved!’)

    For ‘The Livewire’s church of fire and brimstone and Hermitage’ however, then part of being forgiven is seeking penance and restitution. So casual sex, or even commited sex outside the boundaries of marriage isn’t right, especially if it becomes ‘forgive me father, I’ve had a wonderful night with my 20 something GF, and will ask for forgiveness tomorrow too.’

    As for who’s right? Only the Divine knows. I know that I’m comfortable in my beleifs, even when (especially when?) they conflict with how I want to live.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2009 @ 9:15 am - October 8, 2009

  15. Oh, and I have no problem with backlash, to take it from the non-religious arguement, look at the NAMBLA debate below. They’re allowed to spout off their vile claptrap however they want, but the moment they start practicing it, society is fully entitled to drop down on them with size 13 feet* They’re also not entitled to my bullhorn, or my ISP, or my newspaper.

    *offer void in the homes of Whoopi Goldberg, Roman Polanski or Woody Allen.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2009 @ 9:17 am - October 8, 2009

  16. Alas, we have this idiotic farce of an argument going on in Maine as well. Both sides adverts are an insult to our intelligence and misleading. With all the problems this state is facing for them to put all their efforts into over-turning civl union laws is beyond belief.

    Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — October 8, 2009 @ 9:23 am - October 8, 2009

  17. If you actually watch the ad, you might have more sympathy for Conspiracy Theoris(t) Andy. The ad itself is entirely a quote from the Bible from a guy with an obnoxious voice talking about how gays are gonna destroy God are just says support us, cuz we are using the Bible. The part about child molesters was completely made up in Sully’s mind just like the child of Palin was.

    Comment by Mitchell Blatt — October 8, 2009 @ 9:37 am - October 8, 2009

  18. There is nothing in Scripture which discusses homosexuality as an orientation as we understand it today. Here is a link to a site which goes over each passage:

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/index.html

    In the same way the church has corrected its misreadings of Scripture to justify slavery, the oppression of women, etc., the church is now in the process of correcting itself about homosexuality.

    Please don’t continue to say that Scripture condemns homosexuality until you’ve followed the link to the site and at least given it a look. Most theologians, straight and gay, have come to these same conclusions about the Bible verses which have wrongly been used to condemn those of us with homosexual orientations.

    The ELCA says that sex within a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship (straight or gay) is good. What’s the problem with that?

    What’s your argument against lifelong?

    What’s your argument against monogamous?

    What’s your argument against publicly accountable?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — October 8, 2009 @ 9:46 am - October 8, 2009

  19. The inappropriate ad mainly was the point, Sullivan was a side issue.

    Fair point and I admit this is becoming a discussion worth reading.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 10:34 am - October 8, 2009

  20. “The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision.” –Lynne Lavner

    Lynn Lavner is an American comedian and musician from Brooklyn, New York. Much of her material is based around the facts that she is Jewish and a lesbian. She is frequently billed as “America’s Most Politically Incorrect Entertainer.” wiki

    Comment by rusty — October 8, 2009 @ 11:31 am - October 8, 2009

  21. Funny, I always thought Marriage was between the man, the woman, and the Divine. Then again, I don’t think much of ‘Public Approval’

    Ok, kind of figured I’d get angst-quest II, the Wrath of Ash on this but let me sum myself up this way.

    I’ve said in the past if you don’t like the issue of the Boy Scouts not accepting homosexual scout masters, then you go form your own group. That’s the greatest thing about the country.

    Well, the ELCA took the final step that I can’t accept from ‘my church’ so I’m taking what I know and heading off in what I feel is right. *shrugs* at least I’m consistent.

    Looks like I’m not alone.

    Back on the topic, if the younger Blatt’s reading of the ad is correct (remember, I’m behind a firewall). Then by all means, let them blather.

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2009 @ 11:52 am - October 8, 2009

  22. The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals.

    If that’s the case, then why do Christians keep violating the Bible by having sex with people of the opposite sex?

    Comment by Mitchell Blatt — October 8, 2009 @ 11:53 am - October 8, 2009

  23. rusty quotes the word of a commedian in answer to the word of the Divine.

    Does that mean that rusty worships commedians? This says much :P

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2009 @ 11:53 am - October 8, 2009

  24. Oh one more off topic thing.

    Found this I’ve got more Lutherans than you do, Ash

    I’d not bring it up, but the fact that the headline is “ILC affirms Bible’s position on homosexual behavior” was too good to pass up, considering the nickname of one of our regulars. (Can I say ‘our’?)

