Gay Marriage: Some Day (But Not Now) We'll Say, "Oh, Never Mind"

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that there is never going to be a "good" time to fight for gay rights and same-sex marriage. The argument of appropriate timing just doesn't fly with me. If not now, when? For those of us who are deprived of this basic civil right, not being able to get married is a hardship that most straight people do not understand. It is not just that we want a romantic wedding and to live happily ever after. It is that we want to be able to protect our families and our selves, we want to provide insurance for our loved ones, we want our spouses to be able to receive our Social Security benefits when we pass on, we want to be taxed fairly like everyone else, we want to be able to visit our spouses in the hospital without an argument, and we don't want to be thrown out of baseball stadiums for giving our sweethearts a peck on the cheek. Unless you experience what its like to live in the world as a queer person, you simply don't know what its like. The time is now for things to change. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue.

E Favorite:

Separating the message from the person is something I attempt to do as well. Not with universal success, obviously. Sure, CCNL continually posts the same list of dates and events regarding Muslims slaughtering everyone in sight. Factual? Most likely. So what? And how about his usual statements such as 'Jesus was an illiterate peasant' and 'Only 30% of the words of Jesus are really his'? Those are theory, conjecture, and not proven. But in the last analysis, I will ignore CCNL because he is a bigot and contributes nothing new.

Arminius, regarding CCNL - I separate the personality from the information. If the information provided is accurate, referenced, researched and accepted for good empirical reasons by a broad spectrum of academics, then I accept it too. I would react this way to any information I receive. I don't accept or reject it simply based on my opinion of the messenger.

Farnaz,

I'll look at the comments by the bunch mentioned in your posts here more closely from now on lest I miss something culturally, emotionally and on backgrounds.

Cheers

Jihadist,

I say you no doubt no where Amro comes from because I take your identity as given.

Jihadist,

I am going to say this once again. You can continue to ignore it, or you can go to the Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's essay on this blog, where MA posted his opposition to Hagee.

There you will find the post by MC, which set Merry Anonymous off. It is at the very bottom, where it belongs. If you are going to defend, know what you are defending. Read the ensuing correspondance between M. Anonymous and Arminius.

Again, I would suggest you read through all the relevant posts on this thread, including MA's lengthy post to me. Per Amro who posts from time to time on this blog, as you know doubt know, and you no doubt know from where he comes, Muslims do not blame the victim. Those were his words to Victoria re Josh. No one ganged up on MC. She inserted herself into a discourse that she didn't understand and which fit her delusions of persecution perfectly.

But none of the past needed to come out. MA lost it when he saw the post on Rev. Stevens-Arroyo's site right now. He lost is as I occasionally do when when I see racism which is why I posted in support of Stevens-Arroyo, although I'm not Catholic. Do I have to be Catholic to oppose anti-Catholicism? Should I oppose it with reservations as you oppose anti-semitism?

Again and again bloggers have accused her of being Speed and others. I saw this and ignored it, but it's hard to ignore the obvious projection when I'm suddenly MA and he is me and I am a whole bunch of other people.

We and I mean Jews have been through enough. My background is very different from yours. I didn't come to Iran as a colonialist. I was forced out of the only land my family can trace itself back to. I abhor racism. Notice that only two people came out to attack those who Jews who were posting there, and the two people were the same person. The rest no doubt understood what you do not, and here I credit MA, perhaps, because you are culturally removed from it.

Pat's around. She's a Catholic and more than once she's posted against antisemitism. Once, if I recall correctly, she took on CCNL about something or other. I think I know who Christine is. There was for awhile a woman who spoke about an inspirational priest. She never mentioned anything about her murdered sister until that Josh incident.

He never asked for sympathy or justified anything by what he revealed to those who asked about his nephew. That is pure projection. He was not corresponding with Victoria who came, as usual, out of nowhere, and he was not corresponding with MC.

Again, none of this would have come up here if she had let sleeping dogs lie, but she could not. Read Merry's letter to me the relevant threads, etc.

If you wish to judge the case on its merits, that is your right. If you wish is to defend MC, that is your right, as well.

As for me, when I said I'm done with this I meant it. This isn't table talk for me. I've seen racism spill blood up close and personal.

Take care,
Farnaz

Farnaz:

Yes, I went on. Things got clearer.

M. Anonymous
Islamabad

Hello Farnaz,

I thought you have gone to sleep.

If I see you were, are, under what I think is unjust, and an overkill of less than fair characterisation of you by an individual or group, I would for you too.

Goodnight and sleep well.

Best regards
Julia

Hi Merry,

I hope you are (still?) sleeping. How are the electricity and air conditioning? I didn't even ask you if you speak any Urdu. You mentioned, though, that you studied linguistics at Columbia in its linguistics heydey. Perhaps, Urdu was still considered an "exotic" language then.

Surely, anthropological linguistics had made great headway by the time you were graduating. Or was it alreay called linguistic anthropology? Did you go on to graduate school there?

Farnaz

E Favorite,

Re CCNL:

Some of what he constantly posts is fact. A great deal - most, really - is simply someone's opinion, a historical theory, maybe carefully considered, maybe not. I have looked at it.

I read the article about biblical archaeology. I found it to be well done. I agree on the findings, but there is still much to do.

Finally, CCNL does not converse, discuss, or debate. You do these things. CCNL pontificates. You do not. CCNL has made brutal attacks on other posters here. You have not. I have no use for him, and am perplexed why you continue to defend him, unless you consider him an ally in your cause and will defend him because of this. Why defend a broken reed?

Farnaz,

Get some sleep! See ya tomorrow.

Hi Merry,

It must be close to 7:00 AM in Islamabad. I hope you managed to get some sleep. I have been there this time of year and I know what you must be going through. My friend, who is really more another sister, is a Pakistani national, and lives in Islamabad.

She is a wonderful, glorious creature, who is positioned very well there. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to bring the two of you together, but I'm going to call her if I can remain awake for another hour or so. She is much smarter than I am about all things and may be able to come up with something.

Can you tell me how much longer you will be staying?

There are many things I want to say to you, but I haven't had sleep since yesterday, so I'm quite sure I'd make a botch of things if I tried to formulate complex thoughts. All I can say now is thank you.

Please let me know how much longer you will be staying.

Farnaz

Hi Lee,

I can bear you out on everything you wrote to Arminius about New York City.

Take good care,

Farnaz

Hi Arminius,

I wanted to post answers to your questions about New York City, but I have been without sleep since yesterday, and I think I need to post a brief reply to another and sign off.

I'll try to post a reply to you tomorrow. Thank you again for your gentle words.

Farnaz

________________________________________________
Lee,

I've read the Souls of Black Folk,agree with you about the talented tenth, and I know that DuBois recanted his earlier Russian Jewish plantation remarks. I don't think they really constituted antisemitism, and I can't account for the Gates omission. I wrote to Norton as I imagine you did.

Farnaz

Jihadist,

I'm sorry I can't read through this. I've been following a different discussion, and trying to pull some thoughts together for Arminius. ARMINIUS, I'll be posting to you soon, but incoherently, since I'm exhausted. I've literally been without sleep since yesterday.

Jihadist, we are three million in exile. When do we go home?

What is anti-Catholicism from a Jewish perspective, and in what way does that psychotic JJ represent it? That was what drew MA's ire. Go to Prof. Stevens-Arroy's site and read MC's post yourself.

MA has posted here to me, and I suggest you read his post. Questions you have for him should be directed to him. I have questions for you: Did I kill images of Jesus? Did I start World War I? Why did my family which lived in Iran since the twelfth century have to flee in the middle of the night? Do I control the economy?

Why is it that without Israel, half my extended family would be dead?

Why are Ethiopian Jews whom Israel can't get out being held in Sudan and tortured? It was they who stopped Israel from taking in Sudanese refugees who made it past the Egyptians. No room in Egypt for Sudanese. The Ethiopian Jews raised a few questions accessible on line. Israel, they said. Look at you. You can't be represented on a map. Look at Egypt. Bigger? Are there no Christian countries that will take in our torurers? WE HAVE BEEN TORTURED.

No room in Palestine for Christians. Palestinian Christians. No room there for a lot of women. Room in Isreal. Google, Jihadist, is a wonderful thing.

No room for Jews in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc.
No room.

There will be no fight among three women. I'm not from a priveleged family. I'm not from a colonialist family. No. There is nothing to say.

If you can answer my questions, I'll certainly read your answers. Questions to MA should be directed to him.

I'm done, as the kids here say.

Thumping Reality 101 (one year done, 5999 years to go)

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

The muck and stench in Judaism you ask?

Belief that that the Jews are god's chosen people and its resulting consequences.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/profiteering evangelicals and atonement theology.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added gay "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship/ reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

The muck and stench of Hinduism you ask?

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, muck, stench and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Arminius - CCNL has his opinions, but the referenced information that he repeatedly provides are facts -- facts perhaps that you don't want to think much about, but facts, nonetheless.

I notice that there was no comment on my reference to Neil Asher Silberman, archaeologist, co-author of "the Bible unearthed" who, in a recent WaPo article, referred to biblical stories as "tall tales."

And I'm no CCNL - just the purveyor of information that some people would prefer not to think about. So they ingore it. Or in the case of CCNL, find reasons to discredit the messenger, thus discrediting the message.

Arminius,

I have to go. You seem sincere. I don't know where you live, so I don't even know if you know what I'm talking about. Double consciousness. You can google it. At 65, you may be seeing double yourself. It's not only a Black thing, but there are different kinds of double images.

Lee

Hello Farnaz,

A three corner, three continent, three women of three faith in a blog discussion/dispute now as predicted?:)

I don't look in On Faith too often nowadays. Or to go beyond five posts from the top in a thread. Only realised you put a couple of posts addressed to me.

This is a blog "Rashomon" - on different perspectives, different versions of an incident or event by different people. In that discourse refered to by Merry Anonymous re Mary Cunningham, I don't recall Merry Anonymous being there. Only Josh, Liora, Christine etc.

I did find it odd that Merry Anonymous, out of the blue, brings up Merry Cunningham and anti-semiticism in this thread on gays and gay marraiges. And yes, I do know Merry Anonymous admitted to using Hamlet as a handle.

On this topic, most would remember that Jews were made to wear the Star of David, gays the triangle, and all too many deported to concerntration camps by the Nazis. Jews as an ethnic/religious minority, gays as a sexual inclination minority were (and still are) persecuted by the majority for absurb race "purity" reasons, religious intolerance, and non-tolerance of specific human sexual urges.

One would have thought Merry Anonymous would raise that, but did not. I am sure Mary Cunnihgham is out there with her cricket bat thrashing synagogues and writing graffitis on their walls. Or to bash Jews, Muslims, atheists and other non-Catholics. I do not know in what way Mary Cunningham has to do with the persecution, harassments and state of Jews and gays in New York, the US, the world.

Mary Cunningham's posts were mostly on the British isles' Catholic history and Catholicism itself. You do know Henry VIII with VI wives who caused the persecution and marginalisation of British isles' Catholics till today. You do know how the Irish-Catholic rebellion started then and especially with Elizabeth I's blunders in Ireland that festered for some 500 years and which the English calls the "troubles".

The plight and experiences of Irish Catholics for hundreds of years were experiences that Jews living, say, in the Pale of Russia would immediately recognise, understand and emphatise. As you know, Irish-Catholics and Eastern European Jews who migrated to the US were regarded unflatteringly and treated most unfairly by the earlier immigrants and their descendants. "Dirty" is one of those words that crops up a lot, and one that is printable here even if most unacceptable as characterisations of someone or a group due to race or religion.

As for Josh, if I recall, in the thread on the Pope's visit, he stated he's a 16 year old fellow. I thought him a bright young man. Until he joined a pack to taunt and mock Victoria on some aspects of her belief. Josh subsequently related an incident of his nephew being assaulted by thugs. Victoria posted something to express her symphaties on the incident. It occurred to me that the young man did not quite see when he join in a blogslam (taunting and mocking) someone, while is it certainly lesser and there are no physical injuries, it is akin to a street group thug assault.

Of course, the visit of Pope Benedict to the US brought out vitriol that are raw emotions of anger, hatred or dismay. I notice there were many thoughtful posts by Catholics until non-Catholics start spewing. Naturally and to be expected, some Catholics reacted. Speed123 in his own way. Soja and Ryan Haber in their own way.

And of course, Mary Cunningham responses seems to bring Ahads harpooning her like she's Moby Dick. I myself express views on Pope Benedict, the Vatican and the church hierarchy which Mary responded with wit and good humour in her corrections of what I wrote. But of course, how would anyone expect Mary to react when there is a group blogslam on her?

As an outsider, I don't have any say on, or any sway in what the Catholic Church and Catholics do and say. Most certainly, not on their formal faith, creed and dogma. Nor do I fully know or understand what is really going on among Catholics on issues related to their faith. So, I am most interested what Catholics like Ryan Haber, Soja from Australia, Viejita Del Oeste, Speed123 has to say on their faith. They all do come in when there is a real or perceived misrepesentation of their faith and church. Why should they not? As other believers and non-believers do?

Racism is deeper and darker. I've heard more bad jokes on nationalities - the French, the Irish, the Polish, the English, the Japanese etc than on religions. And yet, in written form, bigotry on religions seem to be the most extreme form of expression of differences. The most virulent are expressed in the anonymity of blogs and not like what is expressed in real life, unlike on race and nationalities.

On JJ, I simply skip over his/her posts and only notice the changing patterns of his posts as scroll over them if I do. Usually, when I see a JJ post in a thread, I simply don't bother to go through at all. God knows how many posts and how long his/her posts are in that thread to bother going over his/her posts.

By the way, it is illegal land settlements by some hardline Israeli settlers in the occupied territories that I am critical of. And it is not the French who exported 20th century anti-Semiticism (Jewish conspiracy to control the world and all that) to the Muslim world. It is that Russian concoction - The Protocol of the Elders of Zion that was exported and widely available.

I am interested in other faiths and the thoughts of their adherents. I am also interested in what atheists say and why. But I do have limits on people who, in the anonymity of handles, take to beating up on people who are inherently polite, decent, civil and feel uncomfortable in not quite knowing how to retort so as not to offend or hurt. I notice that these are the people with high EIs.

I do have limits too when seeing a group prey and gnaw on a poster. This, to me, is a reminder of the herd mentality that are causes of group assaults on individuals and groups that happen in real life due to someone's race, religion, gender or just for having different views, outlook and personal tastes on food or music or clothes. It something I hate seeing in real life and feel the same way in blogs.

Having said that, I am not above hunting, baiting, probing, poking someone, or getting into a blog brawl with anyone whose views I don't quite get and want to do a bit more peeling to understand where a person is coming from and why. I limit that to myself and the other party.

thanks and regards
"J"

Arminius,

I think it's a lot better. There are "mixed" neighborhoods in New York, mixed middle class neighborhoods.

But, look, drugs are decimating the Black community, drugs and HIV. In some neighborhoods and I think Farnaz will bear me out here, black homeowners are trapped. They can't sell. They can't do anything. They're surrounded by drug dealers, murderers. Then white pioneers move in. The homeowners see a way out and split. The white middle class (money) moves in. The working class Blacks who had it worst in the neighborhood are pushed out, have nowhere to go.

I'm Black in a white world. No matter who you are Arminius I see something other than who I am in your eyes because I'm Black. I see double. The minute you see me you see someone different.
I'm Black.

You can google double consciousness. It's been real "in" for some time. If you read W.E.B., you'll see he had some problems of his own. The talented tenth my ass. Skip the Gates garbage. Tired old Negro. W.E.B. had his own bout with Jew hating. Didn come to us from Africa though. But all by his lonesome with no help from white folks he figured out he'd been a bigot and said so. Quiet as it's kept. Like Farnaz say. Some things kept quiet.

Lee,

White, straight, 65 years old, college. Southern man. Before you get defensive, I was raised by decent parents who taught me to judge people by their character, not by their race, religion, sexual preference, etc. I saw the horror of Jim Crow and hated it.

OK, then, double vision. In other words, two worlds, yours and mine. Am I correct? If I am, then this is only bad if they are mutually exclusive. Ethnic neighborhoods are pure America. But what also should be pure America is the right to walk to another such neighborhood and be accepted. Maybe a pipe dream?

Enlighten me, please.

Arminius

Arminius:

I should've written, "Don't worry. A new brand of white working class comedies are coming."

Arminius:

Honky. Cute. A straight man, I'm guessing. I'm struggling for words. Double Consciousness. W.E.B. DuBois. The Souls of Black Folk.

I don't think I can explain it. Try to imagine yourself in Harlem eight years ago. You walk out of the subway and everyone you see is Black. Black is the world. There is no other world.

Imagine that you grew up and everything you read was written by Blacks for Blacks. When whites came up, they were cast in specific roles.

Imagine twenty years ago. You're white. You go to a movie and if there's a white in the movie, he or she is a Christ figure or doorman. Every once in a while maybe a nurse or detective Always there is there is a social message.

On TV, you are all living the life of white Bill Cosby. Don't worry. Comedies are coming.

Lee,

Yup, I'm a honky.

Arminius,

You're asking a difficult question. Am I correct that you're white?

CCNL:

Old, distraught friend. I must agree with Arminius. You're spewing hatred. I believe you think you're letting the light into darkness, but you are darkening what might grow brighter. To use a tired metaphor, we are in a crowded theatre, and the crowd is swelling. The previously silenced are speaking out and demanding to be heard and seen. I wonder if you hear or see them.

What color/race was Jesus, the peasant, etc. Moses? Oh, that's right. No Moses. Well, then what color was the imagined Moses? Was Jesus married? Could he have been gay anyway?

Take some time out, CCNL. Turn the lights on. See better.

Lee,

Would you mind explaining to some of us benighted individuals just what you mean by 'see double'?

Thanks

Farnaz,

You are Jewish and Iranian. I think that is utterly cool!

What puzzles me is your reception in NYC as Jewish. At one time NYC had more Jews than Israel. If the Jewish population of NYC left, the economy there would collapse. Not to mention that there would be no more famous NYC delicatessens, without which NYC could not exist. Weird. Or am I imaging a previous generation?

Arminius

Farnaz,

There are simple facts. Negros correspond to one of your categories. They can be light-skinned or dark, but they'll be better off if they're light and well connected. Unless they're gay.

I understand your questions, but can't answer them. I've been following Merry Anonymous, you, and others since early on in this thread. I hoped Downlow wouldn't disappear but I'm fierce so I'm not surprised he's gone.

I know you can see double. Anyway I'm as sure as I can be from posts. I'm forty years old and I've been around. Merry Anonymous (Hamlet) may be the first WASP I've run into on several continents who can see double. It's only a hope. How can anyone know for sure from posts?

Lee

Lee:

You write to Merry Anonymous(Hamlet),
"Can you see double, Hamlet?"

But you say you are a Black dike. Therefore, you can see much more than double. I am a straight brown woman from Iran. I am Jewish. I would have been Jewish whether or not I had ever seen the letters YHWH. Hard to explain. In Iran, Persian Jews may or may not be identifiable as such. My sister was not. The rest of us were fifty fifty. But people knew who you were.

Here, people thought I was Arab at first. They were afraid of me. Then they knew I was Jewish, and all hell broke loose, here in New York, liberal capital of the Universe. No one ever gave me the chance to think of myself as a HUMAN BEING (Chris Everett) first, except for other Jews and some Muslims.

There are lightly complected Jews who are white, regardless of whether they are observant Jews, Wiccans, Buddists, etc. But they are only white to themselves. There are lightly complected Jews who are not white, not to themselves and not to anyone else. Religious or not, atheist or not, Wiccan or not, they are the sane ones. They kept me sane, along with my Persian and Muslim friends.

I can see double, Lee. I don't know if we see the same things the same ways. When I try to understand double seeing, things get blurry for me. I try to imagine Merry Anonymous. I can't help but think he can see double, but what does he see?

Farnaz

Hi Arminius,

Thank you for your gentle words. I think that you and Merry Anonymous, different though you are, may be old souls.

Farnaz

Merry Anonymous (Hamlet)

Note the spelling of the D word. Blocked my post when I tried to spell it correctly. This here newspaper is CORRECT. Negro Daley machine KORRECT.

Merry Anonymous (Hamlet),

You sumpin fierce foh a white man. Fierce Bro.
You sho you white?

Can you see double, Hamlet? I've always wondered if there were straight white Christian men who could. I understand that you were held captive. I know you say you're an atheist and I believe you. I just want to know if you can see double. That is what this Black dike would like to know.

Lee

No, CCNL, it comes down to the usual garbage that you spew over and over again.

Concerned, etc.:

Is that so? White, real white Christian.

After 427 commentaries, it still comes down to the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck of religions.

To wit:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

The muck and stench in Judaism you ask?

Belief that that the Jews are god's chosen people and its resulting consequences.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/profiteering" evangelists and atonement theology.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added (gay?) "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship/ reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

The muck and stench of Hinduism you ask?

The caste system and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, muck, stench, yuck and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Wiglaf,

Hi Arminius,

I'll check out Bishop Casas, but I suspect it will be pretty depressing stuff. I had no idea a converso could ever be a bishop. They were looked down upon pretty universally, as I understand it.

Arminius

Chris Everett:

ANYONE WHO CANNOT SEE THEMSELVES AS HUMAN, FIRST AND FOREMOST, CANNOT SEE ANYONE ELSE AS HUMAN, FIRST AND FOREMOST

Is that so? Is that the view of your white self.
Da vision is double for some folks.

Don't even try it. I's blinded by the white.

Hi Arminius,

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the forecast is there, but there are two other letters if I'm not mistaken and a journal or diary that is more explicit.

Unfortunately, one cannot post links here, and I really wanted you to see some of the nature stuff.
But you might be interested in Bishop Casas. Here was a giant among giants, a converso, some think. Bartolomeo de las Casas. You can read his bio on Wikepedia. Tried to stop the genocide, after he had participated in it. Called Spain to account. You can google what he wrote.

A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolomé de las Casas - Project Gutenberg

He gives one hope.

Wiglaf

Hi, Wiglaf,

Yes I did read the letter. Pretty interesting how immensely impressed Colombus was. One of the few first hand accounts of an explorer I have ever read. Also, of course, it forecast just how brutally the Spanish and others would treat the natives.

Arminius

Arminius:

Is it safe to come out on this thread? Can you tell me if you were able to access Columus's letter? I have to sign off in about a half hour.

Wiglaf

MA,

What are you doing in Islamabad? Are you vacationing? Isn't this rather far from New York City? How are we to set out for Bewildful on Thor's day if you are there and I am situated United States wise?

I don't know how much you've been able to read on this thread, but thanks to Arminius, we know more about the Jesus Christ Lizard. Just google How "Jesus Lizards" Walk on Water, and you will go to a highly informative National Geographic article. At last, I believe we now know nearly as much as we can JCL wise for the time being.

L'Affaire de MC
This is troubling since I had hoped to have an interesting exchange with Arminius regarding Columbus's first letter. (Have you read it? There are three extant, I believe.) Seeing that he wasn't posting, even to let me know he wasn't interested (very unArminius-like) I knew Trouble was afoot and marshalled all my intellect for to to peruse threadwise. This, Language Warlord, was no small feat. Had I not the loyalty that befits our fellowship, I surely would have gone under.

A villain is a villain, M. Anonymous. Anglo Irish, I. A villain is a villain. Irish or no. Yeats lover or no, a villain is a villain. I trust I need say no more at present.

I can see now that I will never dessert you. I do not have your courage, but you will never fight a dragon alone so long as Wiglaf lives. Not even if it disguises itself as woman. Anglo Irish, I. (However, I am convinced that there was intermarriage or some sort of mistake genealogically speaking.)

Other Language Sportspersons Business
I fear you are alone Guinness wise, and about that, alas, I can do nothing. I await you for to search for Bewildful should he not return by Thursday.

Thinking of Bewildful,
Wiglaf

Greetings Farnaz:

You have a Pakistani friend, I see. As in a Pakistani national, or as in a Pakistani American?
If the former, more's the pity if she is anywhere near Islamabad. It is about 30 C here tonight. Air conditioning is on the fritz.

Re: The MC business

I do not ordinarily enjoy explosions of any sort. However, I was disgusted by MC's JJ post on Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's thread. Had I seen nothing else of hers (thehereandnow/Speed123/PeerReview et al), I would have let it go. As matters stood, I posted, had an exchange with Arminius, and as far as I was concerned that was that. However, I know her type of bigot. Another type would have let a few days pass and quietly returned to this blog. Not her type, though. I tried to steel myself, but was not ready for her reappearance.

Even after our heated exchange, I dropped it. Never would have pasted her comments and others saved on Word. In fact, I did not. I am neither a crusader nor a hero, Farnaz.

Her type, the paranoid type, the type that cannot admit to herself who and what she is, the projective type. I understand now that you and I are one. I am also one with other women the pleasure of whose acquaintance I have not had threadwise, and in any event I am not polygamous. Alas, Farnaz, I fear I may be too old for you, you too young for me.

Since I have said I am not a "crusader," I should explain why I spoke out. I should explain why I spoke out against Hagee on Prof. Arroyo's thread. This I do from the "atheist former captive of Christianity perspective." A former captive of Christianity, I was an undergraduate at Columbia. Fled to New York City. Escaped. Columbia was the best place in the country at the time for students of linguistics. The best and the brightest were there. The big apple. Columbia and the major league. I did not have to continue with this Christianity. I was free. At last.

Long distance telephone calls were more costly then. Of course there were no cell phones. Nevertheless I knew I couldn't dash off a letter explaining that I had become an atheist in New York City. One night, I finally gathered the courage to call my father and tell him that I was an atheist, had never believed, that I was out of it, and that I didn't want to hear anymore about it. The conversation became ugly. I hung up on him, something that makes me sick to this day. A half hour later, still wild, I called him and told him I was converting to Judaism. I expected the ceiling to fall, the walls to cave in. Figured they would find me under the rubble in the morning.

Neither he nor my mother had ever spoken a hateful word against any group. But the truth is that when one lives among certain people, mild stereotypes are not unusual. Within the progressive Christian community there was and is antisemitism. There is anti-Catholicism as well.
I guess I figured that my parents were like other older adults I knew.

When my father heard me say I was in the process of converting, he fell silent. Then he started to ask me questions. How had I come to this decision? To whom had I spoken? What had I read? Studied? Was my Hebrew up to par? In the course of that conversation, I started to realize who he was. Then I understood more about who I was. In time he accepted my atheism. I think he understood it to some extent. Maybe my mother understood it better, but she was a reserved person, so I will never know.

You will not win this, Farnaz. Maybe a few like Arminius will understand. Perhaps Wiglaf and Bewildful, my Fellow Language Sportspersons (maybe you've seen our posts to one another); I don't have enough of a sense of them yet. You see how Mary Cunningham is playing it. She must have validation. Poor victim. Playing out the tearful departure. But you are too young and too fierce and too honest to play it like that.

I am simply incapable of it. People, even intelligent people like Jihadist will continue to rise to her defense. Sisters and gallants, alike.
You can only call it as you see it. I notice that you posted on Prof. Stevens Arroyo's site. That is you, Farnaz. That is I. That is not Jihadist, no matter how highly you or I may have think of her..

As they come at me, and I will do my best to keep up, I will ask them how JJ, that psychotic represents an anti-Catholic Jewish perspective. Only a racist or perhaps someone culturally removed would not have recognized those Jews posting around Josh as users of a strategic discoure. Only the same would have blame him for what was done to his nephew.

I hope I have not rambled. It is hot.

M. Anonymous
Islamabad

Wow. I just popped in to see Mary Cunningham once again being raked over the coals as the resident Catholic anti-semite, a charge that as far as I've seen is entirely in eye of the beholder. I'm not one for Bible quotes, but this one's apt: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

ANYONE WHO CANNOT SEE THEMSELVES AS HUMAN, FIRST AND FOREMOST, CANNOT SEE ANYONE ELSE AS HUMAN, FIRST AND FOREMOST. TO BE A JEW FIRST IS TO BE A BIGOT. TO BE A CATHOLIC FIRST IS TO BE A BIGOT.

I'm with Jihadist. I hope MC returns, even though her belief in the 'undead' savior is a little scary (Rowwrrr!!!).

Farnaz,

What you endure because of who you are, so patiently, grieves me. I simply have no use for bigotry. I am going to watch very carefully for it here.

Regarding Christian antisemitism: a pretty good number of Christians do not blame the Jews for the crucifixion. Me included. It is absolutely silly to do so. Yes, the priests worked up the mob - but a mob is a mob is a mob, and regardless of race, creed, or whatever, is always prone to violence. The priests were upset about Jesus tossing out a lot of the mosaic laws, of course. But they also feared the 'King of the Jews' talk, which could get them in serious trouble with the Romans. Anyway, the Romans crucified Jesus, mainly to keep the peace. Those times were not pretty.

I have seen 'The Passion of the Christ', and did not notice any overt antisemitism. But we all know about Mel Gibson, and apparently his father is a holocaust denier.

When I see bigotry here, I will sometimes call it out, especially when it is directed against a friend. I will continue to do so.

Arminius

Julia/Jihadist,

I, too, read through all these posts. I have seen other posts of the person I understand to be Christine, and I have certainly read other posts of Pat.

Christine stated and Pat probably understood the "discourse" to which Merry A. referred on this thread. As for Josh, he spoke about an ugly incident in response to others who asked him what happened. He did not use what happened to him to justify anything.

This is what MC and now you claim. As Merry A. indicates on this thread, the antisemitism in New York has reached "grotesque" proportions. Those who were posting have developed skill in fighting back against an ugliness that you cannot imagine. (Or can you? Muslims didn't invent the antisemitsm one hears throughout the Muslim world. It was imported throughout the centuries. It has since become integrated into pseudo-Islam in the Middle East.) Josh was posting about his nephew in response to his webfiends, not to Speed123/the hereandnow/PeerReview/MC/ / / /. Funny that I never really saw the connections although others did. Interesting as I look back through this thread that Mary Cunningham thinks I am Merry Anonymous and a host of others. (Projection? Paranoia?)

I have had my own experiences with racism here, and Askenazic friends and acquaintances of mine grew up with it. Sad to say, but it came mainly from Catholics. That does not mean that all Catholics are bigots, but that is where it came from. We cannot be blamed for what we experienced. As one Amro pointed out with respect to Josh, Muslims (like Jews, I might add) do not blame the victim. And Amro has posted on this blog from time to time as I'm sure you've seen.

Let someone post about the frequency with which Jews from New York gang up on and beat up Catholics. Judaism never equated and still does not equate masculinity with musulature. Rather masculinity has been associated with learning. That understanding persists in the Diaspora, but slowly people are realizing that we must change. People have reached the point, middle class non-observant Jews of enrolling their children in self-defense classes. And we see Sivan, who will return to Israel soon because she cannot live with this hatred around her. Not the first, won't be the last.

And it is much worse in Europe, in France to which I've been several times, and in England to which I travel several times a year. Those trips will end soon, as I can't stand it. Neither can my closest friend a Pakistani. We are both skipping a conference there this summer.

I will not tolerate bigotry against anyone, but reality is reality. We had a civil rights movement in this country. IN that period black people understood that they needed to take a very aggressive confrontational stance against whites. I believe we need to do the same. Those who understood the strategy and the anger would understand it. Those who would not, would not.

Let me give a not too long ago example, concerning The Passion of the Christ. I watched this carefully and published on it. I begin by noting that it was released in Dubai first, before it ever came to America. I know this for a fact because I have friends in both the Middle East and Pakistan, the latter who saw it en route back home, one a journalist. Here in the US, the only NYC announced opening up until the last minute was in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, a Muslim neighborhood.

IN light of my land of birth and history, which you know, this did not make me happy, but I knew Gibson et al were up to something. Gibson (later revealed as an unquestionable racist for any who could possibly still have had a question) had continually been appearing on TV. Endless, often stupid (as in erroneous) tales by "scholars" coupled with popular nonsense helped the Gibson enterprise along on all the major networks and voila. With two days advance advertising, the film, grossly over-publicized, opened in Manhattan.

