Thanks.

Unless you’re posting from an asylum.

I like it.

I’ve made no comment at all on “sexual orientation,” and I’ll thank you if you’ll stop trying to put words in my mouth;

I’m totally baffled. You’re clearly drawing some kind of a line in the sand that I can’t discern. Could you explain?

As to your question about a church’s activities (I once visited a Unitarian Church’s website, and when I clicked on “What We Believe,” the page would never load; interesting), I don’t know how the State can interfere in that, and don’t hold that it should. But that doesn’t mean that the State has to affirm every silly so-called sacrament that any Church of If-It-Feels-Good-Do-It comes up with by changing ancient and well understood institutions.

So-called sacrament? “If-It-Feels-Good-Do-It”? We’re talking about marriage here, James. This is one of the highest sacraments. “If it feels good do it” (which, by the way, is a phrase right up there with “groovy, man” and “make love not war” — it dates you, and not in a good way) refers to sex, not marriage. People getting married are the antithesis of “if it feels good do it,” if I understand the 60s counter-counter-culture expression correctly.

And Waldo 48, you talk about the benefits of monogamy. Could you site a single study that suggests that homo “marriage” would result in such? The surveys are to the contrary, and suggest the true nihilism behind this campaign, insofar as few homos intend for their “marriage” to result in monogamy, or even a life-long committment.

I’m speechless. It’s almost as if you don’t know anybody who’s gay.

I’m curious, James — what, if any, is your threshold for being wrong? If the Southern Baptists endorse same-sex civil unions, then are they OK? The Catholic church? Episcopalians? Jews? Muslims? All of the above? What if our conservative Supreme Court rules that states must permit same-sex unions, then are you wrong? What’s the line? Under what hypothetical circumstances would you concede that your views are out of step with those of a modern, enlightened society?

I know cranky old folks who still complain about “uppity niggers” and who think that the country really started going to hell after “negroes stopped knowing their place.” These people don’t understand that progress long ago left them behind. I wonder how you’ll know or, one day, how I’ll know when my views are antiquated and, by modern standards, hateful.

You are calling me a hypocrite!? Are you kidding me, Mr. Scarlet Letter morality, sweep it under the rug, I don’t care if it goes on I just don’t want to see it, but goddamn I hate those “Homos”.

And:

“that some so-called “Republican” group has joined the chorus merely demonstrates their true status”

I suppose you are the type of “Republican”, that calls other Republicans RINOs because they don’t believe in the same crazy shit that you do.

Oh course you are, it only makes sense, because you seem to be willing to claim that denominations or individuals are not religious because they don’t believe in the same crazy shit that you do.

As far as your point on Ken Mehlman’s position, I must concede that you are correct, there are many reasons, why one would oppose “homo marriage”.

But then again we are talking about civil unions and a constitutional amendment out lawing same sex civil unions:” I see no basis or reason to void any powers of attorney, joint ownerships, or other existing forms of contract made between homosexuals.” huh!?

As far as the your question about abortion; go actually read Jon 41, you missed a paragraph or two.

And, there are many points and questions that I have posted that you have not responded to . . . hmmm, what does that make you . . . No, I wont say, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you didn’t read those either.

And Waldo 48, you talk about the benefits of monogamy. Could you site a single study that suggests that homo “marriage” would result in such? The surveys are to the contrary, and suggest the true nihilism behind this campaign, insofar as few homos intend for their “marriage” to result in monogamy, or even a life-long commitment.

As to Jon 41, I would suggest a Tums, because you’re bile is showing. The websites that I saw were mostly Dem; that some so-called “Republican” group has joined the chorus merely demonstrates their true status. And hypocrisy is holding one value while practicing another. There are many reasons why one would oppose homo marriage; I merely speculate upon one that (assuming arguendo the smear is true) could justify Mehlman’s position.

And you still didn’t answer my question about abortion. Shall we assume that your refusal to do so is because it would demonstrate YOUR hypocrisy?

I found Mark’s post quite fair. Wrong, of course… ;-) … but fair. You could learn a thing or three from him.

..

Daib — I’m sorry that my beliefs offend you so much. But the truth of what I said is self-evident. Just because something feels right doesn’t make it so. Right and wrong exist as absolutes beyond human feelings.

IP, see, that’s just what you don’t seem to get. For those of us who were made to live with and love another man or another woman, that’s just not the case. You and the foul-mouthed Mr. Young, etc., are just so smug in your special “knowledge” of what God has in mind, aren’t you?

Tell me, on what authority do you understand better than I how I was created, and what God intended for me? You really should be embarrassed.

If you really believe that we are discussing a religious institution, then you have just made a startling admission about what you think of religious liberty. Are you sure you are in the right country? You will be very unhappy with the outcome of this issue, so you might start thinking about where you would prefer to live.

To the person who disagreed with your position, you said:

“Nobody’s talking about bigamy” and “Go have this discussion on C.R.’s site. It ain’t got nothin’ to do with same-sex civil unions.”

And to the one who agreed with your position:

“I found your post very interesting.”

Funny stuff.

And you think that our current notion of marriage has always been set in stone. No, it is an institution that has evolved and changed dramatical over the eons, even back to the religions that influenced Judasim and Christianity, which have then in-turned influenced our current society.

“I absolutely realize that those who support expanding the definition of marriage do not like having bigamy brought up, because it severely damages their arguments. But it is germane to the discussion, and not silly in the least.”

It is only germane to the discussion if you consider homosexuality to be some how againts nature or against god. It is only germane if you do not view homosexuals as equals or you view them as deviants, so extending them rights would be the same as extending rights to deviants or criminals.

First the nature argument: I Publius states “or others, simple logic and natural science should make it plainly evident.” Well as it has evidently been observed in studies of primates, there is quite a lot of hot man-monkey on man- monkey action going on our there. And there are plenty of more examples of homosexual activity in the natural world. There are many reasons (too many to go into here) why “nature” could have selected for homosexual traits.

The religious argument: Yes our country is deeply influenced by the judaic-chritian ethos, I would argue that is why we are what would be considered a liberal society. We have over the centuries, slowly but surly granted more and more rights and protections to minority groups than any country/nation state in history.

That being said, we do not run our country from the bible, we have a constitution and a bill of rights.

The core ethos of the the bible is wonderful, but as a book of law it is horrible: it is a collection of oral histories, told in Aramaic, translated and written in Greek, then translated into Latin (and thats just the gospels!).

This was all done, by the way, before most of the words that we are using right now even existed!

So, we get the whole mess of the thing passed down to us via illiterate scribes, then translated into the very nascent english language of King James’s time. The result is a book with so many counter -narratives, and compounded contradictions I dont think we will ever sort it out.

So, can you tell me what is God’s law? You all seem to know what God is thinking? I mean I dont think you can find a Christian theologian who will claim, like Muslims, that the Bible was written by God. The bible was written by error prone men, by proud men, by pious men. So there are mistakes, and there are things in the bible that are relics of the times that they where written in.

But there is messages that keep popping up like, love thy neighbor as thyself, check out 1st Corinthians, check out Leviticus 19:18

And denying the humanity of your neighbors, doesn’t seem like a good way to love thy neighbor.