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2009 @ 11:57 am - October 8, 2009

  25. I have often considered a shrine to the great LW but it is a tough choice between LW and ILC. . .both so witty

    Comment by rusty — October 8, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - October 8, 2009

  26. TL – heh :-)

    It looks like the Lutherans are catching up to where the Anglicans were about ten years ago. (U.S. church mellowing, although perhaps not for the right reasons as the effort is being led by leftists; World church objecting.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 12:12 pm - October 8, 2009

  27. In the same way the church has corrected its misreadings of Scripture to justify slavery, the oppression of women, etc…

    Sorry, Ash, but the Church has done no such thing (and really cannot) because the Bible doesn’t condemn these kinds of things in any way. There are a lot of “bad” things in the modern world which simply did not have a moral valence in the Biblical period. Slavery was a non-moral fact in the sense that morality in the Bible orbits around those things necessary to be in God’s good graces. Having slaves or making slaves did not have a moral dimension in the Bible (bondage is part of our fallen condition); even though the authors acknowledge that it sucked being a slave, that did not translate into a moral imperative to end slavery.

    Similar things are true of violence, drug use, and (arguably) prostitution.

    I’d be curious to see cited (and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask this) the passages that admonish me not to have sex before marriage. This kind of statement is trotted out periodically within a discussion of homosexuality, but I really cannot recall a place in the Bible that says such a thing. From what passages is this edict inferred, or is it – like many modern church traditions – an un-Biblical cultural holdover from the Antique and Middle Ages…

    Comment by DoDoGuRu — October 8, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - October 8, 2009

  28. The Bible sometimes treats slavery as a positive. Even the Christian (or New) Testament uses the imagery of slavery, here and there, as a positive metaphor (“slave for Christ”). The Hebrew (or Old) Testament makes a big thing of delivering the Israelites out of slavery, but only from the standpoint that God had special plans for the Israelites; the Bible nowhere condemns slavery as an institution.

    None of which is to say slavery is right. Slavery is totally and completely wrong. I assert that as an objective moral fact. What it goes to show is that the Bible does not state all moral facts, or to say it another way, the Bible is not always and obviously aligned with objective moral truth. You can definitely find moral principles in the Bible that, when carried to their conclusion, mean slavery is wrong. But that is human interpretation. Human interpretation is required. The Bible was written by human beings (i.e., NOT as dictation from God), and it must be interpreted by human beings to be useful.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 12:33 pm - October 8, 2009

  29. 17: “more sympathy for Conspiracy Theorist Andy”?!? Are you sure you’re Dan’s nephew? :-P

    21: If memory serves the LCMS wrote the ELCA off as heretical back in 2002 or so over the Justification Agreement with the Catholic Church. It seems unlikely that the LCMS is suddenly concerned about the ELCA’s welfare now…

    24: The ILC is only the largest group of Lutherans if one ignores the LWF.

    Comment by John — October 8, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - October 8, 2009

  30. heh, the Missouri Synod has always been the wacky cousins of the ELCA. My stepmom’s a Missouri Synod refugee.

    And the Catholic Church has always been concerned about we poor wayward Protestant sheep. Why not extend the courtesy to the MSynod?

    I didn’t recall saying that they were the biggest, just pointing out that the ELCA isn’t the last word (or the largest) in Lutheran-land :-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — October 8, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - October 8, 2009

  31. “The Bible was written by human beings (i.e., NOT as dictation from God), and it must be interpreted by human beings to be useful.”

    Wow! Something we agree on! And Augustine, Aquinas, Teresa, Luther, Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Barth, Tillich, Chittister, and, gee, almost all Christians.

    It’s interesting to note that the Roman Catholic church doesn’t condemn homosexuality on the basis of Scripture. They also agree that Scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we understand it today. They condemn homosexuality because it is non-procreative. (See their Catechism–nary a Scripture reference to be found on the subject.)

    It would be nice if people read the Human Sexuality document I’ve linked to or Gay Christian 101 which I’ve linked to because I think that both of those do such a good job of explaining homosexuality in a Christian context.

    Rather than discuss the Lutheran part, let’s look at the essence of what makes a homosexual relationship morally right. Again–because I’m curious–

    What’s the argument against lifelong?

    What’s the argument against monogamous?

    What’s the argument against publicly accountable?