The outcome. Riots occurred in several areas, including Long Island (Great Neck) and Queens by gangs who were Catholic. These were reported only in local papers, e.g., LI Newsday, Daily News, etc. Nowhere was anything said in the New York Times, WST, radio, TV, etc. Rather, what was claimed was that nothing untoward happened although it had been feared. The same nothing untoward happened in New Jersey, Los Angeles, and other states, although I know less about it.

The Passion was the highest grossing film in history, but it is only one dramatic example. Antisemitsm in the military is rife and documented. The irony of Jews serving in Iraq escapes the constraints of language. The irony of their defending Saudi Arabia was not lost on the House of Saud which suggested they conceal their Jewishness. The few available interviews with Saudi royalty on antisemitic textbooks read by Saudi children are met with stifled laughter by Saudi royalty, laughter at the insanity in these texts.

I recall an exchange of ours Julia/Jihadist, in which I mentioned some antisemitic insanity. We control the economy, etc. You empathized but said you reserved the right to be critical of Israel for taking land, or words to that effect. May I ask what one has to do with the other?

When people say anti-Islamic things, you have heard me speak out categorically. Did I say that I reserve the right to condemn those Islamic Centers that show pictures of Danny Perl butchered, praising the act? Did I say that I reserve the right to condemn Muslims who beat up Jews here during 9/11? Did I say that I reserve the right to be critical of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt for the three million of us who are now in exile? Did I say that I reserve the right to criticize Palestinians who slaughter children and splatter their remains on the walls of caves?

Please, Jihadist, now Julia, do explain to me how JJ represents anti-Catholicism from a Jewish perspective, since he is not Jewish.

And while you are at it, please also explain to me how I killed Jesus Christ. How I thought I killed him but only really killed pictures. How I caused World War I.

There is no anti-Catholicism from a Jewish perspective. NO anti-Islam, no anti-anything. Coupled along with a proscription barring Conversionism, that is why there are so few of us.
The "discourse" you see is obvious, was obvious to all who read it, evidentally, except Victoria, the "Mulim," Speed and well....

I'M DEEPLY GRATEFUL TO MERRY A. FOR SPEAKING OUT.
Visit Prof. Stevens-Arroy's site it you will. Ryan Haber's post is also instructive. Shall we call it "antisemitism from a Catholic perspective?"

Hello Mary Cunningham,

These different time zones we're in, the time we're at, and the life we live. I wish I had seen your two previous posts when you were posting them. You are gone for good from here? I will speak to you, with you, even as you already turn and walk away from here. Even if I do not know where you will turn to look hereon or ever again here.

We are two foreigners in this foreign blog full of passionate and partisan lovers of American football and baseball. We are oceans apart, continents apart from most inhabitants of this blog. The Atlantic and Pacific is far enough and yet near enough. We are of old continents with too long an accumulated history, too many traditions, too many wars to be naive. We are of the old worlds reinventing themself with too much awareness and knowingness.

I share your religious heritage through my maternal grandfather. I did not chose to adhere to that religious heritage. I chose to know it better out of love and respect for him. I straddle two worlds by heritage and in reality, living in a different place by choice like you. I love poetry and lapped up all the favourite poets and poems you shared here. I soaked all that you share on your history, your heritage and experiences as an Irish and Catholic.

I appreciate you sharing on your family name's history and origins. I like it that you not ashamed of your religious and cultural heritage, you pride in it. I saw the bemusement, the exasperation, the frustration, the hurt when speaking honestly from a different prism, on the hatred and anger directed at you for being who you are and what you adhere to.

Your verses are not pedestrian nor is it sinful. Your verses are not crude nor rude, and has vim and verve. I do want you to come by, not to please me, but to enlighten us, to remind us on history and in sharing your perspective as the only Irish-Catholic from the UK here.

I do want you to look in to see what is said of us, our faith, our heritage, of us out here. I want you to look in because we are not of them, they not of us, and to see what they think, how they think, why they think the way they do. I want you to look in even if what they say are distressing to see what distresses and angered them, and how they manifest their distress and anger.

I saw what happened in the thread your refered to. I saw it was a reaction by you to the ungliness of some posts. I do not know who ‘Christine’ really is. I saw a lot of terrible posts directed against Catholicism and Catholics even by other Christians. I saw too instances of some sharing stories of why they are full of anger and hatred and dismay and disgust that you have nothing to do with personally.

Yes, I saw that it does seem like "my wound is deeper than yours, my scar is uglier than yours and therefore I will wound you deeper and scar you longer even if you have nothing to do with what cause my wounds and scars". Yes, this blog is emotive and subjective because of its subject matter. Yes, there are posters with more than one handle for reasons they know best.

Yes, no one can really hide their prose thumbprints, the "tells" of who they are by the phrases and words they use, their concerns, their cadence, their tone even when using a different handle or to parody someone. Yes, it is a wicked cocktail, nay, a molotov cocktail of emotions and passions hurled, a lashing out and lashings of views and insults.

Yes, I should be bothered by the vitriol, but only because these are people I don't personally know who are saying things they would never said to their family, friends or colleagues. I said here is what I say in life to my family, friends, colleagues and strangers.

Yes, I saw what they said to you is deliberately personal and to scour your soul. In instances converging like a pack of hungry wolves, or to speak of you when you are not here. Yes, those are dastardly behavior. Yes, what they can't do in real life, they act out here, they vent here.

Do come back. Not for them. Not for me. For you.

Best regards

Julia
Kuala Lumpur

Arminius,

I understand about the locomotion. I thought Chris E. might find that interesting.

About the discovery letters. They had no language to describe what they found here. Flora and fauna that didn't exist in Europe, that they'd never seen. Hunger existed in Europe and here the earth was edenic, so much so that some half thought they had literally found Eden. (I'm leaving out the parts about what they did to the Indians, which don't read so well.)

I found a link to Columus's first letter, but I can't seem to post it (the link). If you google The Columbus Letter you will come to it.

Btw there were no nightengales in the New World. This letter doesn't contain the sort of descriptions I had in mind, but I think you'll find it interesting.

Wiglaf

CCNL: you know that’s not possible. My parents’ generation tossed away their ancient language with brutal unsentimentality; my generation is similarly throwing away the historic faith of an oppressed people. I’m not about to join them.

Farnaz: You have it precisely backwards, but I’m not surprised. I wrote that the ancient Judeans believed God was pure spirit, and would not give Him a name, only YHWH, or the answer of God to Moses when he asked who spoke from the burning bush: “I am who am”, the first letters in Hebrew of the answer YHWH. I wrote God would not show the ancient Hebrews his face, as you can read in Isaiah “Lord do not turn your face away from me”.I wrote about the fraught moment for Peter when he first realized that this same God, this pure spirit— this YHWH--was standing in the flesh in front of him in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Spirit becoming flesh, timeless entering time. That some of the ancient Hebrews accepted this revelation and some simply could not. That is what I wrote. I can see now I was mistaken in writing anything.

It is not unusual for Christians to know something about the ancient Judeans and about the Hebrew Bible, although it is less usual for Catholics to know something. But we are slowly learning.

Now that I’ve cleared up last things I can really go.

Wiglaf:

"Have you read European "discovery" of America letters?"

No, but it sounds interesting. Also, I am not in any respect expert on the physics of locomotion.

Arminius

Arminius,

Have you read European "discovery" of America letters? What they saw, what the earth here looked like....

Wiglaf

Arminius,

There are wondrous things on earth. What will happen, I wonder, once the principles of the lizard's locomotion are established? To what will they be applied?

Are you familiar with this? For some reason, I thought you might be.

Ba maith fer for a ferand fadessin.

(would be * good * a man * on * his * land * own)

A man were well in his own land.

Spoken by Conall Corc in "Conall Corc & the Corcu Luigde", published in Anecdota, iii.59. Conall is in Scotland but wants to return to Ireland. The heavy alliteration on 'f' in the original lends this statement the feel of a maxim.

Wiglaf

Merry, also Chris E (See last paragraph)

Re: The Jesus lizards

Reference from Arminius

Broken Rule

According to Hsieh and Lauder, the mechanics of lizard water-running challenge a major established rule of legged locomotion known as the spring-mass model.

In the model, energy is stored in an animal's limb during the start of the contact, or slap, phase and then released to help propel the animal forward.

"This does not occur during basilisk water-running, which suggests that the hindlimb no longer functions like a spring but instead acts more like a piston, limited to only generating force during a step," Hsieh and Lauder conclude in their study.

Now that the researchers have shown how the mechanics of locomotion differ between walking on a solid surface and water, they hope to tease out the subtle differences of how locomotion works on various other types of surfaces.

How "Jesus Lizards" Walk on Water National Geographic. You can google this.

Arminius,

We crossed posts. I feared for you. I will now read your posts on the JCL.

Wiglaf

Arminius,

Where are you?

BA MAITH FER FOR A FERAND FADESSIN.

Wiglaf

Wiglaf:

Better yet, see the National Geographic article which details a scientific study of how the J C lizard does its water thing.

Arminius

Wiglaf:

The Wikipedia article about the J C lizard discusses how it runs on water. Has to to with big, webbed hind feet, low weight, and the ability to push those feet fast enough to both keep it out of the water and propel it forward.

Arminius

Merry,

Have observed the JC lizard several times this AM YouTube-wise to answer your question locomotively speaking. At this point, I must defer to you. The JCL is not using his "feet" like rudders. That is all I can say at this stage of my investigation.

If I may be so bold, I believe a serious inquiry into this requires an expert of some kind, perhaps an engineer such as Chris E. Or maybe a physical therapist. Or maybe an anatomist. I will soldier on and report back.

Thinking of Bewildful,

Wiglaf

PS. Where is Arminius? Had it not been for him, we would never have known of the JCL.

Farnaz,

Thanks, interesting.
--------------------------------------------------

CCNL:

Speaking as an atheist, former captive of Christianity, I (unasked) advise the following:

A. JAMES JOYCE Start with Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man. (Good for all ccnls)

B. The Jesus Christ lizard (YouTube)

C. Guinness

All three can be pursued in conjunction with Crossan. I'm not sure about Guinness. If you need to be certain, best to email him, Crossan, that is.

M. Anonymous

Merry,

To answer your question, yes, the correspondance was with a NT scholar and it was very lucid. CCNL is a scholar, himself, you know. Judging from the contents of that exhange, and from various posts of his, I would think the mysterious CCNL to be in his fifties or sixties, but his tone in that correspondance was that of a very young man.

From some of his posts to me in the past, I gather that he is very frightened. These are terrifying times, and if I'm correct, his fear is understandable. Perhaps, too, there is tragedy in his life. I don't know. I have a weird memory and response to things.

He has crossed the line with Jihadist, which is too bad. I don't know how far back you go on this thread, but for awhile, they seemed to have a civil correspondance. That is to say, she was civil, and he was borderline tolerable. But he crossed the line with her, and badly. He offended a lot of us bloggers, including me.

That is all I know.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

Did you really see a lucid correspondance between CCNL and another on this blog?

M. Anonymous

Hi DITLD,

You know, all this began with a comment I made about a post of yours, which I found very thoughtful.

I don't know what to say about CCNL. I answered his questions. He understood me, I honestly think, having read a very interesting correspondance he had with another, not Jihadist, back in the day. On the other hand, maybe he shuts his comprehension on and off. Or maybe it's limited to highly literate Catholics (and I do mean highly). You know, some of his reading matter is not light. But then we get what appears to be a defense of D. Prager, Public Intellectual Extraordinaire.

I don't know. I see CCNL as a soul in trouble. Probably best left alone, as you say.

Farnaz

M. CCNL,

Then, we have no disagreement. If you do not seek to end your suffering from Yuck by depriving others of their rights, vade in pace.

I believe I have answered your question about why I think Prager is a fool.

Continue on with Crossan, Fidei Defensor.

Farnaz

Farnaz

CCNL is unmovable and untouchable. His main grudge and crusade is against all things Islamic. Everything else for him is a side issue. I had thought that this subject of homosexuality was a little interesting because it actually got a response from him that showed a little life, negative though it is. Mostly, he is inert and non-resposnsive to just about everything, but seems happy to copy and past the same things over and over and over (and over) again. So, usually, I just skip over him and leave him alone.

Ms. Farnaz,

Again, your issues are with Dennis Prager. I previously referenced Wikipedia's review and also his on-line book store. Using said information, you should be able to find a contact addresss.

And again, my only issue with homosexuality is the yuck factor.

Mary Cunningham,

During your absence, consider being "Crossanized".

And another thing. Since Woman, pace Prager, is not promiscuous by nature, shouldn't lesbians be permitted to marry?

If we take his pathological line of cogitating to its conclusion, ahouldn't Woman, alone, be permitted to marry?

M. CCNL:

First, are you joking?

Second, does the Journal of Homosexuality scare you? It's only paper. No more Yucky than anything on which Prager's tripe is printed.

What makes him a fool? Probably best answered in the past tense, and I don't know. Look at his education, where he began graduate school. It is true that one of his profs makes me queasy (an Obama advisor, incidentally). I wonder if it wasn't old ZB that sent him back to his ambivalent Orthodoxy and on to his Prager-con politics.

I have just found a reference for you, one that you will recognize: Wikepedia, seat of cyberspace knowledge. You can read his bio there.

How does a person who had the gray matter he evidently had to start with end up writing that since man is promicuous by nature, permitting gays to marry would not curb their promiscuity. Well, since man is promiscuous by nature, permitting straights to marry has not curbed their promiscuity, so, I guess, we should no longer allow straights to wed. Upon reading Prager's argument from insanity, did it not occur to you that something was amiss?

If I recall correctly, he began with words to the effect that he anguished over this issue. There is, in this Prager, a full human that somehow got mangled, I think. I've had the misfortune to hear him speak, and I sensed the nonfool, possibly still in tact, deep within. Maybe it will come out one day.

Farnaz

Jihadist,

I know you want me to stay on and I do look in from time to time, mostly to please you. But these blogs are distressing to me. If you look at the thread on 9 April 2008, “Your Thoughts”, starting with my first post, on 11 April at 11:33 AM you will see only bile, the most awful rancour and terrible prejudice. The ‘Christine’ character (I had never encountered her before) entered by calling me an ‘old bigot’ , the scourge of Catholicism, and her posts went downwards from there. The nastiest of the posters then justified their prejudice by claiming something terrible had happened to them: ie something-bad-happened-to-me therefore I can do awful things to you! Kind of a perverted Golden Rule: do unto others as the worst of the others have already done to you.

The reasons the blog elicits such bad behaviour IMO are four:
1) an emotive subject
2) not monitored
3) system encourages multiple posts from the one person using different names
4) anonymity

It’s a wicked cocktail and produces a preposterous, pragmatical pig of a place to (mis)quote the master.

I’m sorry. I know you try and that the vitriol just rolls off your back. Not so yours truly. It bothers me—and it’s meant to. Nothing good has been brought forth from my presence here, although something good has certainly come from yours. So, it’s just not for me. But you continue and I wish you well.

All the best,
MaryC.

Ms. Farnaz,

Not good enough. Dennis Prager is honest enough to publish his works without secrecy. Not so you!!

And what makes him a fool??

Who started all this fisticuffs?
Speak up now, tell me, Jack!
Well Sir, you see, it all began
When Henry hit me back!

"Whose been sleeping in my porridge?"

It's my real name if by that you mean my father's name, and his father's name, and his father's father's name. My mother's name was McDonagh and _her_ mother's name was O'Neill. O'Neill is a tribe long associated with Ulster, yet she was born in the West of Ireland. Y'see my people were those Gaels, ethnically cleansed, offered the choice of "to hell or Connaught".

And, no, I don't change it. Why should I? My worst sin has been writing some pretty pedestrian poetry, but then, I never said I was a poet.

Anyway, thank you J. You're a kind person.

Mary Cunningham
London

See the Journal of Homosexuality. Look especially for articles on Native American attitudes toward homosexuality. Since you are interested in debunking, deflawing, etc., this investigation should prove salutary for you.

M. CCNL:

I honestly can't believe I'm answering you and wouldn't be if I weren't up doing the most miserable work in the world, checking for email from across the globe, on the hunt for distractions. Obviously, I'm not going to give you references to my own work, since I wish to protect my identity. However, if what you're after is literature on sexual minorities by other writers, I shall refer you to it. All I ask is that you specify your area(s) of interest, e.g., transgender, transexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian identities, etc., and where your focus is.

Yuck is a big factor for a lot of straight men viz homosexuality, so you are not alone. Fear of rape is another. Interestingly, straight women respond neither to lesbianism nor to homosexuality in the same way. No one is suggesting you end your heterosexual marriage and move on to a gay partner. The only thing I, for one, would like to see is a little more tolerance and respect for civil/human rights.

Prager is a fool, who needn't have become one. But he did, and he is.

Good Night
Farnaz

Ms. Farnaz,

And the references (web sites, journal name, date etc.) to your publications??

And Dennis Prager's opinion on homosexuality was presented as a "here is what" some other notable person has to say on the subject.

To me, homosexuality remains in the "yuck" zone something Mr. Prager does not mention.

Wiglaf,

Re: the Jesus Christ lizard

Returned to YouTube to watch above mentioned lizard. Concluded it's not using its "feet" as rudders. True, it doesn't walk like most humans do, but it comes pretty close to some I've observed moving in haste.

What say you?

M. Anonymous

Wiglaf,

Deeply, I share your fear for Bewildful, and, therefore, we must not act in haste. Thursday is the day of your god. He will come to aid us if we hear not from Bewildful by then.

RE: GUINNESS

An Anglo-Saxon, I. Like you, I had nothing to do with it, detest the "marauders," etc. Guinness, however, was not given to one people but to all mankind. It is not of an age, but for all time.

M. Anonymous

Also, I don't know about you, but if we use your reasoning, Imus, Stern, and Quaddafi are way ahead of me since I don't have a radio talk show, don't have a TV show.

I dunno. Somehow, something seems to be logically off in the forgoing!

CCNL:

I am a woman; hence, the feminine pronoun would be most appropriate. You are predictably avoiding the point. You asked about my publications, and I answered you. But as I also say they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Your arguments are the point. Your attempt to establish Prager's authority on gay marriage by way of reference to his books, talk show, etc., is the point. If they constitute authority in this matter, Imus, Stern, and Quaddafi do as well.

Your serve.

Hmmm, how do we know that Mary Cunningham is her real name?

And how do we know Farnaz published anything other than he said he did?

And of course, there is the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist who still cannot come to grips with the "femsy" (flaws, errors, muck stench and yuck) of Islam. But she does apparently like Santa Claus. Anyway once again the "femsy" of Islam:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty, (gay?) Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3 That Shiites are less than human or Sunnis are less than human depending on what Islamic cult you belong to.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

Drink to me only with thine eyes
I'll drink with my nose.
Eat to me only with thy ears,
I'll eat with my toes.

anonymous.

CCNL:

Farnaz writes to you:

Don Imus has a radio show, and has written a book: God's Other Son. Howard Stern has hit your evidentiary trifecta: radio show, TV show, and book: Private Parts. Quaddafi broadcasts in both media and has written a book.

I presume you will be calling upon them to support your views in subsequent posts.
----------------
When may we expect to hear the views of Imus, Stern, and Quaddafi on the rights of gays to marry?

--------------------------------------------------
Merry Anonymous,

Why must we wait until Thursday to seek for Bewildful? Do we not risk all in such long delay?

Yours in fellowship,
Wiglaf

CNNL

I have never heard of anybody who thinks that being gay is the norm or the ideal. If you say that is the objective of the gay movement for equal rights, then you are misrepresenting things.

HI Jihadist,

You write:

What happened here? Exchanges between Merry Anonymous and Mary Cunningham?

Merry Anonymous want us to get involved, but Mary Cunningham does not.

At least Mary Cunningham use her real name and not a handle. And not to have more than one handle. And not to change handles for this and that reason.

Ah well. Women fighting over the sins, the transgressions, the crimes of our menfolk in history. Women the little recorded collateral damage in history, now and in future. Chaos theory indeed.

This may become a globalised three corner fight in three continents between a Jewish woman in New York, a Catholic woman in London, and a Muslim woman in Kuala Lumpur.
.................................................
I'm really lost. To the best of my knowledge, M. Anonymous has used only one other handle, and that is Hamlet. Also, he appears to be a he, not a she. And if he is Jewish, I am Hindu. I've read this thread and the one on Susan's previous site.
He surely is no Jew.

And why must he use his "real" name? Are you using yours? I don't mean to sound bellicose, but I am truly lost, regarding your position.
Have you read through their correspondence? What is defensible in the MC post to which Merry A. refers? Have you read what MC wrote? Have you read Merry's correspondence with Arminius? I haven't gotten to the Christine part, which will have to wait, since I have work to do, but it sounds hair-raising.

Can you explain to me how JJ represents Jewish anti-Catholic perspective? Am I missing something? Could you look at this again? I value your opinion. Seriously, I very much do.

Farnaz

Merry Anonymous:

I've made some headway through the thicket of your correspondence with MC, and I've and visited Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's thread. One of these Hagee slurs goes back five hundred years as you no doubt know. Your post on his thread is excellent, I thought.

But getting back to MC. Note her most recent post on the Jewish perspective. Back in the day when I was posting here regularly, she informed us that the Jews believe God was a man. I kid you not. She is quite the expert on my tribe. God bless you for speaking out, but you will never convince her. She does not want to see. You can tell her again and again, but she will not see.

That really doesn't matter since it isn't the point as you surely know. In Judaism, there is an obligation known as Tikkun O'lam: healing or perfecting the world. It gets exhausting as you no have no doubt seen. Did you happen to notice
Ryan Haber's praise of the inquisition on Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's thread? One can only spend so much of one's life on this.

Naively, we thought when we left Iran, we'd left this sickness, as well. We never imagined the racism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc. Still, here one can speak out.

You are a good man, Merry, a man quite after my own heart.

Farnaz

What happened here? Exchanges between Merry Anonymous and Mary Cunningham?

Merry Anonymous want us to get involved, but Mary Cunningham does not.

At least Mary Cunningham use her real name and not a handle. And not to have more than one handle. And not to change handles for this and that reason.

Ah well. Women fighting over the sins, the transgressions, the crimes of our menfolk in history. Women the little recorded collateral damage in history, now and in future. Chaos theory indeed.

This may become a globalised three corner fight in three continents between a Jewish woman in New York, a Catholic woman in London, and a Muslim woman in Kuala Lumpur.

**************************************************

Concy, Concy, Concy!

What a personkind!

Gotten over homophobia? Or not? Come to mama to thump and leave others alone.

Concy : And the beat goes on with the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist's commentaries on every subject but the important one i.e, the "femsy" of Islam (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of said religion.

* Ahhhh.....My dear Concy! You can always get a baptism to cleanse yourself of the flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck of homophobia.

And while you are at it, to cleanse yourself of the muck of all religions too. Except of course, for Crossanized Christianity.

And the beat and the thump goes on......A boom bam boom! A-tisket, A-tasket.

Concy : And again note she never says anything about the "gayness" of Gabriel. Hmmm, another element in the "femsy" of Islam!!!!

* That is true. I never did say anything about the "gayness" of Gabriel. But alas, your goodself did.

Your gayday very good and up? Even on what you deem as a "fictional flying thingee"? Any historical record and archeological evidence that the Jesus Seminarians studied, then voted to determine Gabriel is "gay"?

Surely homophobia is not translating into what you deem as imaginary creatures? A bit too far, no?

Oh, and what about Santa? He's so full of "Ho!Ho!Ho!". He wears a flaming red suit. He rides on a one horse open sled that dashes merrily through the snow. There's no Mrs. Santa we know of. And what about Tinkerbell in those tights?

Concy : "And there does appear to be a fair amount of "homophobia" and "yuckiness" in Malaysia. e.g. globalgayz.com/malaysia-news.html#article4"

* That should give comfort to yuckeroos against gays that there are the fellow "yucked out" ones even in Malaysia to form a global coalition of Yuckeroos Against Gays (YAG). Perhaps to have a YAG Global Manifesto to declare - Sex is a gift of God and Mother Nature. We're not animals, etc, etc, etc

Concy : "For those interested in contacting Dennis Prager to comment on his books, radio show, journal articles, on-line store and speeches....

* Dennis Prager? He sounds like an excon to me (extreme conservative) from what he said on gays posted by pussycat here. Like a male Ann Coulter. Why would anyone be interested to know him except the same crowd fond of Ann Coulter?

And why would anyone go to any links provided here? One could get viruses and worms if one goes to the sites of worms and viruses.

Concy : And maybe The Jihadist et al can supply information on their books, radio shows, journal articles and contact numbers?

* My contact numbers? You want to get published? Or you want a date? Oh, all right. Let me look in my Blackberry. Hmmmm....Oh sorry. My schedule is full. I already have dates for a gay time with ladies from the Americas to Europe to Africa to Asia up till December. But you can join us for shopping, ladies' lunches, high tea if I am in North America, pussycat.

CCNL writes:

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Let us know when you publish your first article.

I published my first article ten years ago, early for a graduate student, if I do say so myself, and a refugee, at that. Since then, I have published thirteen articles and one book (my dissertation, Oxford). My second book (also OUP) is due out in the fall.

And? So? Point? These publications are primarily of interest to those in my field and one or two areas of interdisciplinary studies. They are important to me because they inform my identity. In a sense, I suppose my most recent work does give me some indirect authority in this discussion since it concerns representations of sexual minorities. And Prager?

Let us say I had no publications. Would that make my arguments less logical? Yours more logical? My understanding is that these arguments should be assessed on their merits, not on whether one has publications, a radio show, TV show, etc. Hence, you do not refer to your own publications, radio or TV show.

Don Imus has a radio show, and has written a book: God's Other Son. Howard Stern has hit your evidentiary trifecta: radio show, TV show, and book: Private Parts. Quaddafi broadcasts in both media and has written a book.

I presume you will be calling upon them to support your views in subsequent posts.

Farnaz

"I have met God. And He is very very BIG. so BEWARE"

Beware of letting 'big' scare you into making assumptions. Bullies are often big. Doesn't make em right. Or 'God.'

"God is not happy with you sir. You blaspheme. You still have time to recant and save your soul.
Why go to Hades when you could go to Paradise? Hades is Hell sir. Trust me, I know of which I speak."

Well, actually, you don't. Neither Hades nor Hel are, strictly speaking, what Christians make of the words. Both are somewhat grim places of shades, but neither eternal nor based on torture, as Christians claim for their 'Hell,' which seems to be based upon the Jewish idea of 'Sheol,' which is actually supposed to be sort of a purgatory within heaven,to my understanding, but, the lakes of fire and eternal torment by demons is all from the Christian imagination, actually.

I, for one, do not believe one can be rewarded with 'Paradise' through imposing pain and injustice on others. Even with a book for an excuse. And if one could, that'd be a bribe I could not accept.

A place full of people like that would be lousy company, anyway. Forget about it.

Anon, Anon, Anon whomever you are,

Just what of the following part of history is your god unhappy with?

Jesus was a simple, illiterate, uneducated, significantly embellished preacher man. He may have had some thoughts about marriage but said thoughts were not laws. The voting, educated public and their government representatives/ lawyers make our laws and enforce them.

Or:

The "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of the major religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

Many of the 1.5 million Conservative Jews and many of their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

The muck and stench in Judaism you ask?

Belief that that the Jews are god's chosen people and its resulting consequences.
simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

4. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/ market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverance are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

The muck and stench of Hinduism you ask?

The caste system and cow worship/reverance.

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, muck, stench and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

ConcernedtcnL.

God is not happy with you sir. You blaspheme. You still have time to recant and save your soul.
Why go to Hades when you could go to Paradise? Hades is Hell sir. Trust me, I know of which I speak.

God has His eye on you. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when God gets angry. The Lord thy God is an angry God when rubbed the wrong way. Blaspheme at your peril sir. God will not be made a fool of.

I have met God. And He is very very BIG. so BEWARE.

To Humanity.

Hi again y'all. Got a busy day ahead of me. Just popped in to tell you I love you all, everyone of you. God does too. Have a nice day you nice people.
It s a nice world if you are nice to your fellow beings. Just remember to hug everyone you pass, and kiss them too. It's what our Lord would do.

Bye Humanity. Talk to you later.

Jesus was a simple, illiterate, uneducated, significantly embellished preacher man. He may have had some thoughts about marriage but said thoughts were not laws. The voting, educated public and their government representatives/lawyers make laws and enforce them.

Farnaz, Farnaz, Farnaz,

Let us know when you publish your first article.

Typo. "educated"

Saying someone posts with a Jewish perspective is not anti-Sem. Calling someone a 'bigot' on that basis alone evidence is slanderous. Additionally running around looking for offence when none was written nor intended is sick. You termed my other posts "revolting" nd "disgusting" with no evidence whatsover. You need to post some links.

Incidentally, if you are going to post with multiple names you need to change your phraseology. Your stuff sounds incredibly like Loria in "Your Thoughts", and in no small measure also like Christine's.

MaryCunningham

Also, what do you mean by "an education person"?

I generally don't sleep in the afternoon, but thank you for your concern. I have not called you every name in the book.

I have referred to your speech as antisemitic, and it is.

That's rich! You call me every name in the book with no substantiation whatsoever and yet consider yourself as an education person.

Well, unlike Christine at least you didn't offer to pray for me so I guess I should be grateful for small favours.

Incidentally what are you doing up so early posting. Maybe more sleep might be in order.

MC:

Racist: one who discriminates, especially on the basis of race or religion

Antisemite: One who discriminates against or is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews
..................
Curious that you cannot see why any right-thinking person would find this remark of yours on Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's thread revolting:

Comment number one by a well known spammer Jacob Jovesz who spams and spouts with impunity, anti-Catholic mostly from a Jewish perspective.
................

I refer to myself as a former captive of Christianity, now an atheist. I come from a long line of what most would call good Christian people. Neither my parents nor my teachers were Jew haters. They hated no one. They stood up for the oppressed. I've known many Catholics in my time, and I can say the same of them.

But neither Christianity nor Catholicism is free of the disease of bigotry, as you so well demonstrate.

You wish a truce with me, but I declared no war. You did with your racist speech, and you have been on the attack for quite some time. If right-thinking people don't stand up against this sickness--whether it be racism, antisemitism, homophobia, anti-Catholicism, etc.--we are all lost.

You are at war, and it is one I hope you will not win, neither against those about whom you speak vilely nor against yourself.

The animosity is within you. I wish nothing more for you than that you would rid yourself of it.

Why not just refer others to them? Nobody's interested in this. I'm not that important a player.

WaPo April.9,2008, Benedict and Islam
"Your Thoughts" 11 April 2008, 11:33 AM, MC's first post and upwards.

Everyone:

If you are reading these posts of yours truly and Mary Cunningham, you should understand the context. To do so, you will need to scroll down a little and view an exchange between Arminius and me from last night, in which I called his attention to Ms. Cunningham's assessment of anti-Catholicism "from a Jewish perspective," posted on Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's thread, and, below for your convenience. I recounted for Arminius other far more offensive posts by Ms. Cunningham. (Scroll down.) These posts are disgusting, but I will paste them here, should it become necessary.

A "flamer" is an internet poster who stalks another.

Mary Cunningham:

"Can't prove." Interesting choice of words. Then, you would like me to paste your posts to Christine and Pat. You recall Christine, don't you, the woman with the murdered sister?

It's a quick trip to Word. Didn't count on that, did you? Antisemitism interests me for the reasons I explain to Arminius. Your posts aren't the only ones in my file, but they're high up on the list of most offensive.

But truly curious: You don't see why any right-thinking person would see your comments about JJ's "Jewish perspective" as revolting.
...........

You refer to me as "flaming." Then, you're a homophobe, as well?

A truce? I have no truck with racists. No truck with homophobes. Never have. Never will.

An Angry Flamer

Well, MerryAnon, what you're doing is flaming and you can't prove anything because there is nothing to prove! I feel bad for you, if you choose to trawl through all my posts. For one thing they're few and far between. For another, there's a lot of doggerel. But suit yourself.

