Stewart Grills Huckabee On Gay Marriage: ‘At What Age Did You Choose Not To Be Gay?’
Stewart Grills Huckabee On Gay Marriage: ‘At What Age Did You Choose Not To Be Gay?’
For over seven minutes last night, Jon Stewart grilled former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on his opposition to gay marriage. Huckabee is touring the country to promote his new book, “Do The Right Thing.” When Stewart compared gay marriage bans to interracial marriage bans, Huckabee restated his view that homosexuality is simply a behavior choice:
STEWART: Segregation used to be the law until the courts intervened.
HUCK: There’s a big difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship.
STEWART: Okay, actually this is helpful because it gets to the crux of it. … And I’ll tell you this: Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion — we protect religion. And talk about a lifestyle choice — that is absolutely a choice. Gay people don’t choose to be gay. At what age did you choose to not be gay?
Huckabee tried to insist that “60 percent of the American population” opposes gay marriage. Stewart interrupted him, calling it a “travesty” that gay Americans have to plead for their civil rights:
HUCKABEE: If the American people are not convinced that we should overturn the definition of marriage, then I would say that those who support the idea of same-sex marriage have a lot of work to do to convince the rest of us. And as I said, 60 percent of the American population has made the decision–
STEWART: You know, you talk about the pro-life movement [abortion] being one of the great shames of our nation. I think if you want number two, I think it’s that: It’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to make their case that they deserve the same basic rights as someone else.
Watch the whole interview:
It is true that 30 states have banned gay marriage. However, Huckabee — like other conservatives who make similar claims — is wrong to suggest that American public opinion is on his side. A recent poll found that a full 75 percent of Americans favor either gay marriage or civil unions, with nearly 50 percent favoring gay marriage itself. More importantly, the next generation is much more open to gay rights: According to CNN exit polls, an overwhelming majority — 67 percent — of 18-29 year-olds voted against stripping gay couples of their right to marry in California.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
In the fullness of time the Huccabees of this world LOSE this argument. Just like they lost the argument in favor of miscegenation laws. Years down the road this issue will be seen as having been a joke and those diehards against giving gay people their full rights will be the punchline of that joke.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:03 amThis is how we should handle bigots. None of that quiet disapproval — call them on it!
Well done, Jon.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:07 am“At what age did you choose NOT to be gay?”
Bravo.
I’ve been asking that question for years, especially to the homophobic right wingers who believe homosexuality is a “choice”.
I’ve yet to get a straight forward response.
Well, except for Parodyll the Failure who admitted he had homosexual thoughts when he was an adolescent, but then “shaked the devil off” and voila, he’s now “straight” (but closeted).
December 10th, 2008 at 10:10 amHeh!
“…semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity.” -J. Stewart
Good call, Jon. Now have more liberals and progressives on your show and fewer conservatives. You need backup to beat them, Jon.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:12 amIt’s too bad that Stewart didn’t point out to Huckabee that 60% of Americans think that abortion should be legal. He’s trying to frame gay marriage around what the American public thinks, so why doesn’t he do the same with abortion?
Huckabee is a hypocrite of the first order.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am“At what age did you choose NOT to be gay?”
Notice how he didn’t answer the question?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:16 amAnother question for those who are opposed to gay marriage:
“would you support a law prohibiting baptism of anyone under the age of consent?”
Denying gays the right to marry is denying their religious freedom. It’s only because it’s the majority against a minority that there is an issue here. Banning child baptism, a religious sacrament as is marriage, would have the religious majority rioting in the street.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:17 amIf this was put to a national vote vs a state by state vote, they’d be able to be married by tomorrow
December 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am‘At What Age Did You Choose Not To Be Gay?’
Excellent! Jon Stewart is, by far, the best journalist on the airwaves…
December 10th, 2008 at 10:18 amSTEWART: And I’ll tell you this: Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion — we protect religion.
Yes, that’s right, as a society, we protect superstitions that are responsible for war, death and a whole lot of guilt that ruins people’s lives, yet we protect such violent superstitions, but not two consenting adults’ rights to love and care for one another.