    Comment by Ashpenaz — October 8, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - October 8, 2009

  32. Ooops–I was wrong about the Catholics. My bad–guess they do cite Scripture against homosexuality in their catechism. Oh, well.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — October 8, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - October 8, 2009

  33. Wow! Something we agree on!

    Wow! A comment from Ash that didn’t just try to insult me in blind, laughable ignorance of my background in religion!

    and, gee, almost all Christians.

    Bzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Hundreds of millions of Christians in the world today, Ash, either view the Bible as God’s literal word, or/and, at least as the one and only possible source of moral truth. Why, I believe you present yourself as one of them – when it suits you, that is. (You change so much from post to post.)

    Now for what I came to say – More for DDGR:

    I’d be curious to see cited (and perhaps this is the wrong place to ask this) the passages that admonish me not to have sex before marriage.

    The Christian Testament admonishes against a Greek word (pornea or porneia) that English translators have traditionally rendered as “fornication”. And the strict definition of the latter is, any extra-marital sex. However: That translation is open to debate; as is the use, context, etc. of the relevant passages in the 21st century even if the translation is right. In other words: Human interpretation is required.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - October 8, 2009

  34. What’s the argument against lifelong? What’s the argument against monogamous? What’s the argument against publicly accountable?

    I don’t think any reasonable person is against any of those things, so the question is a red herring.

    let’s look at the essence of what makes a homosexual relationship morally right

    If something isn’t morally wrong, then it’s morally right or at least morally neutral (i.e., acceptable if not the ultimate ideal). That’s what makes a consensual, respectful relationship morally right – whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. Among sane people, “homosexual relationships” are not a special animal needing extra moral justification.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - October 8, 2009

  35. (P.S., “a relationship between adults” is implied by, or should be inferred in, my use of “consensual”.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - October 8, 2009

  36. (And an honest, non-”cheating”, and otherwise non-exploitative relationship should be inferred in my use of “respectful”. I shouldn’t have to explain these things, but hey – Ash is around.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 2:25 pm - October 8, 2009

  37. You know, ILC, it’s simply not true that most Christians think of the Bible as the direct literal dictation from God, now or throughout church history. At the moment, the biggest Christian groups are the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, and the Lutherans–all of whom see Biblical inspiration as a dynamic between God and the community.

    Though Roman Catholic in origin, you might google Newman’s Development of Doctrine which would be the way most Christians see revelation. Through this process, the Holy Spirit is now making available truths about homosexuality which weren’t clearly seen before. The Holy Spirit has been guiding the church step-by-step into the fullness of the truth, and the good news about homosexuality appears to be the next step on the Holy Spirit’s agenda.

    The fact that something is consensual doesn’t make it “right” in the absolute sense. Sure, society can permit consenting adults to do whatever they want. But Christians believe that God paid for our bodies with a price, and now God owns our bodies, so we’re called to honor God with our bodies. I, as a gay man, can only honor God in a lifelong, monogamous, publicly accountable relationship.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — October 8, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - October 8, 2009

  38. [...] Rejecting Domestic Partnerships for God’s Sake? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Another Rant from a Narrow-minded Ex-Conservative — October 8, 2009 @ 3:16 pm - October 8, 2009

  39. You know, ILC, it’s simply not true that most Christians think of the Bible as the direct literal dictation from God

    But I never said they did. Man, are you slippery with all the red herrings! Let’s review.

    First, you had said “almost all Christians” would agree with my position on the necessity for intensive human interpretation of the Bible. Now, what is “almost all”? It’s open to interpretation (heh) – but very roughly, we are talking 95%? 99%? Assuming so, and out of 2 billion Christians, then by your account, only 20-100 million would disagree with my position on Bible interpretation.

    In answer to that, I said: No, “hundreds of millions” of Christians would disagree with my position on Bible interpretation. Now, what is “hundreds of millions”? Again it’s open, but probably something like 300 million, 500 million, or more (700 million? 900 million?) of the world’s 2 billion Christians. I could have meant 900 million – and it would still only be a minority of Christians. I could have meant 1.1 billion or 1.3 billion, a majority – but it would still be far short of “most Christians”.

    In other words, I quite intentionally DID NOT make the extreme claim that “most Christians think of the Bible as the direct literal dictation from God”. Not even close.