Still, I would like to call a truce. Why create anger and animosity where before there was none? Change your bad thoughts and maybe good things could happen:

...
That this pragmatical, preposterous pig of a world, its farrow that so solid seem,
Must vanish on the instant if the mind but change its theme;

WB Yeats, "Blood and the Moon"

Everyone:

If you are reading these posts of yours truly and Mary Cunningham, you should understand the context. To do so, you will need to scroll down a little and view an exchange between Arminius and me from last night, in which I called his attention to Ms. Cunningham's assessment of anti-Catholicism "from a Jewish perspective," posted on Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's thread, and, below for your convenience. I recounted for Arminius other far more offensive posts by Ms. Cunningham. (Scroll down.) These posts are disgusting, but I will paste them here, should it become necessary.

JJ's most recent post:

The End Of the VATiCaN satans dressed in Light is Near!:

Mr. ARROYO, et al:

The "MOTHER O{F} {HARLOTS}" thing, aka 'Hore of Babylon' by another name, but same shame, not fame, refers to the ROMAN CATHOLiC CHURCH Aye?!

So How much further from the TRUTH (opposite of MYTH) can Judeo-Ju' Boy Hagee , et al, be????

May 25, 2008 11:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Here is my comment on Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's thread. You can visit it, yourselves, of course!

JJ:

You are as Jewish as I am, which is not at all, and have never been.

What you are is a lunatic. I would suggest you gather together your various posts and co-publish them with Mary Cunningham, whose bigoted brain, frequently manifest on this blog, nicely complements your own.
...............................................

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

Speaking as one raised Christian, from generations of Christians, now a happy atheist, I can tell you that Christians do have too many Hagees, whom many Christians see as morally reprehensible. It is good and just for you to speak out against him.

RE: Mary Cunningham's post on Prof. Stevens-
Arroyo's thread.
Here is Mary Cunningham's post, which I, not Farnaz, discussed with Anonymous last night.

MaryCunningham:
Subject: offensive comment about Hagee and the
To: onfaith@washingtonpost.com

Comment number one by a well known spammer Jacob Jovesz who spams and spouts with impunity, anti-Catholic mostly from a Jewish perspective.

Why can't you block this pest?

Regards

So Farnaz/MAnon.'s view saying "someone posts anti-Cath. posts from a Jewish perspective" (JJ has called himself an Israeli-American) is anti-Semitic? Then she is sadly misinformed what a real anti-Semite is like.

And here is the second on the Prof A_S post. And that is all! So judging from MAnon's outbursts I would say she is merely Loria/Farnaz (Serena too?) reincarnated. And I got the better of her on the "Your thoughts" post, so she's in full attack mode.

Anyway, I don't really care.

"Thing is the nationalistic, bellicose type of Hagee anti-Catholicism (the anti-papism of the nationalist right)is pretty much banned. Oh, it's underground alright, but can't really gain much headway in a multi-cultural society. Look at what happened in Northern Ireland: a war, massive emigration and a province far too dependant on subsidies from the rest of Britain (who would dearly like it to sink into the sea). Not a good example of where religious apartheid leads.

OTOH the anti-Catholicism of the Jacobites and their descendants--liberal whigs and communists--is pervasive. Just take a look at any of the "secularists" on the blog, or, even better, at the athiests regulars. In the echalons of higher educations, esp. lit and the "ologies", atheism is almost a requirement. The most vicious anti-Catholicism I encountered here was from two teachers of English--one at high school, one at university. Teachers! And--even worse--the uni teacher mentioned about half her students were Catholics. I found that fact terrible to grasp. The type of prejudice she manifested online was deep rooted, what must her Catholic students take from her?

Now IMO this intellectual, left wing type of anti-Catholicism is what the Catholic League was formed to combat, and is far more dangerous that Hagee. Donohoe is fulfilling an important need. I'm not happy that Prof. A-S sees it necessary to attack him.

May 21, 2008 4:35 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 21, 2008 04:35"

That's all there is.

Re: "the disgusting anti-Semitism"

Well, here it is.. The antheist anti-cath. is derived from the French Revolution

MaryCunningham:

“On Faith” is one of a number of blogs I’ve visited here and in England. The anti-Catholic sentiment on all (except, of course, the one Catholic blog where nastier are always blocked) is of two types. Prof Stevens-Arroyo is writing about the first, older variety.

Scots-Irish Anti-papism

The older, more familiar kind, is represented by Rev. (oh yes! Very reverend) Hagee and, probably, in some small part, John McCain. One can call this the “No Popery” “No Papacy” variety. Although it was endemic in the cities of England during the 17th and 18th centuries (the last great anti-Catholic riot, the Gordon Riots, in London was in 1788) it assumed virulent proportions in Northern Ireland. Here the native Catholic Irish were ethnically cleansed, expelled from Ulster and sent westward, in effect given a choice of “To hell or Connaught”. They were replaced with loyal Presbyterians from Scotland, in fact, Ulster was probably the first member of the British Empire. These new settlers called themselves “Scotch-Irish” and many later emigrated to the US, especially to Virginia and Appalachia and became a particularly bellicose, nativistic type of American. The best example is Andrew Jackson, during whose Presidency Amerindians were ethnically cleansed from the entire eastern part of the US in pretty much the same fashion as the Catholic Irish had been cleansed from Ulster, to hell or Oklahoma I guess.

When the Catholic Irish began arriving in great numbers during the Great Famine years of the 1840s, nativists responded by forming a political party and “No Popery” riots ensued in the US very similar to earlier anti-papist riots in England.

This type of anti-Catholicism is still very much extant in Northern Ireland where, until ten years ago, a very nasty religious war betw. Catholic Gaels and Protestant settlers raged. You can see it here in the postings of Holy Cow/Canyon Shearer/Spiderman2. In the UK I can always tell when a northern Irish protestant comes in. The rhetoric changes subtly. The attack against Catholics becomes more personal: Catholics are “docile”, “priest- ridden”, “ignorant”, live in an “enclosed world”. The Church is evil, the pope gives a Nazi salute surreptitiously. This is the Hagee brand of anti-Catholicism.

I would say that this nativist streak is what the Professor despises, seeing as its ire is directed primarily against Catholic Latinos. For the life of me, I don’t see what the Donohoes and O’Reillys are doing making peace with the Hagees of this world. I remain convinced they are as firmly, viscerally, even viciously anti-papist as the Ulster Unionists ever were. And that type of anti-Catholicism exists today.

The second type of anti-Catholicism comes from atheists like Candide and Jacob Jovesz. This often joins forces with Scotch-Irish anti-papism, but it’s intellectual antecedents are the Jacobins of the French Revolution and the great liberal whigs of the 19th century. The greatest intellectual opponent of these movements was Edmund Burke, an Irishman of mixed religious background (mother & wife Catholic, father Protestant, quite usual in Ireland of his time because Catholics could not inherit nor go to university). I’ll talk about that another time. A little anti-papist bile goes a long way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html
Part of an article by Sam Harris. Click above for more.

"In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs.

Merry A,

Yes, I think Bush & Cheney should be required to read Chapter VII.

And not only that.

Farnaz

CCNL writes:

"And maybe The Jihadist et al can supply information on their books, radio shows, journal articles and contact numbers?"

Assuming, I am among the et al, I ask,
"And the logic is?" Fr. Charles Edward Coughlin had his own radio show and magazine. Henry Ford published a newspaper and books.

Of course, there is no comparison between those two hateful half-humans and Prager, but follow your logic and look where we go.

Why not cite Don Imus? Howard Stern? They have shows? What is the position of reality TV?

CCNL, my friend, read Fr. Reese, et al. Watch the Jesus Christ Lizard on YouTube, as I have just done, have a drink, and go to bed.

Goodnight,
Farnaz

Dear Wiglaf,

Indeed, I visited YouTube and viewed with delight the Jesus Christ Lizard. I must agree that he does not offer evidence NT wise, but he is wondrous and very cute: O brave new world!

I have decided to watch him on YouTube every day. I think he is calming, very violet sweet!

Skipping along through literary movements and periods, I am doing quite well Hemingway-wise; in fact, I reread "In Our Time" cover to cover today. It is really something. I think Bush and Cheney should be required to read Chapter VII before they leave what's left of the executive branch. WHAT SAY YOU, FARNAZ?

As for Bewildful, I tremble with fear. Who knows the slippage he endures. If he does not return to us by daybresk Thursday, we must after him.

Merry Anonymous

And the beat goes on with the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist's commentaries on every subject but the important one i.e, the "femsy" of Islam (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of said religion.

And again note she never says anything about the "gayness" of Gabriel. Hmmm, another element in the "femsy" of Islam!!!!

And there does appear to be a fair amount of "homophobia" and "yuckiness" in Malaysia. e.g. globalgayz.com/malaysia-news.html#article4

For those interested in contacting Dennis Prager to comment on his books, radio show, journal articles, on-line store and speeches, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager and stores.dennisprager.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT. And maybe The Jihadist et al can supply information on their books, radio shows, journal articles and contact numbers?

Direct link to the article mentioned in my previous post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302453.html

Real Archaeologists Don't Wear Fedoras
By Neil Asher Silberman
Sunday, May 25, 2008; B01

A bit off topic, but check out the WaPo column by Archaeologist Neil Asher Silberman on how archeology is done.: "Real Archaeologists Don't Wear Fedoras" It's a clever piece about how Indiana Jones misrepresents real archeology.

In it he casually refers to the major findings in his book "The Bible Unearthed" that refute the factuality biblical stories. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"In my own work in Israel, I've traced the early archaeologists' attempts to discover relics that would provide proof of the historical reliability of the Scriptures -- not too different from Indy's search for the biblical Ark of the Covenant. But in the last generation, archaeological teams at sites throughout the Middle East -- working to analyze everything from ancient plant remains to distributions of animal bones to ancient metallurgy and environmental data gathered from satellite imagery -- have begun to understand the social and cultural background to the rise of the biblical tradition. In the process, they've revealed that many of the taken-for-granteds of biblical history, such as the exodus from Egypt, the conquest of the Promised Land by Joshua and even the vast kingdom of David and Solomon, were mostly literary tall tales and exaggerations of the historical reality.

Hi Wiglaf,

Thanks for the kind words. As for CCNL, my policy is not to engage him, but he posted to me, so what could I do?

Honestly, I think he's a soul in distress, but I don't think he's aware of it. Therefore, there can be no real dialogue with him.

Btw., in addition to the essays of Bishop Chane, Rev. Tully, mentioned by Merry A., CCNL and other gay rights opponents should read the post of Thomas Reese, SJ.

Hemingway:
"In Our Time" and "The Sun Also Rises" are the two Hemingway works I think most brilliant. In Hemingway, you have one truly baffling persona, quite unlike Dennis Prager, a talking head whose public persona baffles not a whit.

Farnaz

Timothy Kevin Peter Moses Baumgartner?

Another parodist? I'm willing to learn limbo rock while in Limbo. Since there's coffee, I'll have an expresso, please.

(a) Collecting stamps is a hobby.
(b) Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

What was that (b) sentence??????

Better for atheists to say:

(a) Believing in God is a belief.
(b) Not believing in God is not a belief.

English is very complicated for non-native speakers. Some atheists can't even insult or offend believers properly in their own mother tongue.

Farnaz,

Re: Your last two posts, Hemingway

Well spoke, as was DITLDs. Quite right on the "nomenclature." "Homophobia" is a far more apt descriptive term than the "idiotic 'pro-life' rubric."

I'm a relative newcomer here, but I've read CCNLs post. Would suggest he not provoke minds bigger than his own.

Hemingway: Ordered "In Our Time." Quite a paragraph, that.
...........................
Merry,

How goes it Jesus Christ Lizard and Hemingway wise? I am beginning to fear for Bewildful.

Yours,
Wiglaf

Concy pussycat!

What? Not putting forth clearly as a "list" a Concerned Crossanized Christian Now Liberated and of Reality's manifesto on gays and gay marraiges?

What! Still denying homophobia is phobia? Phobia is not only an irrational fear of something, but also an extreme, abnormal dislike or aversion of something.

And what's this? Quotes from Dennis Prager? Who he? He redefining homophobia and phobia?

Ahhh, all that academic and intellectually twisted mumbo-jumbo.

Prager : “Just as we owe homosexuals humane, decent, and respectful conduct, homosexuals owe the same to the rest of us."

* Say what? Just ask any gay. We ain't showing no respect for them. And we expect them to respect us? Where got humane, decent and respect conduct of gays by straights?

Prager : "Homosexuals' use of the term "homophobic," however, violates this rule as much as heterosexuals' use of the term "f t" does.”

* What in the world is "f t"? Well yeah, can't compete with what homophobic straights comes out with to describe gays - fruits, flaming, flamboyant etc, and those are the more polite terms. So, don't whine about homophobia. Nice round ring to it.

Prager : "When the term "homophobic" is used to describe anyone who believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society's ideal, it is quite simply a contemporary form of McCarthyism."

* There is a western society's ideal on heterosexuality? Or is it a religious ideal? More eloquent nonsense. Who is persecuting whom? Gays persecuting straights? Who is calling whom what and bashing their heads with baseball bats? If there is heterophobia among gays, no one should be surprised. All that vilifications, verbal and physical beatings, social stigmas etc

Prager : "In fact, it is more insidious than the late senator's use of "communist." For one thing, there was and is such a thing as a communist."

* Yeah well. There are gay communists. That would make in double insidious. Communists still exists. It is ideology, not sexology. Sexual inclinations has nothing do with ideology or theology. Oh, gays have been around longer than communists - from Sappho to George Micheal. What was that gays said - "We are everywhere".

Prager : "But "homophobia" masquerades as a scientific description of a phobia that does not exist in any medical list of phobias.”

* Ah, homophobia among straights should be really studied among straights as to why they are averse to and fearful of gays. There are too many studies done on gays. Why not on straights against gays?

And some questions you would know the answer:

* what are the vote by agreement of the Jesus Seminarians on gays, gay sex and gay marraiges, if any?

* are there any gays (both declared and closeted) who are members of the Jesus Seminarians?

Just want to say Hi to all Humanity and Hope you are all having a nice day; and to let you know that God and I love every last one of you; all six billion seven hundred and ninety five million six hundred thousand four hundred and sixty eight point zero zero two of you. (You all took Ages to count).

Would you believe that there's even more of you up in Heaven? Well, not quite. But it IS getting rather crowded these days in the Kingdom, and God's had to resort to a waiting list system for a while, so some folks will be in Limbo until they make a little more room up there.

He's also considering a points system making the requirements for admission a little more stringent; so you'll all have to try even harder to be good, because He'll be watching a lot closer from now on, if this new plan goes ahead.

How do I know all this? Glad you asked. Well,I have met God a few times (I'm a Catholic) and He knows what a nice a person I am.And we had coffee a couple of times. He's REALLY NICE. You'll all be surprised how NICE HE IS. He paid the coffee of course but it wasn't just that.
He just radiates charisma, never stopped smiling and kissing me and kept telling me that He loves me. Made me feel so wonderful.

Anyway people. Be ready. See ya'll in the Kingdom if you can get in. Better be good.
God's thought for the week is, Be better than your neighbor. And NO blowing people up.

Anon (CCNL):

You write:
Your comments about "homophobia" should be sent to Dennis Prager. I presented part of his review previously to give someone else's perspective. See his complete review at

Public Interest, Summer, 1993 by Dennis Prager

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/
.........................................
To "someone else," you write:

With respect to homophobia see

Public Interest, Summer, 1993 by Dennis Prager

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_14

“Just as we owe homosexuals humane, decent, and respectful conduct, homosexuals owe the same to the rest of us. Homosexuals' use of the term "homophobic," however, violates this rule as much as heterosexuals' use of the term "f t" does.”

When the term "homophobic" is used to describe anyone who believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society's ideal, it is quite simply a contemporary form of McCarthyism. In fact, it is more insidious than the late senator's use of "communist." For one thing, there was and is such a thing as a communist. But "homophobia" masquerades as a scientific description of a phobia that does not exist in any medical list of phobias.”

..........................................
Anon (CCNL),

My comments referred to a post from DITLD to you. I can see no reason why I would send them to Praeger. Dennis Praeger is a political conservative, who is opposed to gay marriage. I just skimmed through the article you cite which is consistent with his views throughout the years, although, at points, but only at points, somewhat less polemical. He gives among other specious justifications for his confused argument, the notion that since man is promicuous by nature, permitting gays to marry would not curb their promiscuity. I could point to similar instances of illogic.

Despite his own perspective on the subject, I know of no person who considers him a leading authority on Judaism, and even if he were, what has that to do with the rights of gays to marry?

If I have not been clear in the past on my own views, let me be now. I do not believe that any organized religion, or interpreter thereof has the right to interfere in matters of governance.

As for sending my comments to Dennis Praeger, he did not post here. You did, and you used him as evidence to support your case. DITLD commented, and my post was in reference to his.

Farnaz

Farnaz et al,

Your comments about "homophobia" should be sent to Dennis Prager. I presented part of his review previously to give someone else's perspective. See his complete review at

Public Interest, Summer, 1993 by Dennis Prager

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/

DITLD writes to CCNL:

"The word homphobia is not a scientific or medical word; it is just a word for anti-gay."

Interesting post. The term is controversial in psychology since persons who condemn homosexuality do not necessarily avoid gays, as phobics avoid those things that frighten them. Freud believed that fear and hatred of gays was due to fear of homosexual tendencies within the self, a condition that contemporary psychology sees as a specific pathology, but, again, the etymology doesn't quite fit.

Setting aside the etymology for the moment, many see homophobia as equivalent to any other prejudice, e.g., xenophobia, antisemitsm, etc., although I'm not so sure. Take gays in the military, for example. Despite the fact that homosexual rape is a rare occurrence, in interviews, heterosexual soldiers confessed that rape was what they feared from gay comrades.

Another interesting element is the almost universal "yuckiness" factor. I've asked several straight men I know, men whom one would never consider homophobic, to explain what it is that so repels some men about gayness, and using a combination of gestures and words, they all said basically the same thing: they felt a sense of revulsion about maleness. Women, are pretty, sweet. Not so, men.

There is also the oft-discussed fear of powerlessness and vulnerability, with which men equate both gayness and the feminine. Pointing out the extreme "maleness" of some gays doesn't help, since it invokes the fear-of-rape factor.

So, then, homophobia, or heterosexism comprises a number of contradictory elements, all of which go to a kind of mirroring. As for the term, I don't think CCNL should worry himself too much about it. It's certainly more apt than the idiotic "pro-life" rubric denoting a view to which he subscribes, more apt, too, than his misleading handle. It would be more fitting if he simply called himself "Concerned," wouldn't it?

Farnaz

CCNL

The word homphobia is not a scientific or medical word; it is just a word for anti-gay. You are anti-gay, so why do you object to a word that describes you as being anti-gay? If you do not want to be called a homophobe, then stop being a homophobe. If you are a homophobe, then why not be one proud of it? If you are ashamed of it, then you are admitting that it is wrong.

If we get rid of that word, it will not change the fact that you are anti-gay, and that you are wrong. People can say whatever they want. You cannot control what words are in current usage. You, yourself, invent your own private words all the time, so why are you so bothered by a word that is in common ussage and has a real and useful meaning, which assists in comminicating ideas? You just do not like the idea of that word being applied to you. And if the word, homophobia, can be compared to McCarthyism, please name the person, who is behind it. McCarthyism is called McCarthyism because there was a man, McCarthy, promoting McCarthyism. So please name the man who is promoting the use of the word, homophoba, in a McCarthy-like way.

And also, as far as you procaiming the yuckiness of your fellow man, try looking in a mirror, and see if other people might not find your appearance to be yucky. Of course, I do not know what you look like, but I imagine you do not have the youthful appearance of a model.

And besides, to me, yucky is a childish word; it is actually less of a word than homophobe, so, if anyone should stop using a word, it is you who should stop using that childish word: yucky.

Merry,

Speaking of matters religious, did you happen to visit YouTube for to see the Jesus Christ Lizard?

I was certain I had evidence of the real McCoy, when I read Chris Everett's post which began with something like, "The Jesus Christ Lizard has returned!" There, then, is the problem. The lizard has not returned since it never left. To venture further theology-wise, Christ, it is claimed, was a man; the lizard, we see, is a lizard. The two are not materially equivalent.

Final note on this: Having observed said lizard YouTube-wise, I must admit it is not walking. It uses its "feet" as rudders. Wonder if primeval humans in proximity developed anything mechanical in imitation, or attempted to.
....................................

RE: Guinness

A great gift to humankind. Anglo-Irish, yours truly. However, I had nothing to do with it, thoroughly renounce the Anglo part, and humbly hope that back in the day, a poor, but magnificent soul was "converted" by the marauders.

Aside from my language warlord and a few other imaginary notables, the Anglo's have given us nothing but misery, in my humble view. Been to England, of necessity, several times. Don't like it. Backward, barbaric people. Always were, always will be. No offense intended to anyone.

W.

Anon wrote:

"But most atheists are realists and would no more reach for a God when scared than reach for a Teddy Bear. Yes I do believe that."

Most believers, too, I would venture. Hemingway, as I mentioned was Roman Catholic.

Under siege, to whom, for what, does one reach?

Hi Merry A.,

Regarding Chapter VII, did you know that we have five drafts of that chapter? At least, if I recall correctly. Also, they are all titled "Religion."

Hemingway had problems with war, as you know, his machismo notwithstanding. Robert Scholes did a brilliant analysis of this piece. Note how everything is shrunken. Christ becomes christ, love becomes sex.

One could go on. Salvation becomes chance. The good news becomes no news as there are no events other than survival and death, and not only for the soldier. Even those above ground were in foxholes. Today, we would ask if the girl at the Villa Rosa, who may have been prostituting herself to feed her family, as so many did, was not in a foxhole of her own. "And he never told anybody."

But, as Scholes points out, in writing this text, he told everybody. The question, for us, I guess, concerns what he tells. What was he witness to?

What we call on at moments like this, in other words, is not God. We look to superstition, if anything, to incantation, "Oh jesus christ get me out of here." That is not "belief."

A brilliant piece of writing on "faith." Naturalism wrought to its uttermost by a deeply troubled (and troublint) Roman Catholic.

Farnaz

On and on goes the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist on every subject but the important one i.e, the "femsy" of Islam (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of said religion.

And note she never says anything about the "gayness" of Gabriel. Hmmm, another element in the "femsy" of Islam!!!!

And there does appear to be a fair amount of "homophobia" in Malaysia. e.g. globalgayz.com/malaysia-news.html#article4

With respect to homophobia see

Public Interest, Summer, 1993 by Dennis Prager

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_14

“Just as we owe homosexuals humane, decent, and respectful conduct, homosexuals owe the same to the rest of us. Homosexuals' use of the term "homophobic," however, violates this rule as much as heterosexuals' use of the term "f t" does.”

When the term "homophobic" is used to describe anyone who believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society's ideal, it is quite simply a contemporary form of McCarthyism. In fact, it is more insidious than the late senator's use of "communist." For one thing, there was and is such a thing as a communist. But "homophobia" masquerades as a scientific description of a phobia that does not exist in any medical list of phobias.”

Arminius:
M Anon,

Getting late, gonna hang it up. A good day it was, talking to you. And my beloved Atlanta Braves baseball team won with a tie-breaking heroic home run in the bottom of the ninth inning.

****************************************************************************************************

I thought I heard a voice shouting from afar in harmony with my husband's. He lives and dies with the Braves as well.

Anonymous : What would shock and break the hearts of Muslim Jihadists the most is not that they would burn in hell but the realization that the 72 virgins are NOT actually virgins. (from Jon Stewart, COMEDY CENTRAL)

That's a good one. LOL.

I will share this Jon Stewart joke this with my family, friends and colleagues. Oh, the neighbourhood imam too. He'll get a kick out of this. Don't ask me where this "72 virgins" comes from. The Qur'an never states the number or gender. It is "pure souls" as companions and translated as "virgins" like the vestal virgins and what not. Must be from some overheated minded male interpreter into sex. Yeah, we Muslims are into gay sex (as in happy for all sexual inclinations) in this temporal life and the afterlife too!

Cheers and a good week ahead for you.

Jihadist wrote "Up to "72 virgins" in the aferlife!"

What would shock and break the hearts of Muslim Jihadists the most is not that they would burn in hell but the realization that the 72 virgins are NOT actually virgins. (from Jon Stewart, COMEDY CENTRAL)

Concy pussycat!

Oh my. You do need help on homophobia.

Oh, why not. I'll still be gentle. You can still thump. And still have premature articulations and ejaculations such as, "But we're not animals!!!". Sex like animals is great. As in "a tiger in bed" or "a pussycat in bed" or "a cold fish in bed".

And still can't admit all that verbal and physical gay bashing going on, eh? - "Sex is a gift of God and Mother Nature!" "It is yucky!" in dismissing love and sex between gays.

And what? The whole lot of CCNL haven't got time to google all it needs to know on the "yucky" world and "yucky" life and "yucky" sex?

And nothing from the Jesus Seminarians on gays, gay sex and gay marraige unions, both legal and sacred, to extract and repost here?

And haven't got time to google more info/news and links from the Net to repost here on "yucky" sex from around the world?

Oh, what is it about Crossanized Christians of Reality who read five books and the whole world must know about it by constant repetition of refenrences and quotes of and from them?

CCNL : BTW "yucky" pertains to a condition, not a hatred or desire for deletion e.g. the "yuck" of Islam can easily be "febrezed" by the Five Step Program for Deflawing said religion.

"Yucky" pertains to a condiiton, a hatred or desire for deletion? What eloquent nonsense. "Yucky" is a a reaction of revulsion and could morph into hatred.

Homophobia is an irrational fear. It is a condition that do bring hatred. There are some aranchnophobia here too. Fear, revulsion and hatred of spiders. Oh, did I mention Catholophobia/Papalophobia, Judeophobia, Mormonphobia, Paganphobia, Islamophobia too?

And as for an example of "yucky"...."yucky" is kissing someone who has not quite masticated and swallowed a Philadelphia cheese steak sandwich for anyone who is a vegetarian and don't like or is allergic to cheese. It is a physiological reaction.

CCNL : "And there does appear to be a fair amount of "yucky" activity in Malaysia."

Snot is "yucky" for some. Pus is "yucky" for some. But not for mothers, nurses and doctors. Sex is good. Sex is fun. Sex is natural. Everyone does it. From ministers to schoolkids to pastors to vegetable sellers to the Grand Mufti. Except the Pope, unmarried priests and nuns of course. Save the errant ones.

We have it all. Heterosexual sex. Homosexual sex. Bisexual sex. Metrosexual sex. Ambisexual sex. Dexterous sex. Ambiguous sex. Ambidextrous sex. Dubious sex. Suspicious sex. Great sex. Fumbling sex. Like every place on earth and no place for prudish Crossanized Christian of Reality.

For uptight, unliberated Catholics/Christians of Reality, and to further "liberate" Concerned the Christian Now "Liberated"....

First, to loosen up on sex:

Convert to Islam!
Up to four wives in life!
Up to "72 virgins" in the aferlife!
We have no Paul the Prude to prude us up!
We have no Puritans to puritanise us up!

Second, to loosen up on gays and gay sex and "deyuck" you with obvious and easy suggestions:

* Drooling over Kula Boof naked on a book jacket is so "yucky" and so naff. Stop doing that. Find a real consenting woman. Or consenting man. No minors, dogs or cars please.

* Read EM Forster'"Maurice". One gay decided to be free and move away and on. The other remain repressed and unliberated in staying in the same place.

* Don't read Radclyffe Hall's "My Lonely Well". I mean, "How Deep is My Well". I mean, "The Well of Loneliness". It will perpetuate your stereotypes of gays as depressed and suicidal.

* Rent from video shops "Brokeback Mountain", "Torch Song Trilogy", "101 Reykjavik" for a start. If I can find them in Malaysia.... And "Queer as Folks", "The 'L' Word" too if you want.

* Read poetry by WH Auden, go to plays by Oscar Wilde, watch Rock Hudson movies, listen to KD Lang's songs.

* Grow a designer stubble or goatee, dress up, put on that gay dance classic track, Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" and dance your heart out.

Free at last! Free at last! Free at last! From arachnophobia! From Catholophobia/Papalophobia! From Judeophobia! From Mormonphobia! From Paganphobia! From Islamophobia!

Goodness gracious me! That is a lot of phobias!
You may or may not survive your phobias and "yuck" of everything and nothing.

Ah well. I did try to help. Perhaps Mr. Mark, E Favorite and Chris Everett can do better in helping you overcome homophobia. Or not.

Over to others, please.

Merry A.

Yeah I can see that. If all hell is really raging god no longer matters.
As a kid in London during ww2 i recall a scary night when we were all huddled together in the house wondering if we should make a run for the neighborhood bomb shelter,two of us were wrapped around my dad's leg and my mum holding round his neck, She panicked and ran outside and i remember seeing the open door and an explosion lighting up the whole outdoors and my mum screaming and running back in. We eventually got out and madeit to the shelter, and when it was over, we went back to bed.
God couldn't have been less important on nights like that. God's one thing. Reality is something else.
Goodnight.

Yep,religious indoctrination
trumps I.Q. and education;
this is demonstrated by 9/11 and by the more
recent bombing attempts in London and Glasgow.

Religious indoctrination affects one's identity
and frame of reference powerfully, and for life,
and in the case of Islam is used to persuade
intelligent, well educated men to martyr themselves
in exchange for eternal bliss with their maker
in Paradise.

To the unindoctrinated, this sounds like lunacy.
But to the terrorists it made good sense,
otherwise they would not have destroyed themselves.

Religion is the problem; and indoctrinating children
into believing fairy tales of gods and devils and eternal life
should be seen for what it is; not just absolute nonsense,
but a truly great danger to civilization.

In looking at the irrationality of Islam,
we should also be able to see the irrationality of
Christianity,and all supernatural beliefs.

Religion makes no sense. There is no reason to believe in gods.

Anon:

RE: Atheists in foxholes

See Farnaz's posts on Hemingway. This is the text she referred to:

CHAPTER VII

While the bombardment was knocking the trench to pieces at Fossalta, he lay very flat and sweated and prayed oh jesus christ get me out of here. Dear jesus please get me out. Christ please please please christ. If you'll only keep me from getting killed I'll do anything you say. I believe in you and I'll tell every one in the world that you are the only one that matters. Please please dear jesus. The shelling moved further up the line. We went to work on the trench and in the morning the sun came up and the day was hot and muggy and cheerful and quiet. The next night back at Mestre he did not tell the girl he went upstairs with at the Villa Rosa about Jesus. And he never told anybody.

Can you see what Farnaz meant when she said that Hemingway was saying there can ONLY be atheists in foxholes? It is certainly the case that H was an "agonized Roman Catholic." Notice the punctuation, capitalization (lack thereof).

Reading earlier posts, can't resist commenting on the old nonsense that there are no atheists in foxholes; it's as if Christians can't understand how atheists can be courageous in battle without a God to scream for when the going gets tough.

Don't the religious realize what they are saying? They are saying that fear is why they believe in a God; they believe because they're scared not too.
They can't imagine anybody being in a foxhole without a God to hold their hand.
Atheists are not brave, of course. I'm sure some atheist somewhere, sometime, has been so terrified out of his mind by the carnage happening all around him that he's appealed to ANYTHING even God. That still wouldn't necessarily mean he believed in one. He's got nothing to lose.
But most atheists are realists and would no more reach for a God when scared than reach for a Teddy Bear. Yes I do believe that.

And still the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist cannot bring herself to comment on the "femsy" (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of Islam.

Again, she should direct her vast (and googlized?) knowledge of "sexualities" to the issue of Gabriel aka the pretty, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingie and his "gayness". Hmmm, another element in the "femsy" of Islam!!!!

BTW, "yucky" pertains to a condition, not a hatred or desire for deletion e.g. the "yuck" of Islam can easily be "febrezed" by the Five Step Program for Deflawing said religion.

And there does appear to be a fair amount of "yucky" activity in Malaysia.

Sorry, meant to write "slow learners." I think the British are coming. (I'm a spirits traitor, but who wouldn't be, in my place?)

