Lawmaker Threatened for Comparing Gay Lifestyle to Terrorism

PolishBear »

Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:22 am Agree: 13   Disagree: 6

Living on a houseboat is a "lifestyle."

To say that there is a "Gay lifestyle" is as ludicrous as saying there is a "Straight lifestyle." We all have choices to make in terms of how we conduct our lives, but sexual orientation (Gay, Straight, or Bi) is no more a "lifestyle" than whether one is right-handed or left-handed.

There are individuals, Gay and Straight, who are promiscous. There are couples, Gay and Straight, that are monogamous. Even if a person is celibate, it doesn't mean he no longer has a sexual orientation. There is no monolithic "Gay lifestyle" that all Gay individuals share.

I don't have a "lifestyle." I have a life. And I would suggest that Sally Kern get one, also.

Lutherans Issue Human Sexuality Statement for Review

PolishBear »

Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

More wailing and gnashing of teeth over what to do about Gay Christians and whether to view human sexuality in anything but the most severe black & white terms. Personally, I admire the ELCA for at least acknowledging that there are indeed value judgements to be made in such matters. The people I see "punting" on this issue are those that simply say, "I don't make the rules, GOD does," while no doubt taking satisfaction in the fact that "God's rules" conveniently align with one's own personal fears and prejudices.

But let's face it: To suggest that Straight Christians get to have romance, while Gay Christians must resign themselves to being lonely and miserable for the rest of their lives, is simply not going to make sense for a lot of people. How are we to believe that Straight people get to date, get engaged, get married and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, that this is a GOOD thing ... yet for Gay people to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing?

Justices Hear Arguments on Calif. Same-Sex 'Marriage'

PolishBear »

Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:49 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

DEAR WILDERNESS:

You write, "Even if America fully accepts and legalizes homosexual marriage, God will still not recognize it."

Even so, GOD isn't responsible for income tax law, Social Security, or any of the 1,400 state and federal benefits that are automatically bestowed on married couples. This isn't a theocracy ... YET.

Justices Hear Arguments on Calif. Same-Sex 'Marriage'

PolishBear »

Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:31 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that gays should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
To those people out there who still suggest that social justice must be reached through the legislative process, rather than through the courts, I would point to the history of racial injustice in this country. While I could choose any number of cases to make my point, I'll start with the most obvious - Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. As everyone knows, this is the ruling that essentially reversed the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine. Without the decision of the court in Brown v Board, it is impossible to say when the schools of America would have begun to integrate, but I believe it is safe to say it would have been much later. At the time, the Brown v Board decision was just as unpopular with certain segments of the population as a decision today would be that grants gays equal marriage rights. Looking back, I think we can all agree that the unpopularity of the decision did not make it wrong.

Calif. Supreme Court Takes Up Same-Sex 'Marriage'

PolishBear »

Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:43 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

This is what you get for allowing Straight people to marry in the first place. What's next, POLYGAMY? I mean, if you allow a man to marry ONE woman, who's to say he shouldn't be allowed to marry TWO or THREE or FOUR women? Beware the slippery slope!

Anti-Gay Group Criticizes Wheaton College Speaker

PolishBear »

Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

My favorite sermon on this subject, "Doing A New Thing," was preached eight years ago by Bishop Jack Tuell at the Des Moines United Methodist Church. Read it here:
http://www.prairiechurch.org/MINISTRIES/Reconciling/bishop.htm

Presbyterian High Court Upholds Fidelity-Chastity Standard for Clergy

PolishBear »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:21 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 10

An open letter to practicing homosexuals who wish to be clergy:
Be faithful to your spouses. But more than anything, BE DISCRETE. No one will be the wiser.

Ariz. Leaders Mull Gay 'Marriage' Ban Anew

PolishBear »

Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:54 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.

Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.

For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it's important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed's point of view, it wouldn't do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically "UN-married" once they decide to move somewhere else.

The fact remains that the term "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no "right" for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I'm sure they would prefer NOT to.