    Yet you, stuffing words into my mouth (or ‘bearing false witness’ as they say), try to pretend I did. Life with Ash!!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 3:32 pm - October 8, 2009

  40. back to the ad itself. . .BTB Burroway points out that the second image you see flashing on the screen, of Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, is a copyrighted image from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. here is the website: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=504df48fa2d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

    Artist, Lowell Bruce Bennett

    © 2002 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the USA

    Comment by rusty — October 8, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - October 8, 2009

  41. 30: I hear that WELS is even more…intense. ;-) As for the Catholic Church caring about ye wayward Prots, of course! Ya’ll are “separated brethren” after all…

    Comment by John — October 8, 2009 @ 4:45 pm - October 8, 2009

  42. It’s interesting to note that the Roman Catholic church doesn’t condemn homosexuality on the basis of Scripture. They also agree that Scripture does not condemn homosexuality as we understand it today. They condemn homosexuality because it is non-procreative. (See their Catechism–nary a Scripture reference to be found on the subject.)

    Have the hard copy, purdy dark green cover too. The CC teaches that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered” but unlike some Protestant groups such an orientation (a word the CC generally avoids) isn’t in itself sinful. To the CC only homosexual behavior is sinful. A more reasonable approach than many others, but problematic as well.

    It would be nice if people read the Human Sexuality document I’ve linked to or Gay Christian 101 which I’ve linked to because I think that both of those do such a good job of explaining homosexuality in a Christian context.

    I have the book and while some of it is very interesting, I’m skeptical of other parts of it. Pharsea isn’t a bad site to look at either:

    http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/

    Comment by John — October 8, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - October 8, 2009

  43. And many of us have looooong since read many such documents and Web sites over the years.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 8, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - October 8, 2009

  44. “loooong” is really a matter of perspective, isn’t it? :)

    Comment by Ashpenaz — October 8, 2009 @ 6:15 pm - October 8, 2009

  45. I haven’t read any of the previous comments, but I have to say, seeing ads such as this is kind of depressing for me. Personally, I am a gay man, but I’m also a conservative Christian, both politically, and theologically.

    Except for that little thing about being gay.

    I’ve done a lot of research on the matter of Christianity and Homosexuality over the years. A lot of the material out there “supporting” homosexuality from a “Biblical” standpoint is grabbing at straws, and I’m kind of embarrassed that people could be so sloppy with it, but I’ve come to the conclusion that a defensible and reasonable case can be made that the Bible does in fact support (and not condemn) homosexuality. I say this, having grown up in an anti-homosexual, very right-wing family. I should mention that I’m from California, and how “fun” it was with my family during the Prop 8 voting.

    I’m kind of a rare bird, as it were, being theologically reformed and “orthodox”, politically conservative, and gay. Triangulating those three things doesn’t seem to be a very common combination. I think there are more out there who believe as I do, but often times, ads like this can make a person cut off from others who, otherwise, believe like he does.

    I guess what distresses me the most, is that their entire platform of propaganda is based on centuries-long misinformation and “translation by tradition” that doesn’t hold up to a more than cursory glance without presupposition, and meaningless “slippery slope” attacks such as, “What’s next? Bestiality?”

    This, even ASIDE from the numerous social arguments in favor of accepting homosexual relationships.

    I’m not a Republican myself, I’m actually moderate Libertarian. I believe big government is bad government, and that our current government has long overstepped its role in our nation. Nonetheless, it does strike me as amusing that recently I heard a pastor preach on how America was a Republic, specifically to protect the minorities from being oppressed by the majority. That America was not formed as a “Democracy” but as a “Republic” so that there would be the “Rule of Law” instead of “Rule by the Majority,” so that things like civil rights, and oppression of minorities would be overturned by justice. And then quickly went on to clarify that didn’t apply to people like homosexuals.

    Comment by ConservativeGuy — October 9, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - October 9, 2009

  46. P.S. I should clarify, by “Christian” I am referring to myself as a reformed theologically conservative Protestant (not dividing lines here, just clarifying my background for any interested).

    Comment by ConservativeGuy — October 9, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - October 9, 2009

  47. Some time back, Sullivan offered this definition of “Christianist”:

    “Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”

    My response was to come up with a similar term that i think best applies to Sullivan and his ilk:

    “Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Homosexualist is in no way designed to label people in the homosexual rights movement as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Homosexualist the view that homosexuality is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that sexual orientation dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, homosexual and non-homosexual alike.”

    http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/176511.php

    Comment by Rhymes With Right — October 10, 2009 @ 5:16 pm - October 10, 2009

  48. Right on the money RWR! Sullivan is most definitely a “homosexualist”

    Comment by American Elephant — October 11, 2009 @ 1:50 am - October 11, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.336 Powered by Wordpress