Hi Arminius,

It's on my list. I've got to remember to post some snide comments by the English about their having been "tutored by their Irish betters." Well, I'm afraid they weren't tutored well enough in some ways. Or else, they were so learners.

Arroint thee, Anglo-Saxons! I am one of you.

M. Anonymous

M Anon,

Getting late, gonna hang it up. A good day it was, talking to you. And my beloved Atlanta Braves baseball team won with a tie-breaking heroic home run in the bottom of the ninth inning. Against a really good team, the Arizona Diamondbacks, usually known as the Snakes. All's right with the world, at the moment.

Arminius

M Anon,

I strongly recommend that you read 'How the Irish Saved Civilization'. An incredible book, and I have the education in classics and history to vouch for it. Alas, Guinness, one of the greatest contributions to the world from that land of poets and artists, is not mentioned...

Arminius

Hi Arminius,

Yes, I understand that the law would have to become involved in some way. I was just wondering whether this couldn't be handled in some other way, a way other than marriage. Witness of some sort could still be offered by clergymen, of course, for those who wish it.

This could mean IRS losses. I know a couple who used to divorce every year so that they could file separately. Single folks often think married couples do better IRS wise. Ain't necessarily so. Marriage is big business all the way around.

Anyway, speaking of Guinness, although I can't claim Celtic ancestry, I do believe it is one of the many great gifts given to us by your illustrious forebears. To it, for solace, comfort, and insight, I now turn.

M. Anonymous

M Anon,

Let's face it. Protection to children, spouses who stop working to provide childcare, etc. will only happen through the law. If there is no law, then the churches will attempt to take over that task. And that is asking for chaos.

Arminius

Hi Arminius,

Thanks for your views on Bishop Chane and Rev. Tully.

You know, I've also been giving thought to something Chris E posted awhile back, that marriage should be a private matter, without state or religious involvement. Others think this way, as well. I wonder if it could exist this way still offering protections to children, spouses who stop working to provide childcare, etc.

M. Anonymous

M Anon,

Any display of bigotry sets me off big time. Unfortunately, I am prone to get angry about it, and my ancestral Celtic blood comes to a boil, and it is lock and load, I'm goin' to war. I really have to watch that. Guess I'll have to hide my claymore and the woad warpaint...

Arminius

M Anon,

Just read Bishop Chane and Rev. Tully's essays. I agree with the Bishop that marriage is a legal issue to the law, and if a religious ceremony is to be performed too, it is up to the particular church. I found Rev Tully's essay a fascinating look into what a compassionate priest/rector/pastor must go through.

Thanks,

Arminius

Arminius,

More MC musings and psychologizing:

I found some extremely offensive MC comments I would prefer not to post here or anywhere.

Some of it was triggered by Jews, most of whom identified as living in New York City, where I reside, and where, sadly enough, the antisemitism is grotesque. These bloggers' strategic defensive discourse is developing apace here, and the fact that the bloggers' remarks were strategic, was evident to all us gentiles and atheists, except of course the delusional and persecuted MC.

I don't know if you recall one, Liora, who posted here for awhile. She was among them, but poor, benighted, delusional MC did not get it.

One, Josh, wrote of his chronically ill nephew's assault by a group of antisemitic Catholic school thugs, in a way that literally brought tears to my eyes. There was no anger, only sorrow in his post. To this, Christine, a gentle Catholic woman, whose sister had been murdered, and, Pat, another Catholic, responded with compassion. Upon these two women, MC launched such vitriol as I cannot describe and may wind up having to post.

She actually taunted Christine about her murdered sister.

Antisemitism "interests" me, if that is the word, and I try to monitor its varying forms and developments. As a former captive of Christianity, I was always curious as to why Jews were so much on everyone's mind, not that I was taught by conventional antisemites, by any means, but that is another story.

M. Anonymous

M Anon,

I have not yet read Bishop Chane and Rev. Tully's essays, but I will do that.

As for other bloggers here. I respect Chris E and Mr Mark, but have had differences with them. I absolutely adore Paganplace, Wiccan, Lep, and all the Pagans. And my respect for Jihadist is in the stratosphere. I like Thomas Baum a lot, even though I don't always agree with him.

Arminius

Arminius,

An unholy trinity, if ever there was one! Somehow, I missed the homophobia.

Did you know that JJ is in Wikepedia? I confess I was trying to figure him out, so I went to that great font. (Btw, in my youth, I volunteered in a mental hospital. I think we do the mentally ill injury when we place JJ among them.)

Anyway, you can look him up, if you're interested. I think that JJ is best understood in the plural: "JJs," like your "Spideys." It's also possible that he's gotten himself a translator.

What little blogging I do is almost exclusively here. But I do visit other blogs, and whenever there are comments, I frequently find "JJ," whose English has improved miraculously. The thing is, and here I speak, from miserable years spent studying linguistics, his earlier writing "accent" is difficult to imitate, unless, of course, he spent a great deal of time as a speaker of another language, or among such speakers, and that other language was most assuredly not Hebrew.
.............................
Arminius, I wonder that you don't respond to my questions about these fellows' essays, which seem remarkably enlightened to me. They are Episcopalian like you. Do you disagree with their perspectives?

If so, you are free to do so, of course, but I am curious about what you and others think--Chris Chris E., DILTD, PaganPlace, Wiccan, et al.

M Anon,

Go to David Saperstein's blog here to see JJ's homophobia and an example of his ad hominem attacks on me.

Arminius

M. Anonymous:

JJ is also virulently homophobic. He uses that for his ad hominem attacks.

Arminius

Merry Anonymous:

I re-read your post. Looks like MC is added to my fecal roster, right up there with JJ and CCNL. Oh, yeah, and Spidey.

Arminius

Arminius,

Another thought: Surely, you have noticed the antisemitism in JJ's posts, flown in directly from the loonasphere.

Jihadist,

Please give pussycat another broadside! This is five star entertainment.

Interesting that CCNL believes in the 'Singularity'; that is another name for a black hole in astronomy/physics. Strange....

Arminius

Arminius,

I'll look for the MC posts, but you will not be happy. They are horrific.

However, read the one I pasted. Is there anti-Catholicism form a "Jewish perspective"? Surely, you must realize that JJ represents no one but his psychotic self.

What kind of human being would think otherwise?

M. Anonymous:

If MC is a Jew hater, then she will be on my fecal roster. If you run across one of her posts like this, I would like to see it. Thanks.

Arminius

Concy pussycat,

Craving for my attention, eh? Well, you got it. Let's have some itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny fun. I'll be very gentle, and you can thump.

Your disquiet on gays and gay sex is apparent in your posts in previous questions related to gays before this one in On Faith. Oh, on Islam and Muslims too.

Simple arithmetic:

Islamophobia + homophobia = Gay Muslim bashing.

Note : "gay" in every sense of that word here.

My favourite entertaining "rational" and "deflawed" one again putting paid to the notion that man is a rational animal who can deflaw his human nature even if he change his beliefs to another or to non-belief?

Empirical proof : Non-belief does not necessarily turneth one into a fine logical and rational being. One still has emotions and prejudices.

I take it you are supportive of all the personal and official harrassments of gays in the US, Malaysia and other parts of the world because of the "yucky" factor of sex between them.

Suggestion:

* Mark them all with pink triangles
* Put them in camps
* Stone them to death
* Give them a hundred lashes
* Burn them at the stales
* Give them lethal injections
* Electrocute them

Reason : for going against God's and Mother Nature' gift on sex.

Appeal : but they are availing themselves of God's and Mother Nature's gift of sex. And meaningful sex with the ones they love.

Ah, it's your personal fear. Not mine. Deal with your phobias and angst yourself. I can't and won't help you overcome them, pussycat.

Do same gender sex bashing yourself. Don't drag religion, the social sciences and science to justify personal homophobia.

Oh, is it part of the objective to purge "flawed" gays too from the face of the earth as homosexuality and same gender sex poisons everything, cause death and destruction due to them having sex, and bringing HIV/AIDs like biological weapons?

Lovely effort to bring in instances homophobia acted out against gays to validate a personal homophobia, because as you yelped, "But we're not animals!!!!". Is is Evolution or Creationism you're talking about to say we're not animals?

Sex is a great gift of God says you? Very confusing. You don't believe in God, but the Singularity.

But another nice try to get believers to use dogmas/creeds to get all "yucky" on something you personally don't like. There's condoms.

HIV/AIDs is most among straights percentage wise, even in proportion of gay population vs straight population. Look at the stats.

I hope Mr. Mark, E Favorite and Chris Everett would come in to make sense for the rest of us where you are coming from on gays as like-minded people on flawed beliefs and irrational religionists.

If they don't, well, "phobias" are irrational fear. You can let rip yourself here as a self-characterised, self-described and self-projected as one into "truth" and "freedom" and "deflawing".

Have fun injecting phobias here:)

Merry Anonymous (the poster formerly known as Hamlet):

Well, OK, but it did not sound like you. JJ is totally foul and sick, and I applaud any attempt to have him deleted from here. I don't remember anything bigoted by MC, but I'll look closer.

Arminius

Arminius,

Oh why must the crumblehope and shattermyth be such a dampenglee?
James Thurber

A question I've asked myself many, many times.
...............
I'd prefer not to take this MC/Speed business further, but I cannot abide racisms, classisms, etc., of any kind. However, I refuse to be seen as a finger-pointer. If the MC post I pasted is, for some reason, insufficient, I will paste more obvious, thoroughly despicable MC Jew-hating comments.

Arminius,

I wonder if you have read Bishop Chane and Rev. Tully's essays, and, if so, what your thoughts are.

M. Anonymous
(Formerly Hamlet)

Arminius,
Arminius,

No, it is I, Merry Anonymous. I have resumed posting under my original name. What I cut and pasted is by Marry Cunningham and taken directly from Mr. Stevens-Arroyo thread. Go to his thread, and see for yourself.

I also have saved posts from her to one, Christine, and to one, Pat, both Catholics, who were protesting MC's (and Speed's) appalling anti-Jewish racism. MC responded with language that made my thinning hair stand on end.

She has said worse to Jews. She believes
"the Jews" control the world, you see, a theory developed by French Catholics in the nineteenth century, although since adopted by many of my former co-religionist Christians, and exported by both to Muslim nations.

One of thirteen million reasons that I am no longer Christian, although, thankfully, I was never in my youth exposed to such garbage.

Again, if you require proof, begin by going to Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's thread. There, you will find the post of MC I pasted here.

Merry Anonymous
(Formerly Hamlet)

'Merry Anonymous' -

The old Merry Anonymous is now known as Hamlet, and he would never have written such crap as you have. Mary Cunningham, although quite religious, is not a bigot. JJ is, and he is probably psychotic as well. I myself have many times pleaded with moderators on many blogs here to delete JJ's offensive crap. Often JJ came back with really nasty ad hominem attacks aimed at me. I suggest you stop impersonating other writers here.

What I've pasted below from Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's thread may be of interest to Mary Cunningham (Speed) fans. She is referring, of course, to JJ, a co-racist of hers, who made it clear to old Mary in a later post that he is as much of a bigot as she is.

Should there be any doubt about who MC is pseudonym-wise, on this blog, and in the war against evil, universally, I would be happy to paste some of her many comments. Perhaps, she and JJ will realize there is more that joins them than keeps them apart, collect their posts, and publish them together in a multi-volume set:

Perhaps a preview of coming attractions:
................................................
Posted on May 20, 2008 11:30

MaryCunningham:
Subject: offensive comment about Hagee and the
To: onfaith@washingtonpost.com

Comment number one by a well known spammer Jacob Jovesz who spams and spouts with impunity, anti-Catholic mostly from a Jewish perspective.

Why can't you block this pest?

Regards

Speaking of gay marriage, and the role of Christianity/Catholicism in state institutions, I wonder if anyone has read these two essays on this blog and would care to comment on them.

WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE
We’re in for the long debate. Even if laws change soon—as I hope they will—the meaning of marriage should be plumbed at deep levels in both sacred and secular spheres. The penchant for some religionists to assume their superiority, and to require their insights be imposed, will foster reactivity, not moral structure or understanding. Separation of discourse might be a preferable road to social consensus.

Posted by William Tully | Permalink | Comments (0)

SEVING GOD AND THE STATE
What the decision of the Supreme Court of California raises for me is that clergy should remove themselves as licensed agents of the state who perform marriages and who should act only as religious who witness and bless the civil contract of marriage if they choose to do so.

John Bryson Chane, Episcopal Bishop of Washington | 0 COMMENTS

1 The Apartheid of Homosexuality 6/99

2 Sordid Trial Shows Hypocrisy of Making Sexuality a Crime 8/00

3 Malaysian transsexuals act for reel in documentary 11/00

4 Malaysian PM rebuked for threat to UK gay ministers 11/01

5 Was I Born to Be This Way? The Thoughts of a Muslim Gay In An Oppressed Society

6 Coming Out in the Open--Despite the Persecution of Anwar 6/01

7 'Homosexuality is a Crime Worse Than Murder' An Interview with Malaysia's Morality Police 3/01

8 What’s vulgar? by Marina Mahathir 3/02

9 What some religions say about homosexuality 7/03

10 Local churches say no to gay bishop 8/03

11 Malaysian Leader Attacks Gays & Western 'Homo" Media In National TV Speech 9/03

12 Malaysia's Longest Serving Ruler, Mahathir Mohamad, Steps Down 10/03

13 UN ill-advised on homosexual laws 2/04

14 Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim free after court overturns sodomy conviction 9/04

15 Mahathir sacked Anwar to prevent Malaysia having 'gay' PM 9/05

16 Malaysian Media Slanders Gays as Police Crackdown Hampers AIDS/HIV Education Efforts 2/06

17 GlobalGayz.com interview: Modern Gay LIfe in Kuala Lumpur 3/06

18 Prominent Malaysian transsexual sees progress in societal acceptance 12/06

18a Transsexuals in Malaysia get more acceptance in Muslim society 12/06

19 New Zealand AIDS foundation's new safe sex campaign targets asian gay men 5/07

20 Fear for safety/ torture or ill-treatment of transexuals in Malaysia 8/07

21 Gay pastor leads service, his partner watches with pride 8/07

22 Malaysia to block planned gay church 8/07

22a Famed Malaysian Columnist, Oyoung Wenfeng, Comes Out in New Book 8/07

23 Malaysian court annuls same sex marriage 9/07

24 Malaysian police say they broke up gay sex party, arrested 37 men 11/07

25 Talking About Sex in Malaysia 11/07

26 No sex party going on at penang fitness centre, say those arrested 11/07

27 U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2007: Malaysia 3/08

28 Malaysian Cops Crack Down on Gay Life 5/08

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And still the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist cannot bring herself to comment on the "femsy" (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of Islam.

She should now direct her vast (and googlized?) knowledge of "sexualities" to the issue of Gabriel aka the pretty, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingie and his "gayness". Hmmm, another element in the "femsy" of Islam!!!!

Hello Old Hippie,

Ah. Hubbie babysitting kids in taking them out and about while I stay in due to slight cold. So, I can chat a bit on marraige in Malaysia.

Interesting, is it not, that one can have a different age to be eligible to drive, to drink, to vote and the legal age for consensual sex in civil law for all countries.

What you describe on civil marraiges in the US is similar to what non-Muslims do in Malaysia (but not the license part). Also followed by traditional or religious weddings/marraige vows, be it Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh etc.

A Muslim marraige is technically a contract rather than a sacred document or sacred vow. To be assented by both parties, and with clear responsibilities spelt out for both partners, and signed. This is governed by the parallel Shariah courts covering Islamic family law which focus on marraige, divorce, alimomy and child support.

The "marraige contract" is the religious related part formalising the union and recognised by the state after a copy is deposited with the Shariah/Islamic Affairs Department. The "marraige contract" itself is a simple and low key ceremony conducted by an imam or kadi and witnessed by only family members and very close friends. Very low cost affair, high tea dress code.

Being married and having a wedding are a wee different. People would say that they are already married, but did not have a wedding as yet, the more socially important event. The marraige consent/agreement contract is followed a day, or week or month later (anytime agreed by both parties) by two wedding celebratory feasts - seperate days and functions by the bride and groom side too sometimes.

Groom, bride in-laws, guests dressed to the hilt. 500 guests is considered a small number of invitees (including your hairdresser and tailor and his or her second cousins twice removed if you must). It is the groom side who has to provide for the dowry of the bride and for wedding expenses by tradition. Now there's more flexibility as the bride's side do put up outlay for the wedding.

All in a very long way to say, marraige is easy and cheap, but weddings are not and quite expensive. This is for straights unions of course.

How do gays function in Malaysia? No instance in the country's history of anyone being bashed because he or she is gay. Or arrested and punished by civil courts and the Shariah courts for being gay. The Malaysian civil law was inherited from the British. It stated sodomy is a crime. Nothing about oral sex.

The Shariah law and courts system did not haul in a single gay as yet for being gay or having gay sex. One would need four credible witnesses to say so and so is engaged in an illict sex act with a person who is not his/her spouse. It is called "close proximity" by the Shariah court here.

It is always straights caught for "close proximity", usually in public places doing what in the west would be call lewd or indecent behavior. Getting people for sex at home is harder. One need the permission of the homeowner before entering anyone's home.

The Malaysian culture, including for Malay-Muslims, is also very Southeast Asian. No one would bat an eye to see two girls or two boys touching and hugging one another freely in schools or other public places. But for boys and girls, a frown or plain panic.

No one has any doubt young people do fool around sexually with the opposite gender or their own gender and consider it as part of growing up. It is quite Asian in not speaking of it, but a knowing look or glance and nothing said. Save someone being raped, a minor molested or incest committed. Or schoolgirls got pregnant. And all the moral outrage and indignation come full tilt.

Yes, there are so-called "confirmed bachelors" and "spinsters" used here as code for gays here. But ironically, the Shariah do provide cover and protection for Muslim gays to have their cake and eat it too. Polygamy being allowed is one of the ways some gays find a way to get into the legal.

Of course less Muslim men practiced polygamy than some would like to believe. One wife is enough. But, if you know of a Malaysian Muslim man who has two wives, and the wives get along very well, or live in the same house, and he works many late nights at the office or to be out of town.....that's a special and satisfying arrangement for them.

Of course Malaysian gays, Muslims and non-Muslims, don't quite have as easy access to sperm banks or surrogate mothers or to adopt children as American gays. The Malaysian government makes it even difficult for straight couples to adopt children in being too overly protective for possible child abuse etc. So they said.

Like straights, gays have no problems of having access to accessible and affordable health services. Provided for by the state at minimal cost and choices of private hospital too and so, not an issue. The banking and insurance sector are flexible in allowing for joint ownerships, joint accounts, beneficiaries etc. and one simply can make legal wills and contracts that will hold up in courts.

Technically, the civil legal system and the services offered by the financial sectors are not discriminatory against gays in Malaysia. After all, none of the application forms asked : "Are you gay?" as a criteria for determining acceptance or rejection of a client for a service. The state's civil laws for non-Muslims, and the Shariah court system for Muslim on Islamic Family Law covering marraige does not recognise unions of the same gender.

There was only two gay weddings the got media coverage in Malaysia. One a Muslim lady who dress up like a man, act like a man, gave herself a false ID as a male, wooed and got a girl to marry her, and the girl she married let on and the lady in disguised was jalied for three months by the "authorities" for lying and cheating and misleading people, and declared the marraige/wedding (quite a grand one) a farce. Muslims shook their heads and non-Muslims tittered.

The other was a Malaysian Christian preacher trained in the US who decided to have a church wedding with his American missionary man lover. There was a flurry among Christian churches in not recognising the gay marraige/wedding and by men of God too!. But they got married anyway with vows and all, and a joyous wedding reception too. Malaysian politicians were flustered and blubbered over that. Non-Muslims shook their heads and Muslims tittered.

Apart from not being able to have children if Muslim gays don't get creative (a gay man getting married to a gay woman and both continuing to have relationships with partners of their preference and with full knowledge of both, or to use the polygamy "loophole") Malaysians of all race and religion tend to think of it as a non-issue. Only perhaps because gays are still not on it as a right but active on HIV/AIDs awareness in the public square.

Also perhaps being Asians, Malaysians don't ask if someone is gay. Or a gay person would tell they are. But all do seem to know or speculate who is gay and who is not, who is whose partner and such. And I never heard Malaysian makes nasty jokes about gays as in the US.

I am also not sure if Malaysian gays are more into defining themselves not by their sexual inclinations, but by what they do outside the bedroom. If so, then rightly so. Nor do Malaysians seem to care to ask anyone what they do or don't in the bedroom and with whom. Asian reserve or conservatism? Perhaps.

Gays and gay couples seem to have a better and freer time than unmarried straight couples in Malaysia. The Islamic religious authorities, in their bouts of moralistic righteouness, do go around dark public nooks and corners looking for couples in parked cars grappling around frantically in passion.

Two men together? Two women together? What to make of it? "Close proximity" is only applied to people of different gender married to one another engaging in "immoral" and "indecent" acts. A foreigner told me that Kuala Lumpur has the liveliest gay scene in Asia if one knows where. I'll have to take his word for it. But then, even the straight clubs are zappier than most in London if he means the nightspots.

Malaysia is a very contradictory place of colliding cultures and values, of merging cultures and values, of seperate cultures and values coexisting and yet unaware of or care for the other. Much like the US in some ways.

"J"

"27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death (HELL),.. " (Romans 1:27 & 32)

Well, let's see whose words will matter during Judgment day ? Gay marriage advocates or Apostle Paul?

And still the Jihadist cannot bring herself to comment on the "femsy" (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of Islam.

She should direct her vast knowledge of "sexualities" immediately to the issue of Gabriel aka the pretty, wingie, flying, talking, fictional thingie and his "gayness". Hmmm, another element in the "femsy" of Islam!!!!

Jihadist - nobody I know approves of all the variations on sexual behavior to be found under the sun - some is very destructive indeed.....sex between adults and children being one such clear example. That's not to say that cultures don't determine what is and what isn't legitimate sexual behavior. And consent is always the operative word in the world we want to live in.

Yet even here, society is required to declare when that age of consent is reached, and when the act of sex is no longer treated as a crime by each state (usually 16 for both parties). Sex between non-age children is yet another matter - this is not only a growing problem, but a 'gray' area that's complex as both a legal and behavioral issue in it's own right.

School age children these days are more prone to accusing fellow school mates of inappropriate sexual behavior as a method of settling arguments and disputes - when the issue may have had nothing whatsover to do with sex.

I recently assisted a friend whose son was accused of this very thing at the age of 14 and was judged and found guilty even before his mother was informed. He was drummed out of the school and forced into a school specializing in behavior problems - but this was the administration's intention all along.

Afterward, all charges were dropped. It was clear to me from the start that nothing abnormal or even sexual had occured between these kids and that it was a complete fabrication - there was an underlying agenda that actually resulted in this boy being charged with aggravated sexual assault - a very serious charge. Had it been me, I'd have sued the school for a very large sum.

All things being equal, sexual behavior between consenting adults is the least of anybody's worries. In the opinion of some observers, the USA as a culture has a tradition of rather strange and convoluted views where 'proper' and 'moral' sexual behavior is concerned. This does seem to be part and parcel of the topic under discussion here anyway.

And what is marriage in the USA anyway?? It's a civil contract with a religious component if you want it - just today, a woman I work with went down to the court house to get her marriage license.....but in two weeks, she'll be formally wed in a Buddhist temple. In this particular case, she'll be marrying a man - this is South Carolina after all.

So how do the laws, rules and traditions that govern marriage in Malaysia differ from the rules that govern marriage here?? In other words, how does the gay marriage issue work where you live?? Or doesn't it?

Dear Jihadist

After 9/11, I admit that I was very angry at the whole notion of Islam, and I had a sort of seething animosity towards Islamic people. Sometimes, I would feel remorseful for these feelings, but they just sort of had a hold of me, and I just couldn't help it. I think alot of Americans have these sort of feelings, and cannot control them very easily.

But you have definitely convinced me, in a way that I truely understand and feel, in my soul, how wrong I was.

You have a very good and kind heart.

Hello Old Hippie,

Well, this raging thirty something fussy female fundamentalist is against incests and rapes.

That was a fine description of some sexual styles, techniques and practices.

You mentioned sexual taboos between mothers and sons, but not incest between fathers and daughters which happens much more and still than between mothers and sons.

Is the father who committed incest:

(a) asserting his authority and abusing his trust over both his wife and minor aged daughter?

(b) just expressing his love for his daughter?

(c) just fulfilling his natural sexual urges and desires?

(d) sick puppy?

Any good really coming out of incest emotionally and genetically for the less "powerful" (wives, children) over the authority figure? Or rape of anyone - men, women, children, goats, cars?

Not a good idea to have sex and/or children with one's own children emotionally, morally, ethically and genetically. Even marrying cousins is not such a good idea. Look at the Hapsburgs.

And back to gay unions, this is not about the morality or immorality of certain sex acts and techniques. It is about the morality or immorality (natural order and law) of same gender sex that get some into a seemingly moralisitic distaste and outrage over the gay unions, including gay marraiges as consequently unnatural. Recognising those unions in a civil or sacred marraige is tantamount to recognising sex gender sex.

It is here that those inclined towards scienece, facts, evidence and empirical proof are at their iffiest and most shaky grounds. Going by man is the most evolved and advanced of all creatures by evolution, man is still an animal. Going by reality in the animal world that is not homo sapien, homosexuality is not the norm at all among the creatures.

The stats on gays in populations varies from 5% to 10%. One should not be absolutely certain these stats, how the studies were done and questions were posed, or the genetic studies done. But they remain good indicators and further studies needs to be done.

The fact remains that gays are a minority in the human world. The fact remains the majority tend to dictate their norms and practices on others - be it politics, religion or sex.

You mentioned about transcending local prejudice and to become global thinkers in the process. When it comes to same sex unions, prejudice is personal and group enforced or strengthened regardless of in which countries in the world.

It does not take much to see that people who object to gay relationships, especially ones to be or are formalised by a sacred and/or legal union, are also those who objected to same sex couplings.

Hence, their arguments more on sex (including citations or norms in the animal kingdom too) rather than love and a desire to have a shared and committed life with someone one is most at ease with, comfortable with apart from one's sexual inclinations.

While gays do the same thing as straights during sex, like straights, some (many?) gays also want to have a civil and/or sacred union as proof of and manifestation of their love and commitment to one another.

Sex is not just a natural function to fill specific human urges. It is also an ultimate expression of one's love for another - that most personal and intimate shared bonding, trust, comfort, and wanting to be with someone, for someone come what may, for the rest of one's life.

We are not not talking of people, both straights and gays, who are into one night stands or visits to the ladies/men of the nights here. We are talking about people, both straight and gays, who want to be in and are comfortable with a monogamous relationship and who made a decision to have so with a partner of their chosing.

I would argue more on love rather than sex for gays to be married. There can sex without love and there can be love without sex. But love is is a more compelling, committed, complex and emcompasing human emotion than just sexual urges, and sex is all the more pleasurable for it. And I'm not talking of love for your children or cars here.

Are we being immoral and inhumane to deprive any consenting adults of that? Do they really need the consent of those not related to them by blood or are friends and co-workers? Do we really have a right to consent or otherwise on a union not affecting us directly?

This is also the tricky part. Consent or approval of marraige partner by family, friends and co-workers. Even straights have problems with that. General tolerance is not the same as approval and acceptance if it is someone in one's circle as family, friends and co-workers.

No one ever said gays can't have personalities that irritates and views that outrages others has nothing to do with his or her sexual inclinations and desire and right to a civil/legal/sacred union and all attendant rights as a couple would that comes with it.

Like straights, why would gays want to marry and commit themself to anyone if they don't love that someone? And I'm not talking about shotgun marraiges here due to getting someone pregnant or to save someone's honour in getting pregnant by someone else.

Why would gays not want shared security and shoulders, shared joys and sorrows, have a family, have the comfort, joy and pleasure of being in shared spaces, a shared life with those they love, like and want to be with the most?

"J"

Reasonable but not Hateful

So who died and made you the penis police?

Wiglaf "I can tell you that no entity, not even man-gods walk on wather."

Stupid comment. That's the reason why Christ walked on water to show that only God can do that. He is God that is why he can do that. Calm a storm? Yes he can. Burn a soul forever? For sure. Wait for your turn when your deathbed becomes hot and it's your time to shout "DOC, IT'S SO HOT !! ". Your atheist doctor might reply using what he learned in science " Go, take a shower".

Arminius wrote "I agree 100%, well said. I actually am religious - Episcopalian."

The Pharisees are religious and it didn't helped them going to heaven. Religious without Christ is like a sky-diver w/o a parachute. Good luck with your jump.

Wow, some of you old farts and raging fundamentalists really are a sweamish bunch of fussy old ladies! You need to read more - transcend local prejudice and become global thinkers in the process.

Humans are no more infinitely variable and creative than in the realm of sexual behavior - and nothing is more relative to time, place and circumstance than sexual 'morality'.

The only universal sexual taboo that I'm aware of is incest between mothers and sons....because this has the potential to usurp the father's authority and position as 'head of household'. Morals and values usually have a pratical and utilitarian function at their core, and it usually has to do with social stability.

Googling 'intra-crural' or 'between the legs' sex, for example, you will find a sexual practice of universal scope. Boys and girls of various tribal groups (no doubt including the USA) have long used this non-penetrative sexual technique for 'experimental' and 'training' purposes - and indeed, this was very commonly practiced among the Greeks and various warrior types throughout the ages to engender male bonding among the troops, so to speak. Was this part of trench warfare, after all??

The famous, infamous, and non-famous, ranging from Alexander the Great to Abraham Lincoln were thought to have been practitioners. Wiki cites it as a 'hazing' rite utilized by upper classmen at Ivy League colleges, with Yale and Princeton particularly mentioned.

And so that's apparently what all those futurely famous world leaders were doing at the infamously secret Yale Skull and Bones meetings!! Just a little male bonding (quite a list - you can start with GWB).

Realistically speaking, humans have only ever been limited by their imagination when it comes to sexual activity - morality comes much later.

Dear RNH -

So following your logic, oral sex between straights is also unnatural and against evolution as the sex organs are being put into non-reproductive capable orifices in the body.

A husband performing oral sex on his wife's vagina is doing what, in your estimation? Certainly, he's not trying to impregnate her.

A wife blowing her husband's penis is...what? A married couple having anal sex is...what? Attempting to procreate? I don't think so.

What do you think of these acts of sodomy between married couples? Are they against nature's laws? God's laws?

Seriously, I'd like to know what you think.

Only one problem, Mr Mark illogic.

The anus is a one way street. It did not evolve(or was designed) for entering a penis within.It is an exit, plain and simple.

It is not as elastic or expandable, and has no sexual function whatsoever. Also, unprotected sex through this area has a much higher chance of transmitting aids, as the anus is a poor substitute for the vagina.

From a evolutionary or design perspective, intercourse was meant to be male-female. It is a
no-brainer analysis.

There's NO Dolly Parton in foxholes!

Tday: "I challenge you to go to a school, any school, and persuade those children that sticking a male body part in a place where excrement comes out is a good thing."

Funny you should mention that, because just yesterday my 5th grade daughter saw her first video on sex education at her elementary school. I can assure you she found it "yucky" that a man would put his pee-pee producing penis into the place where a woman's pee-pee comes out.

Overall, her biggest comment was on the clothing and hairstyles as the video had been produced in the late 1980s. She thought the styles were funny looking.

Would a sexual desire elimination pill end adulterous and premarital sex activities e.g. no more std's??

And would such a pill eliminate the desire for gays wanting to marry??

What's next, gay divorce?

(I'm kidding!)

Arminius,

My Uncle was an Episcopal Minister and three of my Grandparents were Episcopalians. You have a long and proud tradition of social justice and equality. I respect those values greatly.

Freestinker, you said:

"Majority or not, opposition to same-sex marriage is based soley on a religious opinion. It is clearly unconstitutional to legislate opinions that are purely religious in nature, that discriminate against people with different religious opinions, and that have absolutely no secular rationale."