Wash. Lawmakers Push to Expand Rights to Same-Sex Couples

PolishBear »

Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

A few things to consider:

1: The term "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. It is not defined. So technically there is no right for ANY couples, Gay or Straight, to get married. So if Straight couples are allowed to marry, there is simply no constitutional jusification to ban law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples from doing the same.

2: It's too simplistic to suggest that marriage ought to left to the states, since the federal government has a vested interest in whether people are married, for the purposes of tax and social security benefits. From the federal government's standpoint, it simply wouldn't do to say that a couple is married in one state, but then suddenly UN-married if they move somewhere else.

3: To suggest that marriage is for children is absolutely irrelevant. A couple does not need a marriage license to have sex and make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for a marriage license. Marriage is more a social tradition that lets two people declare, before friends and family members, their desire to love, honor, support, and be faithful to one another. It really doesn't matter whether the people in question are Gay or Straight.

For myself, I would prefer not to quibble over terminology. If "civil unions" will grant Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities as marriage, I'd settle for that. But if not, then nothing short of full marriage equality will suffice.

Why Darwinism is So Dangerous

PolishBear »

Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ben Stein is an articulate guy. He's a funny guy. But for the life of me, I can't figure out what he hopes to accomplish with this so-called "documentary" other than stir up animosity toward legitimate scientists. I can't even figure out what HE believes! Is he a "Creationist?" And if so, is it the "Young-Earth" or "Old-Earth" school? Does he see a difference between "Intelligent Design" and "Theistic Evolution?" Does he have a problem specifically with the fundamental mechanisms of evolution, or just some of the more racisit, sexist ideas attributed to Charles Darwin? WHO CAN SAY?

The fact is, there is nothing "random" or "accidental" about the process of evolution. It is simply an extention of the physical and biochemical laws that govern everything. We know that carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms have a natural affinity for each other, and given time and energy these atoms will organize themselves into increasingly complicated molecular forms. Does it really matter whether there has to be some sort of anthropomorphic "intelligence" behind it? And even if there IS, how could any such thing be documented in a laboratory?

Survey: Young Christian Voters Break from Traditional Right

PolishBear »

Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:18 am Agree: 11   Disagree: 9

This article raises an interesting question: What is the church's most pragmatic approach to Gay Christians, at a time when a younger generation is increasingly supportive of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers?

According the Barna Group's recent study of evangelical youth, 80% said Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians.

I would suggest the reason for this is that evangelical youth are capable of making a moral an ethical distinction between monogamous Gay couples and promiscuous Gay individuals, rather than simply saying it's all just wrong, wrong, wrong. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Christians are beginning to see the benefits of embracing their Gay brothers and sisters and encouraging them toward lives of monogamy and commitment, rather than simply pushing them off to the side, and relegating them to lives of loneliness, depression, and promiscuity.

Too many Christians, especially older Christians, still cling wistfully to the notion that Straight people get to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and faithfulness to one other, that this is a GOOD thing ... and yet for Gay people to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing. The young evangelicals that the Barna group cites in its survey fortunately are realizing that this is a poor value judgment.

NBC Show Criticized for Portraying Christians as Violent 'Bible Thumpers'

PolishBear »

Mon Jan 14, 2008 11:15 am Agree: 11   Disagree: 4

THE QUESTION IS THIS: What is the church's most pragmatic approach to Gay Christians, at a time when a younger generation is increasingly supportive of their Gay friends, family members, and co-workers?

According to a recent Barna study of evangelical youth, 80% said Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians."

I would suggest the reason for this is that evangelical youth are capable of making a moral an ethical distinction between monogamous Gay couples and promiscuous Gay individuals, rather than simply saying it's all just wrong, wrong, wrong. It is becoming increasingly obvious that Christians are beginning to see the benefits of embracing their Gay brothers and sisters and encouraging them toward lives of monogamy and commitment, rather than simply pushing them off to the side, and relegating them to lives of loneliness, depression, and promiscuity.

Too many Christians, especially older Christians, still cling wistfully to the notion that Straight people get to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and faithfulness to one other, that this is a GOOD thing ... and yet for Gay people to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing. The young evangelicals that the Barna group cites in its survey fortunately is realizing that this is a poor value judgment.