How fu(ked up are we?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:21 amI was watching “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town” the other night with my daughter and saw a correlation between the fundies and the oppressive Burger Meister Meister Burger.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:23 amToward the end of the film there is a scene where off screen children ask the narrator (Fred Astair)questions. One child asks when Santa stopped being considered an outlaw. The narrator says, “Over time, the Burger Meisters of this world kinda…died off”.
The fundies of today are holding off the inevitable to the bitter end, wearing their self-righteousness, predjudices and fears on their sleeves. The day will soon come with the maturing of a future, more tolerant generation, and the fundies will desrevedly be the outcast minority. They can then wallow in their ignorance and hate, powerless despite their pleas to their fairy in the sky, pining for a time when only white heterosexuals ruled America. Being a compassionate white hetero male who supports the idea of equal laws for EVERYONE that time can’t come soon enough, but it WILL COME!
Heterosexual relationships are by far the leading cause of unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, abortions. Therefore, we should ban heterosexual relationships.
/snark off
December 10th, 2008 at 10:23 am#10 – unbelievable Says:
———————————————————-
“…yet we protect such violent superstitions, but not two consenting adults’ rights to love and care for one another.”
December 10th, 2008 at 10:21 am
This is something that has changed quite a bit over the past 40 years. Considering that 40 years ago it was OK by the vast majority of people to beat up on gay people, and that now a majority support civil unions, it won’t be long until the rest of America catches up with equal rights for everyone.
Wouldn’t it be great if all American’s supported the American value of equal rights for all??
December 10th, 2008 at 10:28 amHeterosexual relationships are also by far the leading cause of divorce.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:29 amHuckaf uck is merely spouting off the tired old Republican, “That’s the way we’ve always done things” line.
It’s time for this shit to stop.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:31 amInevitably, this thread will be hijacked by the likes of bitblt the idjit, references passages in the Bible as proof of “choice”.
To which I’ve only got one question. When you came across the crossroads of sexuality, when did you choose your path?
Because I’ve never come across that. Ever since I was 12, and trying to sneak a peek at the scrambled Showtime channel showing naked ladies, I never felt the desire to choose an alternative lifestyle.
Women’s bodies: Beautiful, lovely, drives me crazy.
Men’s bodies: Blechh!
And to which, may I add (as I’ve done time and time again), homosexuality is not all about male on male or female on female sex. In fact, it’s a nice benefit of a relationship, but it’s not the driving force. It’s about being loved, a basic human need. One I think we can all agree upon.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:33 amshoeless Says:
Heterosexual relationships are also by far the leading cause of divorce.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am
_________
This is a very good point. Heterosexuals are responsible for a full 100% of heterosexual divorces.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:34 amDemocrat Soldier Says: Wouldn’t it be great if all American’s supported the American value of equal rights for all??
I live in the south where religion has managed to convince one of the most oppressed groups of people in history to turn around and oppress another. I guess I’m just not seeing it happen fast enough…
December 10th, 2008 at 10:36 amI’ve certainly done my part to ruin the “sanctity” of marriage, but I haven’t been “gay” married — yet.
Rachel Maddow, I’d switch teams for you… :D
December 10th, 2008 at 10:38 amWhat is really disturbing to me is that despite our economic collapse, and despite being involved in two intractable wars, and despite the climate warming, and despite unemployment approaching levels last seen 30 years ago, and despite a whole host of other issues that really affect America, we have people like Mike Huckleberry running around stoking the “social” issues fire that nobody other than the Repignican base cares about. For the life of me I don’t understand why Jon Stewart or anyone else wants to waste their time on the air giving the knuckle-dragger wing any air time.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:40 amWell said, DrXJ…
December 10th, 2008 at 10:40 amI’m from the generation where my friends and I had to scramble around trying to find where our fathers hid their Playboys…
I’m convinced that Daryll comes here because we validate his feelings by telling him that homosexuality is natural for people who are gay, and there is nothing wrong with them (including him) as people.
He clearly likes that by protesting waaaaay too much :)
December 10th, 2008 at 10:42 amWhile being raised as a Southern Baptist, I learned that it was wrong to judge people and have anything but compassion for them no matter what… despite their “sins”. It didn’t take long to realize that most of the other people around me weren’t learning that same lesson.