I agree 100%, well said. I actually am religious - Episcopalian. We have an openly gay bishop, and I have no problem with that outside of the fact that it has caused a schism.

Arminius

I guess TDAY is gone; but he is confused over sexual orientation and the logistics of sex positions.

Can gay men get married if they promise only to masturbate? Perhaps we could put that in the Constitution.

And why can't lesbians get married? After all, they're not doing anything depraved, are they?

And what about all the morally depraved sex positions that we could all imagine that heterosexual people may engage in? Who knows what President and Mrs. Bush do behind doors. It could be something awful. Maybe someone should check into that.

Arminius,

To me, that people are doing horrible (illegal) things to others is enough to warrant intervention. The extent to which their vile actions are related to their religious opinions is mostly irrelavant to me.

You said:
"... It has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with mistreating one's fellow man."

That was my point exactly!

Arminius,

The Jesus Christ Lizard is spectactular! It's a miracle! JESUS HAS RETURNED!!! First He was a humble carpenter's son. But now He's even HUMBLER - He's a LIZARD! And His nemesis is a SNAKE! WOW!

TDAY said:

" ... something that the majority of Americans still embrace...a man and a woman who become husband and wife and build a loving home to raise and nurture their children."

No argument there ... and the majority you cite is certainly free to pursue such a course. What the majority is not free to do is use the law to discriminate against those who would choose a different course and here's why.

Majority or not, opposition to same-sex marriage is based soley on a religious opinion. It is clearly unconstitutional to legislate opinions that are purely religious in nature, that discriminate against people with different religious opinions, and that have absolutely no secular rationale. So the fix is what many of us have suggested in previous posts.

Legally binding Civil Unions for all couples, regardless of their sex.

Non-legally binding Religious/Spiritual Marriage for those who chose it.

Please tell me what's wrong with such a simple and completely Constitutional solution?

Tday: "I challenge you to go to a school, any school, and persuade those children that sticking a male body part in a place where excrement comes out is a good thing."

"Any school": How about Ohio State?

"A place where excrement comes out": How about Beyonce's booty?

Now I challenge YOU to persuade those children that sticking a male body part in a place where excrement comes out ISN'T a good thing!

So the bottom line for you is, gay's can't marry because poo is disgusting?

The lesbians must hate you.

Freestinker,

You miss the point. Sure, religions have done many hideous things - in the past. The point is that Scientology is doing them right now, and should be stopped. I'm talking about some really nasty and illegal stuff here. Google.

If any other religions today are as bad as those guys, then they should be stopped too. It has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with mistreating one's fellow man.

Arminius,

People have done horrible things in the name of every religion known to man. What purpose is served by ranking the atrocities by religious affiliation? It's irrelevant to Jimbo's point.

What Jimbo said was true. All religious superstitions are equally irrational!

Chris Everett,

Your diatribe to my response to you reeks of someone quite adolescent. Are you sure your not a teenager in disguise? Sure seems like it.

It is quite evident what my point was...bringing up chewing gum, clothes, etc is a weak attempt (by you) to make an issue of something that the majority of Americans still embrace...a man and a woman who become husband and wife and build a loving home to raise and nurture their children.

Your failure to make a point is pitiful. I suppose you think I dont believe in brushing teeth. Pitiful attempt to draw one or two things out of the air and you prove nothing.

I take it back. You prove that the ignorance that is part and parcel of perversion is making this society sick with your immoral behavior.

I challenge you to go to a school, any school, and persuade those children that sticking a male body part in a place where excrement comes out is a good thing.

Off to some other place where people think clean.

Jimbo, you said:

"Scientology is no worse and no more irrational than any other religion."

Not exactly. If you look at the 'religious' part, you are right. But if you look at the way they behave, the brutal ways they enforce their cult beliefs, you will understand that it is really, really bad. Try googling it sometime.

Three cheers for the California Supreme Court!

The reason many religious people (theocrats of varying degrees) are so upset over this is because they fully understand that divorcing Civil Union contracts from religious marriage is to finally separate THEIR religion from the State in this area of contract law. Problem is, they have enjoyed this wholly unconstitutional privilege for so long that they are convinced it is their right to continue to mix their church with our State, even when it clearly discriminates against people who do not share their religious opinions. Unbelievable but true!

Legally binding Civil Unions for all, regardless of their sex.

Non-legally binding Religious/Spiritual Marriage for those who chose it.

Please tell me what's wrong with such a simple and completely Constitutional solution?

As long as we're posting new stories that reference religious beliefs:

Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'
by MSNB updated 12:37 p.m. PT, Wed., May. 21, 2008

...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24759141>1=43001...

Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'
Police say locals accused women and men of 'bewitching' their children

NAIROBI, Kenya - A group of up to 300 young men have burned to death 11 people suspected of being witches and wizards in western Kenya — in some cases slitting their victims' throats or clubbing them to death before burning their bodies, officials said.

The gang moved from home to home through two villages, identifying their victims by using a list with names of suspected witches and wizards and the kind of spells they were believed to have cast on the community, said Ben Makori, a local councilor.

"The villagers are complaining that the (suspected) wizards and witches are making the bright children in the community dumb.... These (suspected) witches are not doing good things to us," Makori told The Associated Press on the phone.

Deputy police spokesman Charles Owino said the gang hunted down the eight women and three men in the western Kenya villages of Kekoro and Matembe. Most of the victims were between 70 and 90 years old, Owino said.

Senior administrator Njoroge Ndirangu said the gang hunted down their victims Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

Victims slashed or clubbed

In some cases the gang pulled the victims out of their homes, slit their throats or clubbed them to death, said a police officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

The victims were then thrown back into their homes, which the gang had already set on fire, the officer said. He said 36 houses were burned.

Another police officer, Mwaura Njoroge, said the body of a victim burned to death in her house was, "reduced to something so small, you cannot tell which is the leg and which is the arm."

"How can they (the young men) prove that a person is a wizard? It is likely that the people who committed these killings had personal vendettas against their victims," Njoroge said.

"These people identified who is to be killed by accusing their victims of bewitching their sons and daughters," said Ndirangu, the commissioner in charge of Kisii Central district, where one of the villages is located.

Ndirangu said that residents are superstitious and have often targeted suspected witches and wizards, but this week's attack was the most shocking in recent years.

The police officer who spoke on condition of anonymity said investigators had little hope of making progress because the villagers have refused to identify the people who carried out attacks."

...
I guess the proof that these people actually were witches will be when the IQs of all the children in the village miraculously and stunning improve, as "the wizards and witches were accused of making the bright children in the community dumb."

Interesting article from the Guardian on the kid the scientologists couldn't shut up.

Scientology is no worse and no more irrational than any other religion. They are all pretty whacky (except for Buddhism). Still, it's encouraging that we can giggle at it as we do at other supernatural faith systems without getting locked up, or burnt at the stake or drowned or tortured to recant, or in any way punished for not believing in the patently ridiculous.
Ah freedom! Thank you Voltaire. Thank you Mr Locke. Thank you Mr Hume. And you Mr Russell. And you Mr Einstein. Without you guys, religion might still be running things.

Three cheers for the California Supreme Court!

The reason many religious people (theocrats of varying degrees) are so upset over this is because they fully understand that divorcing Civil Union contracts from religious marriage is to finally separate THEIR religion from the State in this area of contract law. Problem is, they have enjoyed this wholly unconstitutional privilege for so long that they are convinced it is their right to continue to mix their church with our State, even when it clearly discriminates against people who do not share their religious opinions. Unbelievable but true!

Legally binding Civil Unions for all, regardless of their sex.

Non-legally binding Religious/Spiritual Marriage for those who chose it.

Please tell me what's wrong with such a simple and completely Constitutional solution?

Anonymous said:

"There was a lady who shouted "Doctor, it's so HOT!!" before she died during operation. The operating room of course was air-conditioned and the doctor was not using any hot object.

Hell took her even before she made her last breath."

Instead of assuming that an unproven supernatural punishment is the cause of the hot, what about investigate the real physiological reason so no other humans suffer from the same unnecessarily?

I believe that doing so is more "christian".

Peace to all,

JAC

* News
* World news
* Religion

12.45pm BST update
Schoolboy avoids prosecution for branding Scientology a 'cult'

* Anil Dawar and agencies
* guardian.co.uk,
* Friday May 23 2008

A teenager who was facing legal action for calling the Church of Scientology a cult has today been told he will not be taken to court.

The Crown Prosecution Service ruled the word was neither "abusive or insulting" to the church and no further action would be taken against the boy.

The unnamed 16-year-old was handed a court summons by City of London police for refusing to put down a placard saying "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult" during a peaceful protest outside the church's headquarters near St Paul's Cathedral earlier this month.

Police said they had "strongly advised" him to stop displaying the sign but he refused, citing a high court judgment from 1984 in which the organisation was described as a cult.

The summons was issued under the Public Order Act on the grounds that the sign incited religious hatred.

A file was passed to the CPS, which today told City of London police it would not be pursuing the boy through the courts.

A spokeswoman for the force said: "The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behaviour at a demonstration might be considered to be threatening, abusive or insulting.

"The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice."

A CPS spokesman said: "In consultation with the City of London police, we were asked whether the sign, which read 'Scientology is not a religion it is a dangerous cult', was abusive or insulting.

"Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness, as opposed to criticism, neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression. No action will be taken against the individual."

The teenager's mother said the decision was "a victory for free speech".

"We're all incredibly proud of him. We advised him to take the placard down when we realised what was happening but he said 'No, it's my opinion and I have a right to express it'," she said.

Human rights activists were outraged when news of the police action against the teenager broke earlier this week.

A simultaneous demonstration on May 10 outside a Scientology office in London's West End featured protesters waving similar placards but the Metropolitan police did not confiscate them or issue any summonses.

Two years ago, the City of London police attracted criticism when it emerged more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.

The City of London chief superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society" during the opening of its headquarters in 2006.

Last year, a video praising Scientology emerged featuring Ken Stewart, another of the City of London's chief superintendents, although he is not a member of the group.

Scientology was founded by the science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard in 1952 and espouses the idea that humans are descended from an exiled race of aliens called Thetans.

The church continues to attract controversy over claims that it separates members from their families and indoctrinates followers.

Wiglaf,

Glad I could cheer up your day! There are other amazing beasties out there: a beetle that does chemical warfare, a shrimp (pistol shrimp) that catches its prey by clicking its claws so loudly that a small fish will be stunned, and a fish (archerfish) in South America that comes to the surface and gets its lunch by squirting water at insects to knock them off of leaves. You've heard of the flying squirrel, I'm sure. There is also a flying (gliding) snake.... wonderful world we live in!

Arminius

Splatterman2 says "Let's try your Physics. Impress me. What equation explains why a plane can fly?"

First, your question doesn't even make sense. Are you talking propulsion? Weight? Lift? Structural integrity? Control? There's alot that goes into why planes can fly.

I assume for the sake of argument that you're talking about lift, which is defined as the integral of the vertical component of pressure over the entire surface of the plane.

But the answer you are probably expecting is Bernoulli's equation for compressible flow, which, as I understand it, is only applicable for low velocities and ignores boundary layer phenomena.

That's about all I can say without looking anything up. My aerodynamics textbooks are at home and besides, I really only use them to appreciate what my colleagues are doing.

Here's a simple question that is also a good geek parlor trick: take a rectangular solid whose dimensions all differ, like, say, a pack of cards. It has three principal axes - one through the face, one through the sides, and one through the top. Toss it, spinning, around the axis that goes through the face. Notice that the spin is stable (i.e. theta-dot is constant). Do the same for the axis through the top. Notice that the axis is also stable. Now do the same for the sides. The axis is UNSTABLE. Explain why.

"There are NO atheists in foxholes".

Makes you wonder who was manning the foxholes of the godless communists when we fought them in Korea and Vietnam, doesn't it?

"No atheists in foxholes." Just another stupid bromide from the fantasy worshippers.

Arminius,

I love this lizard.

Wiglaf

Wiglaf:

I have never seen one live. But they have been imported to Florida, and small numbers of them are doing well in places on the east coast.

Arminius

Arminius,

I just went back to YouTube. I think one could safely say that the Jesus Christ lizard is walking very rapidly. That, at any rate, is my opinion as judge and referee.

Arminius,

I forgot to type in my name. Everyone should look at the Jesus Christ lizard on YouTube. It is a remarkable creature.

Have you actually seen it in nature?

Arminius,

I just watched it on YouTube. It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen. I am converted.

Atheists 1 Believers 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

Arminius,

I'll check, but I'm taking you at your word in the meantime.

Score
Atheists 1 Believers 5

Wiglaf,

Take a quick look in google - there's even a video. The lizard can run pretty fast on water for about 4 meters. But it is running, not walking. I'll let you keep score.

Arminius

Arminius,

I meant to write: Believers 1 1/2

Arminius:

I will take what you say on faith, as it were, but since, technically, the lizard doesn't actually walk, I don't know what to do about the score.

Would it be fair, then, to record it as

Atheists 1 Believers 1/2

What do you think?

Wiglaf, you said:
"I can tell you that no entity, not even man-gods walk on wather."

Actually, not true. In Latin America there is a lizard that can run on water. It is known, of course, as the Jesus Christ Lizard. I kid you not! I can't wait to read what Spidey has to say about it.

Arminius

Farnaz:

Just read Interchapter VII. Unbelievable! Holy Mother of Dolly Parton! Son of a gun could write, could he not?

Wiglaf,
It is my faith in you that keeps me in this mortal coil. Loosen the bonds of your terror. Take heart. We must be brave for Bewildful's sake.

Hamlet :(

Spidey,

I hate to say it Spidey, Old Boy, but Arminius is right. The Bible, at least the NT, isn't your best source of information on physics.

Speaking as a professional, I can tell you that no entity, not even man-gods walk on wather.

On the other hand, the Ark, as described, would float.

Score
Atheists 1 Belivers 1

Spideys,

Check here for the formula that makes an airplane fly: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29

Don't bother looking in your bible for it, since that book couldn't even get pi right.

I wonder if Spittleman2 really is an engineer. He's clearly not capable of actually designing anything. I doubt he's just a fourteen year old boy, though, despite his emotional immaturity and intellectual underdevelopment. I hate to say it, but I think he's one of those emotionally disturbed anti-social shut-ins that never leaves home and ends up as a ward of the state when his parents die.

that would be my last. Everett is pulling my shirt

Chris E:

I wouldn't suggest Spiderman become a physicist.
I became a physicist owing to my liking of physics.

It wasn't a good reason, I learned. I think Spiderman should see a career counselor first, no? Maybe entomology would suit him better.

And, you, Chris, must pursue your true vocation. You are a writer, my friend.
_____________________________________

Hamlet, My Own,

How goes it? Does Bewildful remain in the way of harm? Have you decided when the time will be in joint?

Yours in mortal terror
Wiglaf

Let's try your Physics. Impress me. What equation explains why a plane can fly?

Spidey,
You keep promising you will leave us...and you keep coming back. How can we miss you if you aren't gone?

Spiderman

Have you built anything, a shopping center, or a Walmart, or something?

Three blind Spideys
Three blind Spideys
They all went after the atheists
Who smashed the Spideys that babbled and hissed
I don't really think that they'll ever be missed
Those three blind Spideys.

Sputterman2,

How about YOU becoming a physicist? Dude.

Everett, become an Engineer first before discussing with me about that. You are not qualified. Sorry dude.

c ya later guys. nice chatting.

Everett, become an Engineer first before discussing with me about that. You are not qualified. Sorry dude.

No, Anon, Hemingway knew what he was doing. He wrote In Our Time in the early 1920s. Interchapter VII takes place in a foxhole (WW I).

Now, let us think about this man Hemingway. Here is a man, troubled to be sure, in many ways, writing a couple of years after "There are no atheists in foxholes" settled on Aphorism Island.

Here is a man who throughout his life was an agonized Roman Catholic. And he wrote to say there are only atheistis in foxholes, and he meant this not in the obvious way.

And he was right, you know. In Our Time, possibley available on line.

Farnaz

"27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death (HELL),.. " (Romans 1:27 & 32)

Well, let's see whose words are important during Judgment day ? Parton or Apostle Paul?

Splatterman2,

According to your own arguments, you DON'T know why the Earth is round. You have never seen a planet form. No scientist has ever built one in his lab. You just believe a STUPID story that shows what an IDIOT you are. Crying "gravity" to explain the formation of planets is no different from crying "evolution" to explain the diversity of life on Earth. In short, the STUPID arguments you constantly wield against evolution repudiate Natural History in its entirety as a legitimate field of scientific inquiry.

Besides, Newton's law of universal gravitation has been disproven, and I doubt very much that you have any comprehension of general relativity.

P.S. Isn't Earth more of an oblate spheroid anyway?

"There are NO atheists in foxholes". I think that is how I remember it.

Atheists become believers when their deathbed becomes hotter. There was a lady who shouted "Doctor, it's so HOT!!" before she died during operation. The operating room of course was air-conditioned and the doctor was not using any hot object.

Hell took her even before she made her last breath.

Farnaz,

Hemingway. Just pulled down the book and will reread Interchapter VII.

Dolly Parton. I have always believed in Dolly Parton. My faith in her is unshakeable.

Hamlet :)

Hi Hamlet (Formerly Merry Anonymous),

Yes, that's quite a name change! As for my absence, I guess I just got caught up. My sister had a baby awhile back and between Baby Hagar, my family, my life, etc., well, you get the heavy drift!

I notice how regardless of the topic, the battle remains between atheists and "believers." What the point of this is, I truly don't know. Each wants to "prove" his/her case and neither will. Decisions about belief/nonbelief develop over time and are not reached in the midst of gunfire no matter what anyone says.

Do you remember Hemingway's In Our Time? It could have been titled There Are Only Atheists in Foxholes. Part of his irony, no doubt. I'm thinking of Interchapter VII. No matter what you think of Hemingway, that little paragraph is just about as good as it gets.

I wonder that no one on this thread has commented on Bishop Chane's essay or on Rev. Tully's? Both argue that marriage should be solely state sanctioned. Rev. Chane has advice for "religionists." The word should really be reserved for those seeking to impose their religious beliefs on civic life, should it not?

But the point is, they are right. And so was Hemingway. There are only atheists in foxholes.

As the great sage Dolly Parton opined, "Of course, gay people should be allowed to marry. Why shouldn't they be suffering like the rest of us?!

Farnaz

Hi Farnaz, How r u? Yes this is me. But Im about to leave. Talk to you later. Take care.

DITLD, keep your ideas to yourself. It won't help anybody. You're just as blind as the 3 mice. You don't even know why the earth is round and yet you believe it is round.

I believe it is round and I also know why it is round. That is our difference. I don't just listen to other people. I check and double check waht I hear before believing them.

Tday,

You say: "Morality, or conformity to ideals of right human conduct, has everything to do with sexual inclination. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural use of the human body. The anus is for defacating. The mouth is for eating and talking."

First I'll point out that your definition of morality is circular. "Right" conduct CONTAINS, rather than EXPLAINS, the idea of morality.

But you go on to imply that "right conduct" means using the body according to its "natural" use. This is a strange and barren notion of morality for sure, but it also begs the question about what "natural" use even IS. For example, you seem satisfied with the idea that kissing is immoral, since it's niether eating nor talking. Chewing gum, too, I suppose. I guess you come from the "if man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings" school of morality. I wonder how far you take it. Are clothes immoral? The body is not FOR wearing clothes. How about haircuts? Earrings? Cooking? I hope you can see, a little, how absurd your notion of morality is.

Farnaz:

You're right. I responded to his first post, as did PaganPlace. This thread is getting curiouser and curiouser.

Where have you been? How are you?

Hamlet :)

Hey Spiderman,

How are you? Is it really you? If it is, scroll down, Anon posted this same message at 1:21 AM.
What does it mean?

Farnaz

Spiderman said

"I hope anonymous can read this."

Well, I hope he does not log on here to read it because I do not think it was particularly helpful. I would be more critical, but I don't want to stir up a big thing over this.

I hope anonymous can read this. Life is really not fair and the Lord showed it by sacrificing himself on the cross. He spent his life here on earth not as a rich fellow but one who suffered so people cannot accuse Him that it isn't fair.

It's the afterlife where He can show his true love. No more suffering and no more pain. Your wife I believe is enjoying her life now. It's you who is her problem. If you continue with your unbelief, it will lead you to more despair and most of all eternal damnation.

Everybody suffers. That is life. But all suffering on earth has an ending. Look at it this way. Would you rather be the rich man who went to hell than poor Lazarus who went to Heaven? If you can only picture what true hell is, you would say that your wife could be the luckiest person alive. Her faith would save her from the flame.

All that I've said will happen. It's the truth. WW3 is just around the corner. Many people will suffer. But it's nothing compared to the afterlife. Just believe and you'll be safe.

Cling to the faith just as your wife did. She's one fortunate women compare to the atheist crowd here. These people will all burn sooner or later. Your wife is in a very happy place now. Believe it.

I too suffered before I saw the light. Let that sad experience guide you to where the light is.

Don't know why I'm posting here. Maybe its because I like the company of atheists. Maybe its because religion makes me want to gag. maybe its because I got nothing else to do since my christian wife died an agonizing death in my arms just 23 days ago.

Yeah she believed. A lot of good it did her.

She would read her bible.She new she was dying. She hoped God would take her quietly. I hoped so too.
But no. He dragged the agony out as long as he could. It went on and on and on and on, til when she went I was glad. I was glad.

I thought about putting a bullet in her head. I thought about it seriously. I even got the gun and put it on the table and stared at it for long periods of time. But then I put it away and hated myself for thinking like that.

I never told her I didn't believe in God. She knew I wasn't big on religion, and I only mentioned God when I was swearing. But if there is a God I hate him. Especially since he wouldn't even help her not even a little bit. he never even lifted a finger.

So don't tell me theres a god. That is a load of bull. But for my wife, just being dead is heaven. Heaven is nothingness. And it's heaven for me too that she's nowhere, and feeling no pain.

I have to go

My last post was addressed to Sally Quinn time stapmed (May 22, 2008 6:37 PM ). Everything in between was not mine. I think it's Chris Everett again impersonating me.

This was my last post:

Sally Quinn wrote "I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

People love their dog but it's a different matter if that love means having sex with their dog.

A male horse copulating another male horse? Will there be a horse owner who would make a stable exclusively for gay horses? None of course.

The same goes with the Constitution. Only a stupid government will make a provision that would legalize a kind of "love-making" that's not normal.

The Constitution is a SANE DOCUMENT. Just do your foolish act without touching the Constitution and not make it appear as a document fit for the garbage bin.

Confine the foolishness to yourselves and leave the Constitution alone.

The mere mention that gay marriage will be allowed in the Constitution means their homosexual sex acts will also be condoned by the Constitution.

Stupidity always attract trouble. The kind of trouble which slavery brought. It brought death to millions of people thru civil war.

Gay marriage is as troublesome as slavery. God has set an example by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

***

MARKED FOR DESTRUCTION

It's a sign from God that the place is marked for destruction. Sodom and Gomorrah was set as an example. If the enemies of America are looking for SOFT TARGET, then this is it. They can fire their weapons at will and God will be the one who will put more destructive power to it. It is best that the people of God start moving away from this place. GO , BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

***

COME INTO MY PARLOR, SAID THE SPIDER TO THE FLY.

The flies all over America would hopefully settle in Califonia attracted by this gay marriage law. Then the Spider would make it's move. Ah, how intelligent is the Lord. His Wrath can no longer wait to whip all these flies with one strike.

SEE THE HAND OF THE LORD WORKING. IT IS SLOW BUT IT'S GRINDING EXCEEDING SMALL.

DILTD,

Thanks DILTD! I like you to. I mentioned the name change awhile back on this thread or the last, but it occurred to me that I should mention it again.

I'm thinking of returning to my former handle since although I'm an unabashed Hamlet (the play) idolator, adopting name could affect my mood.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the change from Merry to Hamlet indicates a little bipolarity. I should probably try for a name that resonates more temperately.

Hamlet :)

Dear Hamlet

I did not know you are the former Merry Anonymous. I am glad to know it since I liked Merry Anonymous, and was wondering how he has been, but now I see that he has been just fine.

TDAY:

You write to Chris E.

Morality, or conformity to ideals of right human conduct, has everything to do with sexual inclination. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural use of the human body. The anus is for defacating. The mouth is for eating and talking.
---------------------------------------

Among other things, the lack of jargon in your post suggests to me that you, like me, are not an anatomist, that your observations concerning organ functions are those of a lay person.

Below, I've posted the observations of another lay person on the same topic. If you're unfamiliar with his work, you should know that this is one of a series of poems that partially go to your theme. In the last stanza, however, you will discern a challenge to your anatomical constructs. As you read, consider, if you would, the penis, in light of your remarks, and, then, perhaps, the vagina.

Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop

I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
'Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.'

'Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,' I cried.
'My friends are gone, but that's a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart's pride.

'A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.'

TDAY:

"There was a far greater cohesiveness in morality only a generation ago. Even more 2 generations ago. Any reasonable thinking mind would affirm that. "

I agree to a point, at least in the second half of the 20th Century. It was the formulation of the Republican Southern strategy and the rise of the religious right that really put paid to any sense of united national purpose. Conservatism by its very nature is exclusivist and hostile to expansion of participation in society by a wider population.

And yes, that previous White monolith did manage to fight a war that cost over a million lives.

"But my ashes? Brace yourselves. I want my ashes thrown into the firebox of an operating steam locomotive, running on coal, because I purely love steam locomotives. One of mankind's most lovely and ALIVE creations. Color me mad? OK...."

Arminius
What a wonderful idea!

I've always leaned toward a more traditional and humble approach, myself. I wonder if there is room at Giza? I can see it now: The Great Pyramid of Cromett! Um.. I think I'll settle for my favorite fishing spot instead.

>>Chris Everett:
>>Tday,

>>Why do you think that sexual inclination has anything whatsoever to do with morality?

Morality, or conformity to ideals of right human conduct, has everything to do with sexual inclination. Homosexuality is a perversion of the natural use of the human body. The anus is for defacating. The mouth is for eating and talking. Even a young child understands that without even being 'indoctrinated' (If you ever mention any other use of these areas to a young child..you would hear 'EWWWWWWWWW' - there is a fundamental reason for this...and little children arent even 'fundies', as secularits put it) Additinoally, self gratification robs a human being of beauty of a male-female relationship. Such things not only weaken the individual..they weaken society when they become more pervasive in that society. History shows. Undeniable. We humans do not have a good track record of beating history in this subject. There is a good and absolute reason for that.

>>What a strange and twisted conflation.

I guess it is to you and possibly others that see acceptance of homosexuality as progress in our society, yet in societies past the same acceptance found no lasting, redeeming or strengthening place. So sexual inclination (or choice) and adhering to a more life-giving standard is not such a strange and twisted mix if you really think about it.

We all fall short, sin, bring unecessary heartache upon ourselves...however you want to put it. But we should always love the person and eschew the fault...for the other persons sake of well being as well as ours.

Anonymous,

The love you had for your wife matters. The love that held the two of you together and the love that kept you beside her throughout her ordeal, no matter how agonizing it became for you, matters.

I don't know how to say to you how much I feel for you even though I don't know you. I have seen horrible, pointless death, and I read what you write, and I just want you to know that you aren't alone. People read what you say and they hear you. People, who exist.

Your wife needed you. And you were there. You, your love. The human. That is what matters.

Oh, Goddess, Anonymous. I crossed posts with you.

*deep breath.*

No God made her suffer like that, nor did you.
Sometimes, we go through painful times, and especially at the end of life, we may look for an answer, 'What was that for.'

The answer's usually simpler than we like to accept.

The *experience* is you held her when she passed.

This is a simple, if wrenchingly-painful dignity that some would deny to queer couples, who love our dear ones no less, and would and hurt no less, than you have.

That's not about any God worth the mention, I assure you, one way or another.

It's about *people.*

The people you and your dear one are, and were, *whatever it takes.* *However much it hurts.*

Cause it does. But *that.* That's part of this 'love' thing we're talking about trying to legislate or judge.

It's gonna hurt. And no one's sorrier about that than clergy, whatever names we serve.

You were there. That's the important part.

Dig?

Anon—I’m with a friend right now who is dying. It is not terribly painful at the moment. But will be eventually. Right now, there’s beauty in it. Not in the horrors of the disease, but in the coming together of all her friends from all the eras of her life who love her so much. We’re multi-racial, multi- and non-religious, multi-national and non-partisan. It’s all about human love and it’s beautiful. It makes me weep.

The other night, dear,
When I wast sleeping,
I dreamt I helt thee in mine arms.
When I awokest, Dear,
I wast mistaken.
So, I hungeth down my head and I cried.

"I went to a Hindu cremation done in the traditional way. Not quite the way done in the west. I saw the body throught the fire and wood. It brought tears to see my friend that way. I never look up at the funeral pyre again until it was over."

Eh, I only ask my own folks for cremation cause the alternative is the plastic. Prolly won't happen, anyway. No legal rights, religiously or by marriage, right?

But Western style cremation is actually shockingly-energy intensive. A pyre would be fine. For those that need look, it's supposed to look like that... the body goes, you don't try to put it in Tupperware under the topsoil to try and pretend it doesn't.

Frankly, I find the Western standard pretty disturbing, even though I was raised to it. Thinking about relatives lying in a box, ...and it's never really over in your loved ones' lifetime... Just not right to me.

Funny thing is, if you're not Jewish, you need special exemptions not to be pumped full of preservatives and buried that way. For my own arrangements I've been like, 'Simple biodegradeable box and no embalming is fine, but for the Mother's sake put a pillow under the head so it don't make that Gods-awful thunk. '

Stupid stuff. Funerals are really for the living, though.

Don't know why I'm posting here. Maybe its because I like the company of atheists. Maybe its because religion makes me want to gag. maybe its because I got nothing else to do since my christian wife died an agonizing death in my arms just 23 days ago.

Yeah she believed. A lot of good it did her.

She would read her bible.She new she was dying. She hoped God would take her quietly. I hoped so too.
But no. He dragged the agony out as long as he could. It went on and on and on and on, til when she went I was glad. I was glad.

I thought about putting a bullet in her head. I thought about it seriously. I even got the gun and put it on the table and stared at it for long periods of time. But then I put it away and hated myself for thinking like that.

I never told her I didn't believe in God. She knew I wasn't big on religion, and I only mentioned God when I was swearing. But if there is a God I hate him. Especially since he wouldn't even help her not even a little bit. he never even lifted a finger.

So don't tell me theres a god. That is a load of bull. But for my wife, just being dead is heaven. Heaven is nothingness. And it's heaven for me too that she's nowhere, and feeling no pain.

I have to go

Note: Hanging up *all* the aliases would be even better. :)

Blessed be, Spidey, and, well-faring. Could be good for ya. :)

Again and again and again, the "femsy" (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of Islam continue to be subjects The Jihadist cannot bring herself to discuss. Why?? Fear of Islamic death squads? Fear of the truth? Fear of her husband? Fear of his other wives? Fear of/for her family? Fear of the Jinni?

Having such fears simply and tragically adds to the "femsy" of Islam!!!

Thats it! I'm hanging up my Spiderman2 ID and never coming back. I've taken enough. Anyone else uses my name you'll know its an imposter. Coz Im done.

Next guy better be Spiderman 3. coz i've retired.

I'll be back with another name later, if I feel like it. But youll never know will you?

Goodbye!

Spidey,

OK, I'll accept that. But it is very difficult to tell all the spideys apart. I will admit it did not really sound like you. My bad, I guess.

That is not me. I have made no comment on line tonight. This is the Spiderman impersonator trying to make me look bad.
Ignore the impersonator.

I am the real Spiderman2 and this is my First comment I swear on the Holy Bible.

the boy stood on the burning deck
picking his nose like mad
rolling snot up in tiny balls
and flicking them at his dad.

Lord Byron

Nights candles are burnt out
and jocund day
stands tip-toe on the misty mountain top.

smidrenpa2, aka spiderman 1, 2, 3, or 4

If I am ever offensive to you, it is because you are offensive to everyone else here first. But I don't expect you to understand that.

Arminius

So how come your always offensive to me yet you always complain when someone offensive to you?
if you guys were to beat me up I bet youd be the first one to put the boots to me. Your always shooting your chops off or sucking up and slobbering over people. God watches yiour every move so you got lots to answer for. Be ready.

Jihadist,

When I decided to grant that fate to my ashes, my thoughts were this: God gave me the gift of life through His Creation. Therefore, I will return the gift to Creation, and thus to God. As the key statement in the Christian ceremony of Ash Wednesday goes, "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

(Chris and Mr Mark, please give me some slack on this.)

Arminius

Thou art my sunshine
mine only sunshine
thou makest me happy
when skies are gray

Thou will never knoweth dear
how much I loveth you
please dont taketh my sunshine
awayeth.

Chris,

YES! A long, mournful note, echoing in the hills of East Tennessee. One of the most beautiful sounds ever, accompanied by the stack talk and the sound of the wheels and the pistons, and the lovely perfume of the coal smoke.... tear jerking to me. Such a hopeless romantic I am.

Thanks.

Arminius

Hello Arminius,

You're right about the traditional Muslim burial.

I have had no problem with other communities cremating the dead, and had thought Muslims should too eventually, until a couple of years ago. I went to a Hindu cremation done in the traditional way. Not quite the way done in the west. I saw the body throught the fire and wood. It brought tears to see my friend that way. I never look up at the funeral pyre again until it was over.

Cemeteries do take up lots of land, especially in China, and very expensive to have plot. The government there encourage cremations. More efficiently enviroment-saving and biofriendly perhaps. But, what about all the coal, wood, gas etc used to cremate bodies, and the exhaust coming out of crematariums into the air?

I don't think I can ever bear to throw anyone's ashes anywhere, much less into the firebox of a coal operating steam locomotive. Someone else can do it and I only as a physically present but "eyes away" witness while the deed is done to respect the wishes of the one who want to go that way.

**************************************************

Hello Pagan,

I'm not sure too about all bodies being cremated. Say 10,000 years from now, if there be not a single human being alive on earth due to man-made or natural disaster, a visitor to our planet would look around and be amazed to think that cockroaches build the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China and wondered aloud at what specie visited earth before that look like Abe Lincoln in the Lincoln monument that the cockroaches were commenmorating.

Okay, the aliens may be smart enough to see that that the Lincoln monument, statue of David, Venus de Milo etc are representations of an extinct specie on earth. But they will never be able to find any bones and tombs to study what we eat and what are our DNA. They may find more monkey bones too.

Ashes to ashes, yes. Better to be a fertilizer that literally recycles, gives sustenance to other life and the living? For one, earthworms are very important to the soil, the earth. Do ashes of any kind strewn on earth kill them?

**************************************************

Daniel in the Lion's Den,

Thanks for the additional cons. "dicons" is really funny. And perhaps to give new alternate meaning to "aircons" too? To describe airhead conservatives or conservative airheads.

Have to go and a good weekend to all.

"J"

Arminius,

What a great, romantic idea. Accompanied by one last, long pull on the whistle, I presume.

Not mad at all, Arminius, ...I was merely cautioning Jihadist on equating burning 'witches' alive to appease a wrathful desert God, and certain other cultures that consider burning of bodies a very appropriate way to honor the dead. :)

Arminius

I don't think we will hear anymore from Spiderman this evening; I'm sure his Mom has tucked him in bed for the night. Lately, I've been thinking he might be a 14 year old boy. He is not quite so creepy, when you think of him that way.

Paganplace and Jihadist,

Since the subject of 'burning bodies' came up, I'll put in my 2 dollars worth (inflation, ya know).

First, Jihadist, I know a bit about the Muslim burial custom, and respect it.

But I agree with Paganplace about being submitted to a mortician. Further, I want to be cremated. Paganplace's thought about planting a tree on the ashes is good. Also, there is a growing movement here in America to be buried without embalming in a simple coffin. Muslims do that already, as far as I know. Jihadist, correct me if I err.

But my ashes? Brace yourselves. I want my ashes thrown into the firebox of an operating steam locomotive, running on coal, because I purely love steam locomotives. One of mankind's most lovely and ALIVE creations. Color me mad? OK....

Arminius

Jihadist

You are very funny, I mean that in a good way.

You make me smile.

What about

concon conservative convicts
stupcon conservative stupid people
homcon conservative home-makers
mocon conservative gays
hocon conservative prostitutes
libcon conservative liberals
funcon conservative happy people
dicon conservative dictator (or a Korean radish)

Spidey, here is an Einstein quotation that you should really take to heart:

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."

I look forward to your inane reply.

Nice post, Jihadist.

Though, on this:

"or to burn them when they are dead."

Well, personally, I'd much prefer that to being shot full of preservatives and buried in a box next to an expensive rock, unless they're going to include a bronze plaque with some Rosetta stone sort of thingie there and a note that says, "To future archaeologists: I know you're really bored with this place by now, so I thought I'd convince my relatives to leave you guys some really interesting grave goods to look at. Here's some stuff I thought was kinda neat."

Other than that, plant a tree on the remains. Back to thee biosphere, no delay. :)

Spiderman, Why don't you pipe down, you dopey, nerdy little pip-squeak?

Hi Anonymous,

Do feel free to give new terms for suicide bombers for everyone from the Palestinians to the Tamil Tigers to the Weathermen (who accidentally blew themselves up making or handling their own bombs).

We have pagans in Indonesia and Malaysia, including Dyaks and Bataks. But they are now mostly good Christians due to missionary work.

Muslims don't burn people alive, or to burn them when they are dead. Not confusing that with some practices of yore in Europe of burning people for this and that, including allegations of being witches?

*************************************************

SC Cromett: "...I think the "God will smite us down if we allow gay marriage" argument is silly."

E Favorite : "It's more like "I hope God will smite us down if we allow gay marriage because I find it yucky and don't want to have to deal with it. So please God, make it a sin, because that makes me look holy instead of just weak stomached."

God don't have to smite us for allowing gay marraiges. Homophobes are doing just fine on their own in the public square.

Is it "yucky" for some because of unfortunate, ahem, "first time and never again" experience?

**************************************************

Hello Arminius,

Good point on religocons. And we will have to come out with a whole new sub-categories:

Armageddoncons, Inerrantistcons, Literalistcons,
Creationistcons. Go from there. They are not punchy enough, eh?

As for Concy and Spidey, well, they are just a couple of homo sapiens uncomfortable with gays.

*************************************************

Concy and Spidey,

Are people "born, bred and brainwashed" to be gays?

Are they "stupid" to want to be free to be who they are?

Ah, pros and cons on someone or something. How about, instead of homophobes, we'll call those who oppose gays as gaycons, and those who support gays and gaypros.

Spidey, nice verses. A stupid revision and edition of it to mess that bright one by you. Hope it won't mess up the non-stupid minds here.

God is love
love is God,
love is gay
gay is love

God loves all
in every way,
in loving all
God is gay

God is metrosexual
God is cosmicsexual
God is ambisexual
God is nonsexual

Which is a long way around saying, clearly some people never left the schoolyard. :)

Spiderman, Spiderman
Says whatever a Fundie can
Spins a tale
Of Left Behind
Your left cheek
Is on his mind
Look out...

Here comes a Spiderman...

Jesus loves me
this I know.
Coz the Bible
tells me so.
One two three four
five six seven
Only believers
go to Heaven.

As in, it was essentially... "legal."

" TDAY:

"">>When I was born, people like me could be raped by police with impunity, in the name of 'morals""

...but not by the majority of society, which is what I was refering to."

What part of 'impunity' did you not get, TDay? They were actually called 'Public Morals Brigades' or something to that effect.

Tday,

Why do you think that sexual inclination has anything whatsoever to do with morality?

What a strange and twisted conflation.

>>When I was born, people like me could be raped by police with impunity, in the name of 'morals

...but not by the majority of society, which is what I was refering to.

Your putting a spin on making light of the scores or even thounsands who did such as compared to the millions who didn't does not make a point.

I am very sorry you went through that, but it was not the norm by any means. The moral fiber of our country was much stronger than it is now. Period.

And Arminius, the same spin. You look at incidents while I am refering to the whole.

Not perfect then by any means, but much less perversion than today...a very atypical world today...full of the unusual and unatural. Not going to make us stronger, my friend.

JJ is still JJ - unmistakable rancor and hate, but without all the goofy religious claptrap.

Keep talkin,' boys.

Then there is "Islamcon" for the con job imams and clerics have been pulling for the last 1400 years..

EQUAL TREATMENT MEANS EQUAL TREATMENT. What's so hard about that? No Gay in boy's school just as there are no boys in girl school and vice versa.

I WANT THAT WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL. LET'S TREAT GAYS AS GAYS. DIFFERENT FROM MALE AND FEMALE.

I WANT A GAY TOILET BY TOMORROW OR ELSE WE GAYS WILL STAGE OUR PROTEST IN THE STREETS OF CALIFORNIA.

Someone craving a change of subject after mention of what was done to gay people during the last generation's 'moral cohesiveness?'

Let's not leave that behind so quick.

When I was born, people like me could be raped by police with impunity, in the name of 'morals.'

Apparently someone wasn't quite done with such blazing righteousness, when they figured their penis could make me straight, come to think of it.

This was not a goodness. That was 1969. By 2008, we should be done with such spectres.

Never mind people trying to claim gay people have something to do with Nazis, when the *Nazis* rounded up gay people by the millions and put em in the same concentration camps we rebuke them for putting Jews in, but in America, may as well be quoting 'The Eternal Jew' when it comes to how conservative Christians talk about gays.

You know where that pink triangle *came* from, Tday?

Gays have a right to exist but it's a different matter when they try to institutionalize their homosexual acts.

GAY ACTS in the Constitution? Yeah , a constitution fit for the garbage bin. Live right. I have gay friends that live right, so why can't other gays see it that way. If they want to practice homosexuality, don't drag the Constitution with them down to the toilet sink.

"Gays should not be allowed in boy schools or girl schools. There should be EQUAL TREATMENT."

Oh, yes, 'separate but equal'. We've heard that before: legalized bigotry.

So sorry for existing, massa brave Anonymous.

If gays want to marry among themselves, they should not be allowed to adopt a child. If they can't make a child by themselves, they should live with that reality.

They should also fight for a gay school, a gay toilet, etc. Aren't there school for boys or girls exclusively. why not fight for their right to make gay school exclusively?

Gays should not be allowed in boy schools or girl schools. There should be EQUAL TREATMENT. Boys are not allowed in girl schools, are they?

There should also be a GAY SCOUT. The list goes on.

Why do the religious hang out on this thread? Are they looking to make converts out of atheists? Or are they puzzled that such creatures exist and want to go down amongst them and see what make them tick?
Or is it because they make more interesting and intelligent conversationalists than one finds on the other faith threads?
I think many religious types are here to talk some sense into nonbelievers and make them 'see the light', and to argue with them when they get too uppity and start insulting the 'lord'.
As church is a house of groupthink, I guess it must be quite a novelty to drop in here and talk with the animals, who just plain say anything they like, and have zero respect for our father in heaven, and none of them agrees with what the pastor says about life everlasting.
It's so fun.

"There was a far greater cohesiveness in morality only a generation ago"

What, you mean when police could rape gays to preserve 'heterosexual morals?'

Real cohesive, Tday.

Stonewall happened.

TDAY claims (again):

"There was a far greater cohesiveness in morality only a generation ago. Even more 2 generations ago. Any reasonable thinking mind would affirm that."

Two generations ago we had segregation. How moral is that? And homosexuals were routinely beaten up, even by police. Assault and battery, how moral.

Get a grip, dude.

"Jihadists and Pagans co-existing? In their dreams. Reality is different in blogosphere."

Well, I dunno so much about Malaysia, but Jihadist could coexist in *this* Pagan's house. And that's my end of humanity.

"So please God, make it a sin, because that makes me look holy instead of just weak stomached."

Haha! His eyes open! :)

:)

"Modcons for moderate conservatives.
Madcons for maniacal conservatives.
Rabcons for rabid conservatives.
Libcons for Libertarian conservatives.
Seccons for secular conservatives"

But not a single one is a suicide bomber killing everyone in sight. Also pagans can't co-exist in Muslim lands. Muslims will burn them I guess. Is burning pagans a smart move by Muslims? Maybe, if pagans continue to behave like madmen.

Jihadists and Pagans co-existing? In their dreams. Reality is different in blogosphere.

"Modcons for moderate conservatives.
Madcons for maniacal conservatives.
Rabcons for rabid conservatives.
Libcons for Libertarian conservatives.
Seccons for secular conservatives"

But not a single one is a suicide bomber killing everyone in sight. Also pagans can't co-exist in Muslim lands. Muslims will burn them I guess. Is burning pagans a smart move by Muslim's? Maybe, if pagans continue to behave like madmen.

Jihadists and Pagans co-existing? In their dreams. Reality is different in blogosphere.

"Modcons for moderate conservatives.
Madcons for maniacal conservatives.
Rabcons for rabid conservatives.
Libcons for Libertarian conservatives.
Seccons for secular conservatives"

But not a single one is a suicide bomber killing everyone in sight. Also pagans can't co-exist in Muslim lands. Muslims will burn them I guess. A samrt move by Muslim's? Maybe, if pagans continue to behave like madmen.

Jihadists and Pagans co-existing? In their dreams. Reality is different in blogosphere.

SC Cromett: "...I think the "God will smite us down if we allow gay marriage" argument is silly."

It's more like "I hope God will smite us down if we allow gay marriage because I find it yucky and don't want to have to deal with it. So please God, make it a sin, because that makes me look holy instead of just weak stomached.

Jihadist,

You forgot the obvious conservative: religocons
Then we have the bigots: conceycons
Then the worst whackos: spidyecons

Arminius

Well, actually, yeah, it's basically the same thing, only difference is if they quote the Fountainhead or the Bible.

Ah, Jihadist:

Too often, Libertarian = Conservative terrified the government will interfere with their right to gang up on the poor and use economic power to lord it over 'less-worthy' people who might 'gang up' on them to say 'no.' :)

Hello Paganplace,

Thanks for that clarification. Libertarian Social Darwinist Conservatives is quite a mouthful.

I am beginning to lost count on the types of Conservatives in the US.

Now you are giving me mischievous ideas. As there are neocons, there should be retrocons.

Modcons for moderate conservatives.
Madcons for maniacal conservatives.
Rabcons for rabid conservatives.
Libcons for Libertarian conservatives.
Seccons for secular conservatives.

The possibilities are endless.

Regards
"J"

**************************************************

Mr. Mark : "So, why all the angst about "handing" the GOP a wedge issue? They don't need a wedge issue. They'll just fabricate one."

Hi. "Values" are exploited and manipulated wedge issues. Fabrications is part of the political norm to to wedge "us" from "them". As in the case of Rev. Wright on race, and gay marraiges on "family values" and all the angst and anxiety caused and politicised, and thus would eventually have a bearing on how one would vote. This you already know.

So, you have all the complete works of JS Bach? A complete collection of 160 CDs? Whoa!

The only complete work by a classical master I have is by WA Mozart and all European recordings. Ms. Jennifer Larmore from Arminius's great state of Georgia, pops up on many, many arias and duets. Saw her performed in Amsterdam in "The Marraige of Figaro" once. She impressively stretch and soar this way and that way.

Regards
"J"

It seems as if religious folk are unable to consider arguments against religion.If they were - surely they would sooner or later have to conclude that it's all nonsense. Religions posit such ridiculous ideas that only those raised in that faith could possibly believe them. How about those Aztecs?

(O if there are any Aztecs here, I mean no offence)

The mother of the Aztec creation story was called Coatlique (the Lady of the Skirt of Snakes). She was created in the image of the unknown, decorated with skulls, snakes, and lacerated hands. There are no cracks in her body and she is a perfect monolith (a totality of intensity and self-containment, yet her features were square and decapitated).

Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars. Then one day Coatlique found a ball of feathers, which she tucked into her bosom. When she looked for it later, it was gone, at which time she realized that she was again pregnant. Her children, the moon and stars did not believe her story. Ashamed of their mother, they resolved to kill her. A goddess could only give birth once, to the original litter of divinity and no more. During the time that they were plotting her demise, Coatlique gave birth to the fiery god of war, Huitzilopochtli. With the help of a fire serpent, he destroyed his brothers and sister, murdering them in a rage. He beheaded Coyolxauhqui and threw her body into a deep gorge in a mountain, where it lies dismembered forever. The natural cosmos of the Indians was born of catastrophe. The heavens literally crumbled to pieces. The earth mother fell and was fertilized, while her children were torn apart by fratricide and then scattered and disjointed throughout the universe.

As we are all 'outside-the-box' of Aztec culture and belief it seems outrageous. To those inside the box - indoctrinated into its beliefs - it was the truth.

To see Christianity or Hinduism, Sikhism or Islamism, etc. from the outside looking in, the fairy stories are just as ludicrous as the Aztec 'truth', even if perhaps not quite as nasty.

Conclusion. It is really quite amazing what people can be made to believe. In fact, one would have to say that THERE IS NOTHING THEY CANNOT BE MADE TO BELIEVE. You just have to get them when they're young enough, or gullible enough.

They then become trapped inside an idea from which it seems, few escape.

Hi, Jihadist:

"One reads and hears more of Ayn Rand influencing some conservatives."

Mostly among self-styled 'Libertarian' social-darwinist conservatives, actually, not the 'conservatives' who want religious dominion.

And the final "google" comment:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_14

“Just as we owe homosexuals humane, decent, and respectful conduct, homosexuals owe the same to the rest of us. Homosexuals' use of the term "homophobic," however, violates this rule as much as heterosexuals' use of the term "f t" does.”

When the term "homophobic" is used to describe anyone who believes that heterosexuality should remain Western society's ideal, it is quite simply a contemporary form of McCarthyism. In fact, it is more insidious than the late senator's use of "communist." For one thing, there was and is such a thing as a communist. But "homophobia" masquerades as a scientific description of a phobia that does not exist in any medical list of phobias.”

"But the question is, whose society would prevail and flourish longer on whose absolutes?

History tells."

History tells you ain't even close to the curve, yet, Fundie. :)

Sally Quinn wrote "I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

People love their dog but it's a different matter if that love means having sex with their dog.

A male horse copulating another male horse? Will there be a horse owner who would make a stable exclusively for gay horses? None of course.

The same goes with the Constitution. Only a stupid government will make a provision that would legalize a kind of "love-making" that's not normal.

The Constitution is a SANE DOCUMENT. Just do your foolish act without touching the Constitution and not make it appear as a document fit for the garbage bin.

Confine the foolishness to yourselves and leave the Constitution alone.

The mere mention that gay marriage will be allowed in the Constitution means their homosexual sex acts will also be condoned by the Constitution.

Stupidity always attract trouble. The kind of trouble which slavery brought. It brought death to millions of people thru civil war.

Gay marriage is as troublesome as slavery. God has set an example by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

***

MARKED FOR DESTRUCTION

It's a sign from God that the place is marked for destruction. Sodom and Gomorrah was set as an example. If the enemies of America are looking for SOFT TARGET, then this is it. They can fire their weapons at will and God will be the one who will put more destructive power to it. It is best that the people of God start moving away from this place. GO , BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

***

COME INTO MY PARLOR, SAID THE SPIDER TO THE FLY.

The flies all over America would hopefully settle in Califonia attracted by this gay marriage law. Then the Spider would make it's move. Ah, how intelligent is the Lord. His Wrath can no longer wait to whip all these flies with one strike.

SEE THE HAND OF THE LORD WORKING. IT IS SLOW BUT IT'S GRINDING EXCEEDING SMALL.

And again we "googlize" the topic:

And these comments by the author of the article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_4:

“The Hebrew Bible, in particular the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), has done more to civilize the world than any other book or idea in history. It is the Hebrew Bible that gave humanity such ideas as a universal, moral, loving God; ethical obligations to this God; the need for history to move forward to moral and spiritual redemption; the belief that history has meaning; and the notion that human freedom and social justice are the divinely desired states for all people. It gave the world the Ten Commandments and ethical monotheism.

See the article for added Torah qualifications by the author, Dennis Prager.

To Google we go again:

Recently:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n112/ai_14466341/pg_4:

Excerpt:
Edward Westermark observed that "it is a common belief among the Arabic-speaking mountaineers of Northern Morocco that a boy cannot learn the Koran well unless a scribe commits pederasty with him. So also an apprentice is supposed to learn his trade by having intercourse with his master."(9)

There was a far greater cohesiveness in morality only a generation ago. Even more 2 generations ago. Any reasonable thinking mind would affirm that.

Paganplace,

Excuse my typos...but I think you know that I would not even consider your absolutes, as you obviously wouldn't mine.

But the question is, whose society would prevail and flourish longer on whose absolutes?

History tells.

Elementary.

To Google we go:

http://epistle.us/hbarticles/neareast.html

Excerpt:

" First, homosexuality in many forms pervaded the ancient Near East, and with more openness beyond Egypt. As long as persons got married and had families, " " activity was generally accepted as part and parcel of life. Still, there was a certain stigma attached to a man who took the passive, womanly role in a " " relationship.

SC Cromett, Chris Everett, Robert B,

I do doubt conservatives read Edward Gibbon's tome or derive their thoughts and quote from it as asked by Robert B. One reads and hears more of Ayn Rand influencing some conservatives. There's neo-conservtives, which I think some would love on their foreign policy, and there's paleoconservatives and there's Goldwater conservatives among others.

Gibbon's work is quite a literarary masterpiece thought. A pleasurable read as is Herodotus' "The Histories". Oh, some historians opined that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is also due to lead poisoning of the Roman elites. Lead was an element in their eating utensils.

Most serious historians fundamentally said it was just imperial overstretch, internal and external challenges to their control. Nothing to do with Roman orgies and debaucheries as exemplified by Nero the fiddler while Rome burned. Nahh, he never did that. But he did had a great wild and nutty time while it lasted.

You three know this already.

And what has what Gibbons wrote on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire got to do with gay unions? There's this Sodom and Gomorrah, gay horses, nature vs nurture, inclination vs preference, acceptance and accomodation vs tolerence and intolerance etc, no?

regards
"J"

TDay claims:
"We used to be a much stronger, cohesive country."

Yeah, right, if you were white, Christian (preferably protestant), reasonably well-off, and not foreign born or the child of someone foreign born. Even then white guys managed to have the Civil War. Real cohesive.....

Try again, Tday?

>>You wouldn't last a *day* with *my* 'absolutes,' sport. Not how you talk.

*You wouldn't last a day without my absolutes.*

Wouldn't want to.

Much of our society also wouldn't and more of them didnt a generation and beyond ago.

We used to be a much stronger, cohesive country.

And not by how you talk.

"Still, I tend to agree with Ms. Jacoby that California is handing the radical wing of the GOP a stick to beat the Dems with again."

Let's see.

The last election, the radicals in the GOP took the honorable service record of a war medal-decorated veteran who went back under fire to save his shipmates in some god-forsaken river in Vietnam and turned that admirable service, dedication and love of country into a liability in running against a draft-dodging, coke-addled, dry drunk absolute f**k-up of a laughing-at-the-deaths-of-servicemen-he-sent-to-die-for -no-reason, knowingly-lied-the-country-into-war-after doing-nothing-to-stop-bin-Laden's-attack-on-the-WTC "president"...and watched with glee as the war hero narrowly lost the election to Cokie McCokespoon.

So, why all the angst about "handing" the GOP a wedge issue? They don't need a wedge issue. They'll just fabricate one.

TDay:

"No absolutes = little or no hope."

Why?

Who taught you that?

Hope is *most powerful* when 'absolutes' say 'All is lost.'

Not to mention that you insist I personally do not hold to any 'absolutes' because I don't share the ones *you* try to cram the universe into.

Be that as it may. What I think are 'absolutes' are things like honesty and fairness and justice, not some book mumbled over or shouted from as some kind of talisman.

"Sorry, paganplace, but reading history is quite a bit more enlightening than whatever it is you were trying to say in your previous response."

If you think homosexuality had a causal relationship with the fall of empires, (And not, I suppose, the rise of civilizations, lemme tell ya, once-born, it's a constant,)

Then I question your claims to 'enlightenment.'

Cause there you stand claiming that the effects of perfectly-traceable actions that I for one among many have been warning about since I could form words, ...are to be blamed on gay people, but, no, no, no, don't prepare or adapt.

This, again, is what *you* choose.

You wouldn't last a *day* with *my* 'absolutes,' sport. Not how you talk.

"How does homosexuality fit in with intelligent design I wonder? I mean like what went wong?"

People's presumption that the Bible is the 'manual?'

An 'intelligently-designed' universe where people don't presume gay people (or animals) are 'wrong' is perfectly harmonious.

An 'intelligently-designed' universe where gay people exist only to be punished for being 'unnatural' would have to have been 'designed' by a sadist or madman.

Thats the whole issue. They are not 'my' taboos.

No absolutes = little or no hope.

Sorry, paganplace, but reading history is quite a bit more enlightening than whatever it is you were trying to say in your previous response.

Oh there Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Again, it is time to address the much more important issue, i.e. the "femsy" (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of Islam. We have been expecting said commentary for months. What is the delay????

How does homosexuality fit in with intelligent design I wonder? I mean like what went wong?

Surely the Great Designer would get it right every time wouldn't He? If, that is, there IS a Great Designer.

There are so many accidents and errors created by nature, you'd have to figure it is blind and neutral without any great Brain behind it.

Siamese twins joined at the head; children born with grotesque defects; these horrors suggest the absence of any kind of God, who surely, if He existed would get it right. Why on earth would He 'create' children so cruelly doomed to experience a brief life of pain?
Do we have an incompetent God? A lazy non-caring God? A God of limited powers? Or just an imaginary God that our dumb and fearful ancestors passed on down to us? The latter makes the most sense.

"Nonsese to you, Paganplace...with all due respect."

Due respect would be responding to my own argument, or at least *referring to it.*

"The undeniable fact that human beings repeat their own history thru the ages is not a scapegoat or cop-out or anything of the like."

Scapegoating is part of history, too. People trying to keep their privilege in a failing system by claiming it's not about bad policy, but rather a failure of someone to meet the requirements of an irrational taboo... That's certainly part of history.

Civilizations have certainly blamed queers for impending falls, especially retroactively. It's a very nice 'morality play' for people trying to do the same thing. "It'll be different, this time, as long as all a yall don't masturbate or nothing."

Yah.

But when we can chart the real and measureable reasons, it is superstition and scapegoating to throw up your hands and say, 'God must have done it. We didn't build enough giant heads on Easter island, here. Blame some witches or infidels, and keep overextending and overstratifying our economy beyond what the environment and circumstance can bear.'

Where history's repeating itself, right now, is people looking for excuses to do things they know they can't get away with much longer, ...and to provide said excuse, still trying to scapegoat someone for the consequences.

I say, if the Gods ever cast down the mighty, it's much more about injustice and blindness, greed, xenophobia, inhospitality, corruption and hypocrisy, than it could ever be about sex or your tabooes.

Even your Jesus taught you better.

This is what *you* chose.

Nonsese to you, Paganplace...with all due respect.

The undeniable fact that human beings repeat their own history thru the ages is not a scapegoat or cop-out or anything of the like.

You and I and the family of man are living in a time of great change...Change that is already at work throwing this civilization into a tail spin of great proportions.

Fasten your seat belt...but be sure that there are better times ahead here on this globe we share. (And no, it wont be up in the clouds with harps)

Chris,

They clearly have never read Gibbon, who was one of the lights of the 18th Century Enlightenment freethinkers! His main thesis blames Christianity for the decline and fall of the empire. I wonder if they get him mixed up with Edmund Burke?

PP
'What the heck were those justices supposed to do, make an *unjust ruling* and set some nasty precedent?'

No, if they were doing their jobs they had no choice.

SC:

"Robert B. I very much agree with you and Susan on this issue to as far as the timing and ramifications of an issue that could cost the Progressives the presidency"

We're not going to let that happen, regardless.

What the heck were those justices supposed to do, make an *unjust ruling* and set some nasty precedent?

Robert B.,

I know that G. Gordon Liddy and Bill O'Reilly have represented Gibbon as saying that homosexuality was a primary cause (and moral degeneration generally). But I mainly had in mind my own experiences working with some very conservative people (particularly in Amarillo TX). There seem to be some touchstone people (e.g. Gibbon, Ayn Rand, Hayek) who are used as some sort of fake basis for whatever fundamentalist conservative right-wing point of view is being discussed. It's a posture that substitutes for knowledge.

All this flap over homosexuals is distracting from the truly important issues, like passing a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, protecting manditory school prayer, protecting "under God" in the pledge, and protecting "In God we trust" on the currency. Oh yeah - also banning the teaching of Darwinism and the Big Bang. They're only *theories* anyway.

“But scapegoating modern minorities as though gay people cause the fall of civilizations, that's just the kind of superstition that blinds such civilizations to what's really threatening the society, .... till it's too late.“

Paganplace, you are so right.

Robert B. I very much agree with you and Susan on this issue to as far as the timing and ramifications of an issue that could cost the Progressives the presidency. The “in the short run” issues of the war, the economy, and the threat of a autocratic presidency outweigh the longer term issue of equity. Because if the progressives lose the election, the fight for equal rights for gays will be held back. In politics, sometimes you must time your fights. This is not the time, unfortunately, though if we end up with both a Democratic Congress and presidency, the chance for progress on gay rights goes up.

Chris Everett, Gibbon is probably the most famous of the Enlightenment thinkers who blamed the fall of the Roman Empire due in large part to the sectarian squabbles among the Christians. (It is also one of the most tedious reads I've ever slogged through.) Contemporary historical thought does not make this such a significant issue.

"Still, I tend to agree with Ms. Jacoby that California is handing the radical wing of the GOP a stick to beat the Dems with again."

Frankly, they'd be beating with that stick whether this ruling happened or not: if fact, though, the court which handed it down was strongly-conservative, so in a way, if reason were somehow involved, they wouldn't be able to claim appointing still more GOP judges would change the right of the matter, or get the Fundies their way.

To Christ Everett --

Could you provide an example of a conservative who claims this about Gibbon? I've never heard them use this argument before...

Sexual orientation happens

When you focus on another person, that person becomes impressed upon your mind. This impression forms images and feelings about that person. People of one sex impress sexual feelings upon the mind. People of the other sex do not. This is sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation happens. It is an impression on the mind as much as the impression of a Spring morning or the impression of a band playing. It is the flow of sensory impressions as the flow of hot water or the flow of cold water on your skin, on your body while taking a shower. Sexual orientation is an impression on the mind, as the smell of coffee, or the taste of brownies, or the purr of a soft kitten.

How these impressions form images in our minds is an autonomic process beyond conscious control, but is a part of the mental apparatus which exists inside each one of us. When your impressions of sexual feeling come from someone of the opposite sex, you are said to be heterosexual. But when these impressions come from someone of the same sex, then you are said to be homosexual.

Under this conception of sexual orientation, it does not matter whether it is genetic or acquired, but only that it is an unconscious mental process. It does not matter whether you have been promiscuous or a virgin or what sex acts you may have already experienced, only the impression of another human being on your mind matters. It doesn’t matter how much testosterone or estrogen may flow through your body, nor whether your physical mannerisms are more feminine or masculine in character, only the impression of another person on the mind matters.

For sexual orientation happens, as vision happens, as hearing happens. Sexual orientation happens, as the beating of the heart happens, as the breath of the lungs happens, as consciousness happens.

I've never read Gibbon's classic work, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," but it's often cited by conservatives as proof that homosexuality was the root cause. How surprising, then, to see this synopsis on Wikipedia:

"According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens. They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, 'manly' military lifestyle. In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit. Lastly, like other Enlightenment thinkers, Gibbon held in contempt the Middle Ages as a priest-ridden, superstitious, dark age. It was not until his own age of reason and rational thought, it was believed, that human history could resume its progress."

S C Cromett,

On the "God will condemn the U.S." issue, we agree.

Still, I tend to agree with Ms. Jacoby that California is handing the radical wing of the GOP a stick to beat the Dems with again. Then again, I live in Marilyn Musgrave's congressional district. She was the sponsor of the federal marriage amendment and once claimed that gay marriage was the number one issue facing America.

Well, the Empire certainly didn't fall cause of gays not being sufficiently-scapegoated.

In fact, one could read some of the oratory of the day and maybe see where Romans (actually more puritanical than portrayed) may have been *diverted* by scapegoating 'decadence' when they should have been managing corruption and patronage, better.

This is why Julius Caesar ended up taking over in the first place, in many respects, turning the Republic *to* an Empire, which may have been a short-term solution, but really set the stage for the fall, as well. Empires fall.

It's a popular myth that 'moral decadence' caused the fall of Rome, but that is just a story people are attached to, cause it's so appealing to Christians.

But scapegoating modern minorities as though gay people cause the fall of civilizations, that's just the kind of superstition that blinds such civilizations to what's really threatening the society, .... till it's too late.

Robert B.

AS I said, I didn't think it had much influence, on way or the other, just as I think the "God will smite us down if we allow gay marriage" argument is silly.

Old Hippie supports monogamous civil arrangments of all stripes, types, and gender orientations - religion is of course optional.

Polygamists will just have to get a room, because both cultural tradition and more importantly, the legal complexities inherent and/or implied in said 'marital' arrangements will ensure that they remain outside the purview of our legal system in the foreseeable future.

To S.C. Crommett, who wrote: "It didn't fall until it became Christian. Do I think that fact has any being on the issue of state survival? Probably not much, though arguments have been made that the rise of Christianity and all the resulting religious disputes weakened the empire."

Actually, the empire was well on its way to collapse in the third century, when the Christians were persecuted as a scapegoat for the ills of the empire. An argument can be made that Constantine actually extended the life of the empire by taking advantage of the Christian organizational scheme.

Gibbon wrote that if the Christian religion hastened the fall of the western empire, it also cushioned the fall by taming the Germanic character to a certain extent. I tend to agree with this premise, if only because without Christian monks scribbling away in the monasteries, many (if not most) of the great works of Greece and Rome might have ended up as fuel for German cooking fires.

The below actually speaks to a lot of the 'moderate' positions, or those that say, 'The state should just say out of it,' (not gonna happen: people need contract law) or, 'Why don't you just this-or-that?'

There's generally very good reasons why *not* "Why don't you just."

This court ruling's about what *is* just. Period.

Popular measures may or may not be complete, or just, or practical, or have unforseen or unintended legal implications, and that's why we *have* Supreme Courts.

(Sorry if this repeats, glitch on my end)

Well, Old, communal living arrangements don't provide legal protections, even for the space or land, which not everyone can afford to have, or have lawyers work out and maintain the same kind of paperwork that marriages just get as a package. Why should straights get all that for free, and others not, just cause they don't like us?

Poly considerations aside, no one can really live on an 'island,' in that way, and in fact, the injustices of marriage inequality hit *really* hardest on those who are poorer and/or have health or other complications (like hostile homophobic families or 'in-laws' who'd like nothing better than to claim the joint property of someone they've been trying to harm all their lives,) as well.

It's actually a major lot of 'collateral damage' regarding laws the anti-gay-marriage agenda pushed through: many of them have language which actually invalidates a whole lot of private contracts, even between people who are not romantically-involved: for example, two straight buddies in Virginia go in together on a hunting cabin, and draw up an agreement that the other inherits it upon the passing of the other, that's 'a right similar to marriage between members of the same sex,' ...OK, now greedy relatives of the deceased can claim a share of said cabin and force a sale of it to get it.

(So much for the idea this is about 'the definition of marriage:' most anti-gay laws try to outlaw both civil unions and even private contracts for those who can afford them. )

There's a lot of impact, there, even for people who *aren't* romantically or sexually involved.

Whatever happened to the idea of communal living? This concept seemed to thrive back in the 1960s and well into the 1970s (yes, I know there were also religious communities aplenty back in the early 19th century). I suppose the downside was that these fundamentally loose social arrangements were without much staying power - but economically speaking, were of considerable benefit to those involved. Seems like a possiblity for modern consumers of the minimalist school and with a strong tolerance for the habits of others - although the idea for many is probably about as appealing as car--pooling, and for similar reasons.

Instead of polygamous marriages, which I predict will never fly as a valid contractual arrangement under civil law anytime in any of our futures - just rent a commonly occupied property for whichever consenting adults in whatever sexual arrangements - why wouldn't this work just as well?

Why do these arrangements ncesessarily have to be governed by statutory and civil laws?? I for one prefer fewer laws and legal limitations infringing on my private life - and the main reason I'd never get married again....but of course, that's just me.

The problem, of course, will always be the inclusion of children in such arrangements, as we've seen with the Warren Jeffs inspired operations that just got busted in Texas. The whole business of biblically and religiously inspired polygamy is pathological and perverse, to my mind - and ultimately an Old Testament style patriarchy, without question.

I remember visiting The Farm many years ago - a large and economically self-sufficient commune located in Tennessee, and famous for the period (I believe a fellow named Stephen Gaskin was the founder). They seemed to be functioning fairly well ....with a variety of living arrangements for the membership - and built with both communal and private dwellings on several hundred acres, as I recall. I wonder how they're doing these days?? Or if......

While the religionists proclaim marriage as a holy sacrament, secular society has always considered it primarily a civil/legal arrangement in order to control property rights issues and child welfare considerations. That being the case, civil unions (that some call marriage) will always be blessed by the state first, with blessings from the religion of your choice being optional.

Dear PaganPlace

You hit on a good word there, "scapegoat."

All this anti-gay stuff is nothing more than people needing a "scapegoat."

Paganplace.

I agree that is nonsense. I do find it pathetic that people like TD toss these statements on the table with no evidence. I always like to use the Roman Empire as an example. In it's most decadent period, the first half of the first century, it was at its peak of strength and creativity. It didn't fall until it became Christian. Do I think that fact has any being on the issue of state survival? Probably not much, though arguments have been made that the rise of Christianity and all the resulting religious disputes weakened the empire.

That's nonsense, TDay.

Certainly America isn't the *first* nation that overreached itself militarily, economically, colonialistically, government patronage and corruption, and in terms of social and economic stratification, for which people superstitiously blamed a minority or someone having the wrong kind of sex...

But that doesn't make *those* stories actually *true,* either.

Just means certain types would rather scapegoat than deal with what's really going on.

'The striking dysfunction actually lies in the thought that pervasive, at times agressive, homosexual behavior/lifestyle and the promotion of the same in societies past has either been the root cause or a major factor in the eventual fall of those societies.

No civilization has been strenghened by such perverse behavior. None.

Neither will ours.'

Give examples. You can't just toss out a sweeping generalization like that without evidence abd be credible.

Well, I agree in principle with Doug, Daniel, but the fact is that poly marriage, apart from being wildly unpopular an idea, has an issue in that the practicalities involved would probably take a huge amount of new law codes, so it's really a separate issue, any way you slice it.

It's not just a matter of ending discrimination: the laws are actually not structured to cover such arrangements.

This certainly means the 'slippery slope' arguments are based in a simplistic idea that everything someone calls a 'sin' is the same, not any understanding of the law or what this issue is about, though.

I certainly *don't* think there's anything inherently wrong with poly arrangements, as long as all partners are willing adults treated fairly and equally under the law. But it's another matter entirely.

The striking dysfunction actually lies in the thought that pervasive, at times agressive, homosexual behavior/lifestyle and the promotion of the same in societies past has either been the root cause or a major factor in the eventual fall of those societies.

No civilization has been strenghened by such perverse behavior. None.

Neither will ours.

Doug

Millions of gay people want gay marriage. It is a grass-roots mass-movement. All you need to do is get out of the way, and stop obstructing progress.

Millions of people do not want polygamous marriage, at least not that I know of. If you want to spend your whole life working against the adoption of polygamous marriage laws, then go ahead, be my guest, but what would be the point? Nobody cares.

Usually, I find much to agree with in Susan Jacoby's essays, but this time, I must disagree with her assertion that the issue should be back-burnered until a less politically sensitive time.

In effect, it's saying to BGLT people, "You've managed to survive second-class citizen status this long; can't you wait just a little longer to take another step toward equality?"

As for her assumption that all polyamorous relationships operate on the Warren Jeffs model, she's misinformed. Polyamorous relationships among consenting adults should be eligible for the same legal recognition as any other relationship between consenting adults. They may require a bit more paperwork to ensure equiotable division of financial responsibilities, property, etc in case of divorce or death, but that seems a small price to pay for the equality we all deserve.

I'm afraid I still don't see a distinction between allowing gay and polygamous marriages, as long as everyone involved is a fully-informed and -consenting adult, from a "who is the rest of society to say they can't" perspective.

Arminius:
'IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

OPEN SEASON ON ALL SPIDEYS!'

Isn't that ALWAYS true? ;)

Gay people exist abundantly. Everybody knows one; everybody is related to one. Failure to recognize and accommodate their existence is a striking dysfunction in the world today, and especially within Christianity and Islam. This dysfunction needs to be addressed.

There are millions of gay people in the world. In the past they have been mute. Now, more and more of them are finding a voice. Now, when a gay person is slighted, there is a good chance that he will speak up. Merely speaking up for oneself is the "problem." And it is a "problem" that will not go away.

In the progress of humanity, sexual orientation is now viewed differently than it was in the past. I have noticed that the younger generation seems to be quite transformed in its consideration of sexual orientation and homosexuality. To them it is just part of life. Alot of young people even regard a gay person as an interesting, even exotic type of person to know, instead of an unacknowledged subject of taboo.

The old taboo against gays is gone, and it can never be brought back. The fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates this to be true. That is the progress of history. There is no tactic that anyone can devise that will undo this fact.

Even if the Constitution is amended to ban gay marriage, that will just mean more turmoil and distress in the resistance of progress, until the amendment is repealed. I believe this firmly.

Dear Joe

You have a good point, which goes along a little, with what I sometimes think to myself, but will put in writing here now.

Often anti-gay people say that they have nothing against homosexuality, they just don't want to know about it. What they really mean, is that as long as gay people stay in the closet, they don't have a problem. What they really object to is that gay people have finally found their voices and are speaking up. What they really object to is gay people living their lives openly and freely. That is a pretty big objection.

Gay people are going to come out on top of this eventually. Even if the Constitution is amended to ban gay marriage, the amendment will later be repealed, just as the amendment to ban alcohol was repealed. The reason for this is:

Homo-phobic people are not homophobic all of the time; they cannot keep up this anti-gay crusade 24 hours a day. They take breaks to go to work, to play with their grandchildren; they take days off, like Christmas and New Years. But gay people are gay all of the time, 24 hours a day, even when they are sleeping, even on holidays, even on Christmas Day, even in church on Sunday morning.

What I am trying to say is that, gay people are more motivated to the cause of their own freedom, than homophobic people are to obstructing the freedom of others. Anti-gay Christians can twist Christianity into any kind of perverted homophobic rant that they want, but there will still be gay people, sitting in the pew next to them, singing in the choir, performing the music, working every second of every day, for their own freedom, and for the defeat of people who would keep them forever in a position of inferiority.

Hi Susan and thanks for the article.
Yes, it is the hope that we will rise above these hotwire issues which rouse us up but do not lift us up.
However, the thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history and we can bet that some Swift Boat something or other will get the fine Christians of America all hepped up about the queers. Just count on it.
Christians are all about winning an argument. That's all there is to that dead religion. It's all about debate, gainsaying, majority wins; nanananabooboo theology, I call it.
But that's OK. Let the Christers blather on while gay people move on to a greater sense of life and love.

"I don't have the slightest idea why happily or unhappily married heterosexuals feel so threatened by the very existence of same-sex marriages..." Me either. They seem to be confusing or conflating the religious and civil meanings of the word MARRIAGE. Why would a red-blooded American male get violent during an encounter with a homosexual male? To extinguish hateful homosexual urges within himself? Eh?

I think the argument of finding gayness in nature is a bit flawed... Look seagulls poop on our heads at the beach but if someone starts using them as an excuse to poop on my head well... yeah better not. Anyway, finding an example in nature is just fraught with issues.

A better defense of Gay rights is... mind your own business.

And look how happily we can all get along.

eeesh,

I never know which is going to be uglier the religious right or the liberal left.

As usual it winds up a dead heat for pandering self indulgent hopeless diatribes that do nothing to elevate public thought beyond petty political turmoil. Curse the timing?

Option C?

*Sigh*

Oy vey! Gays do seem to bring out interesting responses from some.

Spidey going on about gay horses when I had thought those horses were just frisky and horsing around just as healthy horses are wont to do.

Concy going on "yuck" and how "yucky" here and there on same sex union and even exclaiming, "But we're not animals!!!!" in Sally Quinn's thread. Yeah well. Some animals do engage in homosexual acts.

And Daniel in the Lion's Den saying the Pope is "flaming". Is it those flaming red shoes the Pope sometimes wear? Or is it his long dress? Whatever the proper name is for what those sartorial apparels he wears in public.

My gaydar is not that good. I don't even think the Pope is gay as he hardly ever smile and look morose most of the time.

Concy and Spidey,

Do find and read the Washington Blade. Quite informative and educational on gay concerns and rights in the US. Even a touristing/business tripping foreigner knows of it after floating around Dupont Circle.

Get the Facts,

And the references are??

Bishop Crane's essay just about says it all for Christians and Catholics. Marriage should be a civil institution. Those Christians who see marriage between a man and a woman as a sacrament per the Gospels and who wish Christian or Catholic witness should call upon their priests or ministers.

Fair enough for persons of those religions. But as Shulamit, a self-identified Jew pointed out on Sally Quinn's thread, observant Jews are not demanding that the country refrain from eating pork, etc. She noted that no Muslims are insisting that all American women veil. How is it that Catholics and Christians have such an extraordinary sense of entitlement in this country and wield so much power?

As I asked earlier, why when listening to a PBS broadcast about the California ruling, was I informed of the Pope's view, without any limiting statement, such as "Perhaps of interest to Roman Catholics...." Certainly, it is not of much religious interest to Jews or Muslims for whom the Gospels are irrelevant.

As I mentioned when posting as Merry Anonymous, I was a captive (literally) of Christianity, in my youth. I wasn't an idiot, however, and I questioned the sense of absolute authority with which our teachers lessoned us. Atheism was the next logical step.
...................................
Down Low and Lee,

The Obama affair is complicated, I think, although your points are well taken, of course. Many people fear Hillary Clinton. Note how REpublicans continually stated that it would be more difficult for them to beat Obama than Clinton. Well, duh. If that wasn't one good reason to support her, I don't know what one would have been.

Then take the New York Post's "endorsement" of Obama, in which it warned its readers that Clinton was to his left, to the left of her husband as well, and that unlike either of them, she had the discipline to get her agenda through.

Take large conservative interests, white people with money, education, middle-class snobbery and guilt, and you've got a culture that substitutes sentiment and image for thought, a toxic situation. People who think they're smart, who confuse education with intelligence, fall right into the hands of vested interests, setting themselves apart from the benighted, ignorant, "bitter" working class. That these same people, whose every other Barack blessing is so patronizing as to be embarrassing, feel no compunction about criticizing Clinton's breasts, hips, wardrobe, you name it, escapes their genteel notice.

The Michelle Obama-Daley connection is no secret. Obama on health care is an open book. He has been rigorously covered by Paul Krugman of the New York Times, a liberal if ever there was one.

As for gay marriage, I can only repeat what I said earlier, gay people have to keep up the fight and make it a noisy one. You won't be alone. Many Christians and Catholics are going to keep on fighting this, intimidating the most liberal of candidates. Fight back.

.................................
Don and Quentin,

I agree. The time is never right for those demanding rights.

I can only say that I am saddened by the gay bashing here, and I can only assume that those who attack gays must be secretly and ashamedly gay themselves. Otherwise, why not just get a life? Openly gay people do have a life, apparently, and it doesn't hurt me!

Yes E Favorite, I have seen that picture.

He is teaching people that gay people are intrinsicdally disordered. And there he is, flaming. And I am not sure he even knows it. But surely, I am not the only one who notices, am I?

The whole thing makes my head want to explode.

What a twisted, tortured, and contorted ethos the Catholic Church has evolved into, not to mention, uncomfortable.

If they would just say "Jesus loves gay people, without qualifications," then all the weird tension would be gone, all in a single breath.

Hey DL,

What you mean jealous? What you mean swim? You know black folks don't like the water.

There is but the one way. Get on up, DL. You can't be half up and half down. It doesn't work and you know it. You been waitin all night on Hamlet? Waitin on the man? We gotta do for ourselves, for our black selves, for our gay selves, for our selves whatever they are.

You gotta get on up, DL. We all do. That means no Negroes, no waiting for the right time, no half ups and half downs. Theres only up. Theres only now, Baby. Uprightnow.

Lee,

You talkin bout Papa like he ain't here. I heard that Daley stuff before.

Baby, I ain't so down, I can't see, and ain't so down folks can't see me. You just jealous. Like you jealous of that old baptist cause you can't swim.

So now, how we gonna swim, Baby?

Daniel ITLD - I agree with you about the Pope. Have you seen the photo of him with a gorgeous young priest holding a microphone to his mouth?

I'd say the photographer thinks they're both gay.

However, to suggest the Pope is gay is slanderous - unlike, for instance, suggesting he looks German or that he seems to be in his late 70's at best.

Downlow,

Not all us black folk are as dumb as you think, Sug. Michelle is one foxy lady, from one foxy family, foxy like in the Chicago Daley machine foxy--old family, friends don't you know. Two real smart Negroes.

Time to get on up, DL.

Thor's Child,

What does the "NT" say about civil unions? I'm kinda thinking maybe that old Baptist had the hots for J.C. What do you think?

Sorry, Thor's child, I did sign, but anyway, my own view is what I said.

I care not at all about this man's view on anything.

Gay people are citizens. Like I said, I'm with Hamlet on this. IN fact, I'm with him on everything he said.

I hope you're around to read this Down Low.

Thor's Child,

I would gladly skip over the word Pope for the rest of my life. Prefer, though, that it simply be omitted from print.

We already have marriage via justices of the peace. If you prefer civil union, fine. I don't care. My only concern is with discrimination against gays.

I'm with Hamlet the atheist on this. Don't like discrimination, no way, no how.

My name is Lee. Forgot to sign, but I'm the anonymous you refer to.

I think Pope Benedict is gay. I don't say that to be mean; I don't hate gay people; I love gay people.

I just say it because, I think it is the elephant in the room, that is pretty obvious to anyone with eyes, and it just what a twisted and contorted mess this whole thing is about sexual orientation, and religious confusion over human sexuality.

I think the Pope is actually a pretty sad little guy and the Catholic homophobia is misguided, confused, misdirected, indicating a profound dysfunction, in the whole Catholic operation.

Oh there Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Now that you have addressed the yuck of homosexuality, it is time to address the much more important issue, i.e. the "femsy" (flaws, errors, muck, stench and yuck) of Islam.

SUSAN JACOBY:
"Timing is, in fact, everything in politics."

And if that's the case, I wonder what the Dems are doing nominating either a woman or a black as their candidate?

Seems the Lords of Political Timing would have looked at the field and said, "Hey Hillary, and Barak. We're all for equality and all, but we Dems REALLY need to beat the Rs in 2008, and it just isn't the right time for a woman named Clinton or a black guy to run against what's sure to be a white guy. The timing's bad. We need to run a white guy who can out-hawk any R candidate and who can appeal to the racists in Kentucky. Maybe next time."

I guess it all comes down to WHO gets to make the decision on timing.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

OPEN SEASON ON ALL SPIDEYS!

Lee, Anonymous:
Did you both just skip past the rest of my post and read "POPE"?

MB: How about civil unions for all? That would be united and equal! Besides, the OT said nothing about civil unions.

Sally Quinn wrote "I can’t imagine a Jesus or a loving God who would say no to love of any kind."

I feel my response deserves to be posted in here too. (same topic - gay marriage)

People love their dog but it's a different matter if that love means having sex with their dog.

A male horse copulating another male horse? Will there be a horse owner who would make a stable exclusively for gay horses? None of course.

The same goes with the Constitution. Only a stupid government will make a provision that would legalize a kind of "love-making" that's not normal.

The Constitution is a SANE DOCUMENT. Just do your foolish act without touching the Constitution and not make it appear as a document fit for the garbage bin.

Confine the foolishness to yourselves and leave the Constitution alone.

Stupidity always attract trouble. The kind of trouble which slavery brought. It brought death to millions of people thru civil war.

Gay marriage is as troublesome as slavery. God has set an example by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

***

MARKED FOR DESTRUCTION

It's a sign from God that the place is marked for destruction. Sodom and Gomorrah was set as an example. If the enemies of America are looking for SOFT TARGET, then this is it. They can fire their weapons at will and God will be the one who will put more destructive power to it. It is best that the people of God start moving away from this place. GO , BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

***

COME INTO MY PARLOR, SAID THE SPIDER TO THE FLY.

The flies all over America would hopefully settle in Califonia attracted by this gay marriage law. Then the Spider would make it's move. Ah, how intelligent is the Lord. His Wrath can no longer wait to whip all these flies with one strike.

SEE THE HAND OF THE LORD WORKING. IT IS SLOW BUT IT'S GRINDING EXCEEDING SMALL.

Daniel ITLD,

C'mon, dude! Gird your loins for combat. Or at least a good exchange of words. Not all here are locked in cages. The problems that most need solving are the toughest, and the opponents are the most brutal and closed-minded.

Arminius

Affording marriage rights to same-sex civil unions is the new "separate but equal." That worked out well last time, right?

You know what, Arminius?

I had thought that the other silly questions were boring. But now that we have one that is a little more substantial, I am demoralized, at how mean and petty people are about all this stuff, and about how tightly their hearts are clenched shut.

Now, I am sort of wishing, once again, for a dull and boring topic, that doesn't mean much.

Arminius,

You can always temp, dude.

; )

and I say - hooray for California! This is only ever a political move. EVERYONE is related to someone who is gay - there's not one person this doesn't affect. So why do certain conservative/fundamentalist groups want to keep gays down? Is it because they have no one else left to feel superior to?

I have to say I agree with you Anonymous. I'm really sick and tired of this guy. I'm not Catholic, and even if I were, why is this national news? Or even international?

Give it a rest. I do not care what this man thinks about anything. About anything at all, not about gay marriage, not about abortion, not about the best lawn and garden fertilizer.

In other words, get out of my face.

What does the Pope have to do with the US government?

What does any religious leader have to do with American legislation?

Why do I continually have to hear about what this man says and thinks as if it were of universal interest?

I'm quite certain that is not the case.

Maybe we should just take a page out of the New Testament: Render unto Cesar...

Marriage serves two purposes in the US:
1)legal recognition of the contractual relationship between two people, which gives legal rights to them like insurance and medical visitation rights, and

2)religious recognition, which 'sanctifies' the union in the eyes of the religious community, and, according to them, in the eyes of their deity.

The religious community gets up in arms about 'redefining marriage.' So what? Let them have it. Why don't we just get government out of sanctioning a religious term? How about we call the legal part a 'civil union' for everyone? Then the religious communities can fight over who gets to define 'marriage,' or they can agree to each define it their own way.

Everyone would then just go to the courthouse to get a 'civil union' license, and if they want, they could get a 'marriage' from their favorite religious officiant as well. It is exactly what we do now, but with the terms clarified.

Does anyone who is not Roman Catholic care if the Pope does not recognize their marriage? It should be like that for all religious groups.

Daniel ITLD,

My favorite from the Song of Songs (aka Song of Solomon) is this:

Who is she that looketh forth as the morning,
Fair as the moon, Clear as the sun,
Terrible as an army with banners?
Song of Solomon 6:9-11

Only a man who truly loves women knows what that last line means.

Arminius

You watching this, Hamlet? Ain't it a riot? Alexander, my man, and the Bible. Everything except what you say.

Hope you watching Hamlet. White folks just kill me. Always have. Been killing me a long time.

You can tell that I did not copy and paste my Biblical quote from www.fundamentalist.com because I mispelled a couple of words. No, I actually drew upon my knowledge, and hunted up this quote, all on my own.

And as for gays in the military, just take a look at Alexander the Great. He was the greatest general and the greatest warrior in history, not that there is anything right about that, but look at him. And he had his life long friend and partner Hisphaistien (whose name I know, but cannot spell, off the top of my head).

Keep watchin Hamlet. Keep reading and keep watching. You gonna be alone here except for me, so you best keep watching.

Great column by Jacoby. She hits the nail squarely on the head. Sadly, the morally bankrupt right-wing shills will beat this dead horse all the way to November. (Never mind, of course, that John McCain has come out in favor of civil unions.) Let's hope voters, even those who tend to lean in a conservative direction, will wake up and realize what really matters this year.
(OK, OK, I know that may be asking a bit much, but I can dream, can't I?)

from the Old Testament Book of the Song of Solomon

Chapter 2

3 As an apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among young men. With great delgiht, I sat in his shadow, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

4 He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.

5 Sustain me with raisins, refresh me with apples; for I am sick with love.

6 O that his left hand were under my head, and that his right hand embraced me!

Get the Facts Correct:

For the most part I agree with your post. I do have a bit of a quarrel about the Spartans - that is disputed. What is not disputed is that homosexuality was accepted by the ancient Greeks.

Now I will give you an example of 300 top-notch soldiers who really were gay. In 371 BC (oh dear, BCE!), an army of Thebans (Boeotia) whipped the living crap of a larger army of Spartans. The first major defeat ever inflicted on those mighty soldiers. And what did it was a flanking movement by 300 soldiers known as the Sacred Band - 150 pairs of sworn homosexual lovers.

And the American army still has 'Don't ask, don't tell'.... when will we ever learn?

Arminius

Hamlet:

Word. You keep goin', man, but you just have to understand. Barack is a Negro. And white folks just love Negroes. Negroes make them feel warm and fuzzy all over themselves. And black folk are the easiest con in town. Don't get no easier.

Concerned the Christian:

You ask for references as if you doubt this? Do even minimal research. It is common knowledge that the ancient world practiced extensive homosexuality. Primary sources are rife with references to homosexuality and bisexuality.

Ever heard of the island of Lesbos?

What about Leonidas and his 300 Spartan soldiers who held off 10,000 Persians at the Pass of Thermopylae. Didn't know these most disciplined and vicious warriors were bisexual?

Mark Anthony reflecting on Julius Caesar, "He was every woman's man, and every man's woman."

A Different Point of View:

Biologically determined, yes, but by genetics, no. No research supports genetic determination. What the research indicates is that the levels of estrogen and testosterone produced by the pregnant mother have an in utero affect on the fetus which determines whether a child may be homosexual. Children from a first pregnancy are rarely homosexual. There appears to be an occasional change in the mother's endocrine system following a first pregnancy that causes these biochemical changes.

Commenting in this WaPo series of blogs, Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention, has proposed that pregnant women be tested for this "abnormality" so that they can be treated and the baby born with its "correct" sexual orientation. (His view, not mine.)

Susan,

Thank you for your reply. First, health care is a major issue that I've been following since the beginning of this campaign. As Paul Krugman has repeatedly pointed out, mandatory health care means affordable health care. That is, if health care is made mandatory, it will have to be made affordable.

Hillary Clinton has steadfastly supported mandatory health care, as Krugman points out. Meanwhile, Barack Obama publically stated that requiring mandatory healthcare would be analagous to requiring that all homeless people have houses. When Krugman reported on this, I was so incredulous as to have to track down the reference myself. Yes, he said it. And, at the same time, one reads Gail Collins explaining that there is no reason to vote for Clinton, unless "you're a fanatic about health care." Or, immigrants' rights, I might add. Let them eat cake.

There are, of course, many single people who cannot afford 700.00 a month in health care. There are young college students currently taking full course loads while working full time in order to get coverage. They fail, of course, costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars every year. There are people who die because they don't have health care. There are people who die from HMO disease.

But there are also people in Appalachia on Indian Reservations, who physically can't get to a doctor or hospital, who go to bed hungry. Theirs is a story you must see to believe. It's not far to go if you have money. Look at how Americans live. Watch American Indians go to bed without food.

For the urbanites. Domestic partnership? My union, a nontrad union, incidentally, signed a contract that had such limited rights for domestic partners that half the members, including yours truly, who doesn't have one (isn't gay, incidentally, has good doctors, and eats well), threatened to withdraw our membership. It was an uphill battle all the way, and what the union finally got for domestic partners and their children wasn't at all satisfactory. The problem was the very liberal state in which I live. Ironic.

This country goes its merry way attending to those issues that the media, with its various vested interests puts before us, and, frankly, I'm tired of it.

The times are out of joint. They will always be, and we well always have to be setting them right. If not now, when? If not us, then who?

I'd like universal health care, too, but in the meantime, please don't hold me hostage when I could be getting better health care under 'God-ordained' capitalism.

Susan, you said:
"But the basic problem with health care, for example, is not that people can't get coverage under their partner's plan (you're forgetting, by the way, about single people without partners, who are also human beings) but that we all don't have the right to decent health care as American citizens. Without regard to race, sex, sexual preference, or income"

BINGO! GOLD STAR! That is what it is all about. I am 65, unemployed with no future. I will only have health care through Medicare. Woopee.....

Arminius

To Hamlet:

I absolutely respect your position. But the basic problem with health care, for example, is not that people can't get coverage under their partner's plan (you're forgetting, by the way, about single people without partners, who are also human beings) but that we all don't have the right to decent health care as American citizens. Without regard to race, sex, sexual preference, or income.

GPTB | POLLTALK
May 11, 2004
Revisiting Gay Marriage vs. Civil Unions
by David W. Moore, Senior Gallup Poll Editor

In March, I reported on a Gallup survey that found a surge in public support for gay civil unions, but suggested part of the change was due to the interviewing process itself, not necessarily a real change in opinion. Our question in March found 54% of Americans supporting civil unions, compared with only 40% the previous July. But in the March survey, Gallup asked respondents first about their support for gay marriage and then about civil unions, while the previous July, Gallup had asked only about civil unions. Did this change in question context affect the results? I referred to an experiment testing just this question in a Pew Research Center poll, conducted in October 2003. The Pew results: Question order makes a difference.

While this information helped inform our interpretation of the new data, we could not say for sure how much of the increase in Gallup's new survey was due to question order, and how much was due to a real change in public opinion. In a recent Gallup survey, we re-asked the gay marriage and gay civil union questions, rotating the order -- so that half the sample heard the questions in one order, and half in reverse order.

The results confirm the following:

* There is a "real" increase in public support for gay civil unions over last year. When the civil unions question is asked first, Gallup now finds the public evenly divided in its view -- with 49% in favor and 48% opposed. Last July, Americans opposed gay civil unions by 57% to 40%. Current results show an eight-point increase in support and an eight-point decline in opposition. Support now is about the same as it was in May 2003.

Would you favor or oppose a law that would allow homosexual couples to legally form civil unions, giving them some of the legal rights of married couples?

Trend: Polls in which civil union question asked before gay marriage question or in which no gay marriage questions were asked

Favor/Oppose/No opinion

2004 May 2-4

49/48/3

2003 Jul 25-27

40/57/3

2003 May 5-7

49/49/2

2002 May 6-9

46/51/3

2002 Apr 8-11

45/46/9

"The issue of homosexual marriage is important because we cannot expect God to sustain our country against terroists and to bless us financially if we refuse to stand up for what we believe."

As a gay man that knows several gay men killed on 9/11 I find your comment to be in stunningly poor taste and obscenely offensive.

If that sort of crap is what your religion is all about, then no thank you.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that one of the fastest growing Christian churches is the MCC, the church comprised mostly of gay men and women.

You don't have a lock on morality. And from the tenor of your post, I think you've confused mean-spirited bigotry with morality.

Timing for social reform does not come about chronologically. It occurs amidst a confluence of factors that are not well understood.

That said, these are not the days of Stonewall. These are the days of fear and reaction, of looking abroad instead of at home for human/civil rights abuses, of letting the media guide thought even as we criticize it for manipulating us.

There will be no second, third, or fourth coming of liberatory action. With few exceptions, no one has ever given the disenfranchised power, and no one will. They must take it. In the case of gays and others, they have to step up send an unmistakeable message. And they have to send it over and over and over again.

Pace Susan, I wouldn't wait for the next Lyndon Johnson. LBJ had more than a decade of work in Civil Rights legislation before he ever became president. He was the most powerful Senate Majority leader in US history, up to and including the present. When will we see his equivalent with respect to gay rights, American Indian rights, Mexican American rights?

No, the times are out of joint...for a lot of folks. We have doctors without borders, while Americans of every shade can't get medical care, don't have indoor plumbing, go to bed hungry, can't marry, get receive benefits under their partner's health care plan.

The times are out of joint.

Spot on, Hamlet. The times are always out of joint, unless, of course, you are a priest in the Catholic Church, in which case, you already have some kid's joint.

Bottom line: Gay Americans are Americans. Like you said, end of discussion.

Spot on, Hamlet. The times are always out of joint, unless, of course, you a priest in the Catholic Church, in which case, you already have some kid's joint.

Bottom line: Gay Americans are Americans. Like you said, end of discussion.

Hello, Ms Jacoby:

"For major social changes to be legislated in a democracy, a critical mass of public support must be achieved."

Not for a court ruling, it's not. If it's unfair and Unconstitutional, that's what that is.

No, maybe no one's ready to vote for a referendum saying, 'Hey, let's acknowledge equal rights for same-sex couples,' and maybe even someone'll try and push through Constitutional Amendments while rasping,

"I will *make* it legal,"

But that's not the point of what courts do.

*Not* ruling it's unfair and unconstitutional won't *help* the real people that have been suffering from these injustices so long.

" Given the strong influence of retrograde forms of religion, I don't think we're anywhere near the point on gay marriage that we were on civil rights 44 years ago. Presidents can lead, but they can't drag the public behind them."

That's not what this is about.

This is about being Americans with equal protection under the law while someone else works out finding it in their hearts to 'think it's Ok.'

Ahhh...the demon has to come in here.

**************************************************

Jacoby : "....who probably couldn't care less about whether gay couples waste their share of money on the booming bridal industry. Catering for wedding receptions is, after all, one business that can't be exported to China and India."

Don't forget the other businesses such as:

* apppropriate sex tools, sexual pleasure facilitators and sexual hygiene stuff that "gays" also used as for "semi-straights" and "straights.

* sperm banks for her & her partnership who may want children

* surrogate mothers for him & him partnership who may want children

* oh yes, niched movie markets for "gays"

**************************************************

CCNL : "Gay relationships are "yucky" and always will be in MHO. DNA issues? Fear of women by men? Fear of men by women? Masturbation with a twist? Or simply again the "yuck factor"?

* "Yucky" because the two orifices used are one for food and drink entry (oh all right, to vomit too) and the other for human waste to exit?

Creativity are needed and condoms are used.

* The penis is also an instrument to discharge not only sperms, but also urine. It is a multi-purpose instrument as well as all those political statements and sexual politics "phallic symbolism" associated with it, including missiles, the Washington Monument etc

* Masturbation is just rubbing, rubbing, rubbing. Man by himself. Woman by herself. Man on woman. Woman on man. Man on man. Woman on woman.

Do not overdo. It may, at best inflame the passions, or start a real fire to light up cigarettes, barbeques and fireplaces.

* "Straight" men who fear "gay" men are probably repressed and their unbearable state of "gayness" waiting to burst out. They have no compunction in watching two women get it on.

Yuck, yuck, yuck.

What says you?

If you are a woman, and I am a woman, let's get it on as Madam and Eve. An unholy union?

If you are a man and I am a man, let's get it on as Adam and Steve. An unholy union?

It's just sex. And no children ensuing directly out of the union.

Yuck, yucky, yuckiest!?!?!?!?!?

Fear of sex? Fear of "gays"? Fear of same-sex sex?

It is all really about fear of sex itself?

Chris,

Well, shame on you for misspelling my name. And... shame on me, I never noticed!

Arminius

Daniel ITLD,

My take on Christianity is that it is both shrinking and changing, but will be around for quite a while. The shrinking is like that which happened in Europe. The changing is, I hope, into a more open and progressive religion. We will, though, always have the right wingnuts with us to some extent. Alas!

Arminius

Timing is, in fact, everything in politics. One of the main reasons why Lyndon Johnson was able to lead the battle for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was that he was in an extremely powerful position, as was the Democratic Party, after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and LBJ's own landslide victory over Barry Goldwater. Had LBJ tried to shepherd the same bills through the Senate in, say, 1959, Richard Nixon would have won the 1960 presidential election.

For major social changes to be legislated in a democracy, a critical mass of public support must be achieved. Given the strong influence of retrograde forms of religion, I don't think we're anywhere near the point on gay marriage that we were on civil rights 44 years ago. Presidents can lead, but they can't drag the public behind them.

I agree with the (stated) positions of Senators McCain, Obama and Clinton.

And Susan, I agree with your analysis. This is going to inflame the religious right. "Gay Marriage" is a pointlessly inflamatory issue that can only hurt liberalism.

Gratuitous endorsement: I want to see a McCain/Leiberman ticket.

Michelle,

You argue that God is part of the argument and that Christians need to stand up for God.

Presumably, heterosexuality is moral because God made men and women to desire each other and want to be together. To ask heterosexual men or women to deny this desire would be to ask them to go against how God made them. I assume that you would think this immoral. Am I correct?

Then consider this. The scientific evidence I have read suggests that homosexuality is genetically based. Since God created man, then God created man's genes. So God created the genes that cause men and women to be homosexual and to have the desire to be with someone of the same sex. If that is true, then isn't being against homosexuality the same as being against what God created and therefore, immoral?

PaganPlace:

"And as for people using it to play politics, check out how many of the justices voting in favor of gay marriage were actually Republican appointees and Christian conservatives.

I think it was very professional of them. Almost as if they were some sort of professional arbiters of Constitutional law and... Justice, or something."

ROTFLMAO!! Oh damn, there goes my knee again...

Ie, it's *important* when it's about *your* life.

And as for people using it to play politics, check out how many of the justices voting in favor of gay marriage were actually Republican appointees and Christian conservatives.

I think it was very professional of them. Almost as if they were some sort of professional arbiters of Constitutional law and... Justice, or something.

"But same-sex marriage is emphaticallly not the most important issue in America today--for gays or straights."

Unless of course you can't get your kids health care, keep your home, or see your sweetie in the hospital while she's croaking of something you couldn't afford to pay out of pocket for her to see a doctor for....

As an 'issue' about 'sanctity' or 'sin,' it's certainly not a big deal, but it is most *certainly* important to those who are affected by the injustices some seek to impose for a comfy 'definition.'

Does seem to finally get heard in court in election years, though. Tsk.

I remember thinking awhile back--

"The time is out of joint. O cursed spite. That ever I was born to set it right."

My wait for the occasion proved disastrous, as I recall.

H.

Arminius,

Agreed. Starhawk is always on target in my experience.

And I only just realized that your handle isn't Arminus! It's Arminius! Funny thing. Must be related to the patterns and templates that DITLD speaks of. My animal has evolved. Sad thing, though. I liked the name Arminus. Now it no longer exists.

Arminius

I think it is a losing battle for Christianity. In just a few short years, maybe you and I won't live so long, the churchs will be mostly empty. I just do not think the younger generation is going to put up with the anti-gay drum beat that most relgious people insist upon.

Chris,

An addendum: Starhawk has a good take on it too.

Chris,

I read Honor Moore's essay, and you are right. She hit the proverbial nail on the head with a sledge hammer. So do keep in mind that we 'few religious progressives' are in your camp on social issues, so religion is not totally bad. And I think our number is growing.

Oh, yes - your follow-up analysis on the upcoming election fits my view of the situation very well.

Arminius

Political Realism or the Time Ain't Right

The time ain't right. Nope. Not for us. For you, it's right, but not for us.

Right on, Hamlet.

Hamlet writes:

"Political Realism" is a dangerous term, as it inevitably serves the interests of those whose rights are not threatened in the Real.

I couldn't agree more. This line of political reasoning is old. The time is not, never is right, never was. As I sixty-seven-year-old black man, been there, heard that.

The time is never right. Political realism is for the haves or the have enoughs.

I think I may fall between Susan and Mr. Mark on the political realism scale. On the one hand, the Democrats are never shy about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, so I think there's a good chance they'll loose the election.

If they do loose, it will probably be because the Republicans will have taken control of the debate and pushed a hot-button issue like gay marriage, in response to which the Democrats will have either 1) fallen all over themselves to agree with the Republicans even more strongly than the Republicans agree with themselves, or 2) champion the hot-button cause, making the Democrats look "yucky", to use CCNL's term, and drive the electorate away.

Fortunately, Obama is skilled at taking the Republican cheap shots and raising them to a higher level, creating "teachable moments" that are essentially apolitical. It's Hegelian dialectic! This might actually turn the Republican smear machine against itself.

As for the rest of the Democratic party, they should keep their mouths shut for the next five months.

Susan,

"Political Realism" is a dangerous term, as it inevitably serves the interests of those whose rights are not threatened in the Real.

This goes to Gay people, among other disenfranchised groups. One, in particular, American Indians, have been so steadfastly ignored that they can, indeed, be said to be dying as the result of genocide.

When one raises the subject, one is off topic. History has been constructed so as to give Indians a kind of ancient pastness, yet the westward expansion persisted into the 1920s. The average income of American Indians is under 6,000 dollars annually. Their treaties are ignored. Their lands are stolen from them and the media says nothing. Why not?

Partly, because of advertising interests, media ownership. Some of the biggest thieves are big business.

So, better to look at other countries and their civil rights record. Easier. That Indians suffer from hunger in 2008, lack medical care, well, who cares?

It probably isn't political realism to raise the issue. Hence, neither Obama nor Clinton nor McCain have responded to me on this.

What is interesting is the amusement one sees on the faces of progressives in third-world countries when Americans discuss their much vaunted commitment to civil rights. Gay marriage? No. Right to choice? Imperiled? American Indians? Dying like flies.

And for those not well travelled, don't kid yourselves, these people are well aware of these facts. They are victims of the same occlusion, blindness that we visit on our own.

The thing is, though, that we are politically realistic.

Dear Susan -

Thanks for your response, but I believe you misread the political climate of 2008.

From what I've seen and heard so far, the country is ready to move away from Republican policies, and to move away in a dramatic fashion. That could well include coattails for Obama that INCLUDED gay rights issues, but it won't happen if progressives fall ONCE AGAIN for the "freely offered and well-intentioned" warnings of the Right that the champions of all that's right and good about this country "better be CAREFUL" about who and what they're willing to go to the mat for "or it could BACKFIRE on them."

You bring up a Supreme Court stacked with RW judges who will hurt the cause of gay rights. I would ask this - why worry about a future SCOTUS curtailing gay rights when the inaction and fear of progressives on the issue has an even more-insidious effect, right here in the present?

I could go on and on, but Dems and other progressives need to get a little bit of LBJ in their spines and act upon their convictions, come hell or high water. I am CONVINCED that many Americans vote Republican for the sole reason that Rs NEVER BACK DOWN, no matter how outrageous, bigoted and racist their platforms. THAT is what many Americans are waiting to see in Ds before they'll vote for them. What they HATE is to watch as Ds constantly cave to RW demands that Ds apologize for their beliefs, statements and actions. The country KNOWS the RWers have no room to talk, but they believe that "at least the RWers don't back down."

The bottom line: the country fears that if the Ds won't stand up for gays rights that "their" rights may not be stood up for either. It's the DUPLICITY they don't trust, not the support for the issue.

So, I would suggest that we back down from supporting gay rights AT OUR PERIL, and that means our immediate peril in 2008.

And, Susan, I'm not going to convict you of political realism, because I believe that you're falling prey to a "realism" that has been signed, sealed and delivered by the enemies of reason and equality. Which is to say, you've been scared into buying RW BS hook line & sinker.

I would like to recommend Honor Moore's essay under the Guest Voices section of this blog. She eloquently communicates the essence of committed relationship, gay or straight. It's enough to make you cry.

It also shows clearly, by contrast, the debilitating effects of religious indoctrination, and why religion is the enemy of civilization. While ignoramuses like Cal Thomas can only see biblically proscripted behavior, there is an entire world of tender, noble, and dare I say sacred reality to which the Cal's of the world are utterly blind, and over which they are happy to run roughshod in their imposition of ancient superstitious taboos.

Isn't that the very DEFINITION of evil - the willingness, by intention or neglect, to destroy the sacred in pursuit of vain illusion? And isn't that EXACTLY what the religious right is aiming for on the gay marriage issue?

It seems to me that progress in civilization isn't so much scientific or technological (though that IS a profound form of progress for sure), but the ability to recognize the evils that we have previously been blind to. When that happens it is an awakening, and humanity is the better for it. Although there have always been a few religious progressives on the awake side of these events, religion as a whole seems to always be on the blind side, stuck in the darkness of its ancient tribal ignorance.

Earlier, I posted that gays are living in what Agamben would call "a state of exception," but that probably takes the matter too far.

Exceptionalism is, however, being visited upon them. Whatever rights accrue to straights should accrue to gays. End of discussion.

Although ruling that gays have the right to marry would be consistent with civil rights rulings, the current Supreme Court is made up of Catholic and Christian conservatives, with one notable exception. Hence, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage rights would not be inevitable.

I'm not a lawyer, but it also seems to me that a great deal of preliminary decisions would have to come first, regarding state constitutions, federal vs. residual powers, etc., that could open up quite a can of worms.

Gay activists need to mobilize, and that means demonstrating, and making a lot of noise. This is, as I understand it, a secular society. The state and "church" are separate.

Exactly which part of that have we failed to get?

When I say that gay marriage is not the most important issue for either gays or straights in this election year, I do not mean to suggest that gay marriage is unimportant. But the ruinous foreign policy conducted by the Bush administration for the past eight years, and the future composition of the Supreme Court, are much more important to all Americans. Anyway who thinks that a Democrat should throw away any chance of being elected by campaigning on a
pro-gay marriage platform would do well to contemplate the long-term effect on gay rights if John McCain becomes our next president and has the opportunity to appoint another John Roberts or Antonin Scalia to the high court. If the charge against me is political realism, I plead guilty.

Trucker!

The GAME. Thanks for reminding me. Gotta go!

An interesting variety of opinions to be seen here, but we can still expect a few things to continue in place - marriages will very likely remain a civil issue and governed by civil laws, and marriage will similarly remain monogamous under those same laws in the USA. Are things any different in Canada?

A poster wonders about non-residents with multiple wives - could a travel visa to the USA or Canada be had for one husband and three wives, much less a legal residency and/or citizenship for the same? A temporary visa perhaps, but residency or marriage, no - that's a safe bet.

If the Supreme Court decides it has to make a ruling on civil unions between same sex couples based on a suit or legal action, I have a strong feeling the majority would rule in favor in today's political and social climate - but would not venture into the domain of religion and the institution of marriage, which is clearly not in their purview - Catholic majority or no.

While these prognostications are not hard to make and seem suited to the culture historically, died in the wool libertarians might argue to the contrary.

Today is a very big day for lovers of the 'beautiful game'. Today is the day of the European Champions League Cup Final being held this year in Moscow; and for the first time two English League teams play each other for the championship. Chelsea against Manchester United. The soccer should be of the highest quality. Both teams are very strong, very creative and both are determined not to let the other team win; knowing that history remembers only the winner.
It begins in one hour. Check your local sports station for coverage. This is a really BIG game for soccer lovers everywhere. This is it!
You think religion is important? You think the search for Zotte is important? Sorry. This game is what is REALLY important. See y'all much later.

Maybe all unions sanctioned by state law should be "civil unions" and "marriage," a term reserved for religious ceremonies and covenants. Sort of an end run around this whole issue.

The world does change...welcome to the 21st Century! As is often the case, the fundamentalists in their echo chambers think they can freeze society in the way it was in their formative years (with several folks here, oh, the 50's---though with some, that's the 1250's).

They're so confident the world will agree with them, and so surprised when it doesn't (re: all the court decisions that allow religious expression in a government context, only if the expression is determined to be civic and historical and to have no actual religious meaning at all!).

So, my prediction of what will actually happen (and I see several others have mentioned this) is that Marriage will return to its roots as a sacrament, a sacred blessed union, but having effect only within the specific religion chosen, under the wildly varying sets of rules and restrictions the vast variety of religions come up with.

In the meantime, government will assume its proper role of establishing the rules for civil partnership contracts, necessary to register the partnership with the state to become eligible for whatever benefits the state (and its voters) determines appropriate for that kind of partnership.

I'll continue to sing at friends' weddings, with the additional joy of knowing that, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, my friends will have both the sacrament they desire in their faith tradition, and equal rights and benefits under the Law!

I completely agree with Mr. Mark. In fact, I would have wrote a strikingly similar opinion.

I also am fond of Jacoby's work, but she is wrong on this one. Gay rights is THE civil rights issue of our generation (I am 25), and it is as important as any other issue right now and until we accept gays as equals.

Being a non-believer, Jacoby should give respect to the importance of this issue.

Mr Mark:

Well said.

Wiccan:

Re: Your post

Yes, I agree that denying gay people the right to marry is unConstitutional. Unltimately, the issue will have to go the Supreme Court, the sooner the better.

Same with the rights of American Indians, living in what Agamben calls "a state of exception"

Dear Susan -

I usually agree with your columns, but I must take exception to this one, for you seem to be saying that the human and civil rights of gays need take a back seat in 2008 because there's an election afoot.

That begs the question: at what time is it acceptable (or even desirable) for the populace of the USA to suspend or deny their Constitutionally guaranteed rights? When there's a world war raging, so it's OK to inter Japanese Americans? How about when it's the 1850s and women don't have the right to vote? Perhaps LBJ shouldn't have signed the Civil Rights Act and ceded the South to the Rs for the 50 years.

I would posit that in THIS country it is never acceptable or desirable to ignore, suspend or deny ANYBODY their equality under the law, presidential election be damned!

As far as their stands on gay marriage, Obama, Hillary and McCain are wrong. It's that simple.

Here's an idea: rather than the Dems cowering in fear that gay marriage will be used as a wedge issue, why not stick up for what's right and defend the equal rights of gays? Obama has shown that the best defense is a good offense, even if you need to write off the racist areas of the country (Kentucky, where 80% of people interviewed in exit polls said race WAS a factor in their voting preference - they voted against the black guy) to gain broad popular support.

In an election year where the Dems and the media are patting themselves on the back for the "historic" success of a black and a woman breaking through prejudices and stereotypes to gain their Party's presidential nomination, it seems those same candidates can't bring it upon themselves to stand up for the rights of their fellow Americans who happen to be gay.

As a lifelong Dem, straight, married with kids kind of guy, let me say this: we all have a lot of work to do before this country realizes its full potential, and no more so than in the area of giving equal rights to ALL its citizens.

Michelle:

Sure if you take God out of the equation it is hard to see why there is anything wrong with homosexual marriage. The issue of homosexual marriage is important because we cannot expect God to sustain our country against terrorists and to bless us financially if we refuse to stand up for what we believe.
------------------------------------

Michelle, are you doing a book of the month discussion tomorrow?

Michelle

You said:

"Homosexual marriage attacks the sanctity of the family and changes the moral fiber of our country."

How? I think the divorce rate is the problem. Maybe you should be more concerned about that, and what is the root cause of that.

You said:

"The issue of homosexual marriage is important because we cannot expect God to sustain our country against terroists and to bless us financially if we refuse to stand up for what we believe."

When you say "what we believe," aren't you assuming that everyone believes as you do? Are you really sure about that?

Please forgive me, I'm doing a CCNL and reposting something from another thread:

"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states." Wikipedia

"no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I notice the only qualifier in that statement is "any", not "unless the person is gay, or black, or non-Christian, or red-headed"...nope, these qualifiers aren't mentioned at all.

"The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states."

So the court in California is doing exactly what the Constitution demands of it, enforcing the principle that all men are created equal.

So what are y'all so upset about?

Civil unions to gays, marriage for heterosexual couples. Makes perfect sense and does not go against the wisdom of the race. We need some wisdom.

Michelle,

All I can say is: WHAT?

Whatever my opinion is about homosexuality as a Christian, not for a second do I believe that legalizing gay marriage or civil unions would "undermine the sanctity of marriage" in this country. Are you aware that about 50% of heterosexual marriages in this country end in divorce, and that the numbers are not much lower among self-identified christians? I would say heterosexuals have done a fine job ruining the sanctity of marriage all by themselves.

And what makes you think that legalizing gay marriage would bring on us the wrath of God but torturing people, invading countries, and giving tax breaks to the rich but refusing to feed the hungry and clothe the poor would not? Has God given us a priority list for the sins He ignores and the sins He punishes?

As Jesus has told us repeatedly in the Gospels, how about we each concentrate on the sin in our own lives and on our own need for mercy and grace?

E Fav,

I'm with Chris E. on the Bermuda shorts. These I have seen on men wearing black socks and oxfords. I don't understand.

Chris E writes:

"Whatever legitimate protections currently exist under the umbrella of marriage should be protected EXPLICITLY by legislation for that purpose, such as child protections."

I agree. However, marriage enmeshed in this country's economy and is not likely to disappear soon.

In the interim, whatever rights straights enjoy, gays must enjoy as well. The issue is foundational. If gay people do not enjoy these rights then, fundamentally, they are not being treated as full citizens.

Ultimately, the matter will have to go to the US Supreme Court, I suspect, and either marriage eligibility rights will be brought under federal auspices or the institution will be abolished or the Supreme Court will embarrass all rational people living in this country, a distinct possibility, since the majority of SC justices are Roman Catholic conservatives.

Currently, while states are willing to turn a blind eye to out of state marriages in which one or both partners do not meet the former's age requirements, gay marriages are unlikely to enjoy the same "legal" invisibilty, hnce, the need for "federal oversight." Revenues are involved, which means the matter will have to be taken seriously.

This is unlike the death penalty, where money is not involved. Therefore, it is all right for one state to execute people convited of capitol crimes and another not.

Irrationality rules, not nonrationality, but irrationality.

It is interesting to me how some groups, e.g., gay people, American Indians, should be put on the back burner so as not to distract.

Mr Mark

Yes of course I agree with your last comment,(on the previous thread), and I'm glad you wrote it, it's interesting and true. And I hope everyone reads it. It makes great sense.

My post was taking the believer's superstitious position that God IS, and commenting on what sort of a God then, IS this God, in this best of all possible worlds, as Candide might have said. What a mess! May as well be no God. Which is, of course, the way it is. No God. No any kind of unnatural force or intelligence. Only reality, which we do our best to comprehend and cope with.

Thanks also for your comments on music.
I guess that thread is closed anyway, and I do have a busy day ahead. Talk to you later.

Cheers

Sure if you take God out of the equation it is hard to see why there is anything wrong with homosexual marriage. But the truth is, the Christian right has the right and obligation to stand up for what we believe. Homosexual marriage attacks the sanctity of the family and changes the moral fiber of our country. If we don't stand up for what we believe than we will find ourselves in a country devoid of any moral virtues. What is truly difficult to understand is how 4 judges can overturn what 61 % of the population voted into law in a democratic country. The issue of homosexual marriage is important because we cannot expect God to sustain our country against terroists and to bless us financially if we refuse to stand up for what we believe.

E Favorite,

I was with you until the Bermuda shorts. Not just Yuck, but Obscene Yuck!

Regarding the homosexual "yuck" factor.

Some people feel that way about oysters or spinach or Bermuda shorts, or pierced noses or the sight of blood or mice or oral sex (heterosexual type).

I think those people should just avoid such things and leave everyone else in peace.

Doug,

The Christian response would be to recognize the first marriage, annul the others, jail the husband for bigamy, and put all the children in foster care. Now THAT'S family values!

BTW, what's the legal status if a Muslim with three wives moves to the USA from a country in which polygamy is legal? Does our law recognize zero, one or three of the women as his wife?

Do know what is a yucky abomination to me?

Repeat wedding invitations!

You get invited to a wedding; you get the gift; you get all dressed up; you sit through the solemn "sacred" occaision; you act all sincere, and wish everyone well, and then go home.

Then, later, after the divorce, and more time has passed than you realized, another wedding invitation from the same person.

Oh brother.

I hope McCain, as the spokesman for Republican homophobia, will not be lecturing all the rest of us about the sanctity of marriage, with his aging trophy wife, young enough to be his daughter, on his arm.

Susan also says "One of the major differences between polygamous marriage and gay marriage is that gay marriage involves consenting adults, in an emotional as well as a legal sense. Communities practicing polygamy isolate themselves from the outside world and indoctrinate children from Day 1 in the idea that the religious obligation of all girls is to be married off, at a young age, to any man chosen for them by their parents and the religious elders (all men) of their sect."

Again I disagree. You are conflating the PRINCIPAL of polygamous marriage with the clandestine PRACTICE of it in insane Mormon cults. You also ignore the fact that traditional heterosexual marriage constitutes the SAME ABUSE the way it's practiced in fundamentalist Hindu, Moslem and Jewish cult-ures. In fact, the MOST TRADITIONAL form of marriage is the one where the little girl is put on the market by her father once she begins to menstruate. If there were a God, THAT'S the kind of marriage HE would be interested in protecting.

Susan says "Of course the state must be involved in defining marriage. Marriage is fundamentally a legal contract--whatever romantic and religious associations are attached to the institution--and legal contracts are governed by civil law."

I strongly disagree. It's plain to me that marriage is NOT a legitimate secular institution and that the state should simply GET OUT of the marriage business. Appeals to issues like joint tax filing are appeals to the status quo, not to principle. And if marriage is fundamentally a legal contract and NOTHING MORE, then how can you accept the idea that men and women have different rights under contract law? Would it be acceptable for the state to prohibit you from entering into a publishing contract because you are a woman?

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, pure and simple, and should be the purview SOLEY of whatever religious institution is granting it. It should have NO LEGAL WEIGHT. All legal privilages that devolve from state sponsored marriage should be abolished. Whatever legitimate protections currently exist under the umbrella of marriage should be protected EXPLICITLY by legislation for that purpose, such as child protections.

Marriage as a state institution is ABSURD. ABSURD, ABSURD, ABSURD. It's completely antithetical to individual liberty. What's the clear philosophical basis for the current set of privilages (tax advantages, inheritance privilages, etc.)? There is none. Thus, it's merely a matter of convention that, say, the home mortgage interest deduction isn't available only to heterosexual married couples. Or joint ownership of a house in the first place.

Good Lord, if gay rights is on the ballot, that means CCNL will be voting for McCain!! Oh wait - he was going to anyway.

Bill L wrote: "Why not marriage for polygamist or any combination of consenting adults?"

Because such marriages are not equally binding between the participants. A marriage of a couple recognizes each person as an equal partner in the marriage, and equally liable in the eyes of the law for financial losses, child raising, etc. How many wives are in jail or having wages garnished for signing the fradulently prepared joint tax forms of their husbands? Many...

But when you get into multiple partners in a marriage, the equality disolves. The typical polygamist marriage of one man and many women is not equal amongst the partners. Is each woman equally liable for all the children her husband sires, or equally liable for his debts? Is each woman equal in the house and if they divorse, what compensation would the woman get? What would the man get?

Now I'm not saying you couldn't come up with some contractual style agreement that might make a polygamist marriage equally binding, but in its current form in the FLDS, it is not a marriage of equals, and therefore such a contract cannot be recognized by a state.

Ancient Gay Greeks? References please!!! Maybe the Greeks were not as evolved as we thought they were. Or as sanitary?

Gay marriage on the ballot in November will bring out the bigoted christian voters who almost always vote republican. Its simply a way to get them to the polls to increase republican chances for president and other real republican initiatives. That's all this is, it is nothing more. It is why this only comes up i an election year.

Too bad the christian right allows itself to be so easily manipulated, but that is typical of the religious, actually, it is a requirement.

I'm on your side, but I think it's a mistake to use the term "nutty initiative" when describing the proposed constitutional amendment in California.

You may violently disagree with the position, but given the sweeping national support for it, as well as the religious justification, tagging it as "nutty" is both provocative and insulting. (And no, you didn't actually call the proposal nutty, but the intent is pretty clear.)

Either that, or all those people are nuts :-)

- Mark

"Gay relationships are "yucky" and always will be in MHO. DNA issues? Fear of women by men? Fear of men by women? Masturbation with a twist? Or simply again the "yuck factor"?"

The "yuck factor" is highly variable by culture. In Ancient Greece, for example, it was considered "noble and manly." It is much less a yuck than it was 50 years ago in our society. Despite the desires of religious fundamentalists to keep the world frozen in the Middle Ages, cultures change. Acceptance of gays as human beings will eventually come to pass, just as it has for women and ethnic minorities, at least by the mainstream culture.

Gay relationships are "yucky" and always will be in MHO. DNA issues? Fear of women by men? Fear of men by women? Masturbation with a twist? Or simply again the "yuck factor"?

I'd like to add a postscript about polygamous marriage, because I have no doubt that many readers will raise this question. One of the major differences between polygamous marriage and gay marriage is that gay marriage involves consenting adults, in an emotional as well as a legal sense. Communities practicing polygamy isolate themselves from the outside world and indoctrinate children from Day 1 in the idea that the religious obligation of all girls is to be married off, at a young age, to any man chosen for them by their parents and the religious elders (all men) of their sect. Polygamous sects, as they exist in the United States today, are nothing more than institutionalized child abuse--in an emotional and sometimes physical sense--conducted in the name of religion. The issue of adult gay marriage has nothing to do with the mind control practiced by polygamous cults that raise girls to become breeders, beginning in their teens.

Bill L - yes, but only for women, as in the old Tibetan custom of polyandry. This way, one woman could have multiple husbands by law, but not the other way around. Husbands would have to remain faithful under penalty of death - spousal neglect would not be a valid excuse for infidelity. Now, doesn't that seem reasonable??

____________

I fully agree that the same sex marriage issue should remain on the back burner this time around so as not to provide 'morality' ammunition to McCain's evangelical base - this is a state by state issue anyway - let's indeed focus on the several major pressing national issues that Susan mentions here in her article. The gay rights marital/contractual issues will resolve in the affirmative over time by way of states-rights voting agendas down the road.

I agree with DuckPhup:

Simply separating the civil contract from the religious institution would take almost all the heat out of this issue, or should anyway. HOWEVER, the Gay-bashing community loves it because it is an excuse to attack the sinner, not because . Marriage for many of them is less a vital issue than it is an excuse to vent their homophobia. Believe me, they would and do attack Gays whether they are married or not.

Neither Gay nor married.

Bill L

Are there millions of polygamists seeking to make polygamous marriage legal? No there are not. Your question is disengenuous.

Personally, I think that it is MARRIAGE that should be chucked out the window. It is, after all, a 'religious' institution. In its place, we should implement a contractual arrangement... a "Domestic Partnership Agreement"... which could be entered into by any legally emancipated individuals. The SEX of the parties to the agreement would be irrelevant... as would the NUMBER of parties subject to the agreement.

These agreements could be open-ended, or come with a built-in expiration date... with renewal options. They would cover things like the rights, duties and responsibilities of the partners... rights... finances and distribution of assets... pulling the plug... insurance... obligations re: children... termination of the agreement... binding arbitration... etc. In other words, ALL the standard partnership contractual stuff PLUS the things that would need to be added to cover the nature of the arrangement.

Of course, marriage would not be FORBIDDEN... it would just be removed from the auspices of civil authorities. If somebody WANTED to be 'married', whey could make arrangements to have it done at the church of their choice. This 'marriage' would not supersede the civil contract... it would be regarded only as icing on the civil contract, and it would convey no legal status whatsoever. Just a ceremony.

The Domestic Partnership Agreement disputes would fall under the authority and jurisdiction of the same civil courts that presently handle business-related contract law.

DOWN WITH MARRIAGE.

Why not marriage for polygamist or any combination of consenting adults? Every forum I post in pro-gays attack this idea! Why? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
There are many more important subjects to tackle, but this is in the fore front.