It’s truly a shame because, based on their teachings, Christians really “should” be at the forefront of any issue regarding human suffering by using the power of Love, but there seems to be some kind of disconnect when it comes to actually applying it.
PLC, you set a fine example for compassion and lack of prejudice, kudos. (pay no attention to the “666″ in my name, it’s an economic thang).
December 10th, 2008 at 10:42 amCurlew Says:
For the life of me I don’t understand why Jon Stewart or anyone else wants to waste their time on the air giving the knuckle-dragger wing any air time.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:40 am
_________
The knuckle-draggers have a right to be heard, and they have a right to receive the well-deserved (but polite) pwning the Jon Stewart is so incredibly good at dishing out.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am666lattes Says: It’s truly a shame because, based on their teachings, Christians really “should” be at the forefront of any issue regarding human suffering by using the power of Love, but there seems to be some kind of disconnect when it comes to actually applying it.
It’s the bible(s)… If you read one from cover to cover you see where the haters get their validation to hate.
If Christianity is going to be a religion based on love and peace, its going to have to do something about how the bibles are viewed as a literal word of a jealous god who uses violence to get his way.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:50 ammonday’s BOSTON LEGAL was great, taking on this subject – with a twist… denny and alan wanted to get married (explained a bit here)… the court scene where alan had to present his case for the judge to allow the marriage was rich… see, it was not GAY marriage that they wanted, but same sex marriage…
fantastic.
i will miss that show…
December 10th, 2008 at 10:52 amThe people don’t get to decide the human rights of a particular group. They can vote for reps who will vote as a body to confirm judges on state and federal courts tasked with making such judicial decisions, but they cannot use a mob mentality to deprive any group of a decent quality of life.
Sometimes we as a people become too comfortable with the rights others fought for us to have and close the door behind us. It’s the same old story — clawing for excuses as to why a group shouldn’t be entitled to the same rights and privileges to justify our sinister comfort zone. It happened with slavery. It happened with a woman’s right to vote. It happened with interracial marriage. It happened with civil rights. It’s happening with gays and lesbians — 50 states, full rights and recognition, no excuses.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:52 amCurlew Says:
[...] For the life of me I don’t understand why Jon Stewart or anyone else wants to waste their time on the air giving the knuckle-dragger wing any air time.
you saw the results.
that’s why.
now, more mainstream would be better, of course…
December 10th, 2008 at 10:56 amleno maybe???
Well said, McWars. :-)
December 10th, 2008 at 11:01 amI hope Huckabible gains 400 pounds.
That’s petty and spiteful, I know. But I don’t give a damn.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:04 amSpeaking of Boston Legal – I had it set to record, and somehow, my DVR didn’t pick it up.
Anyone know where I can see the ep? I’m just beside myself that I missed it!!!!!
December 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”- Thomas Jefferson
December 10th, 2008 at 11:09 amI for one won’t be surprised if neither Daryll nor bitblt shows up on this thread.
bit’s been phoning it in for a while now, and Daryll, well, let’s just say Daryll’s become something of a caricature of a once-proud performance artist. Once in a while he can fire off a classic line, but for the most part he’s the blog equivalent of a classic rock band from the 70s still grinding it out on the road, performing their hits for a shrinking cadre of hard-core fans, but unable to generate any interest or radio airplay in their new songs.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:14 amSTEWART: Okay, actually this is helpful because it gets to the crux of it. … And I’ll tell you this: Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality.
I don’t agree with this as applied to children because most have no choice in their religion.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:15 amWhy is it that when I see and hear Mike Huckabee Gomer Pylecomes to mind?
December 10th, 2008 at 11:16 amthe Huckster’s first piece of ass was a stump-broke heiffer.
after that, it’s all down-hill…
December 10th, 2008 at 11:18 amYou have a point, but it is still more of a choice than sexual identity.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:21 amThe argument that civil rights should be decided by majority vote is a patently false one and unconstitutional to boot. We wouldn’t NEED the Bill of Rights and civil rights legislation if majority rule were sufficient.
Huckabee consistently failed to answer Stewart’s logical arguments because Huckabee’s arguments are based on prejudice, not logic.
Now, why is it that mainstream TV news departments can’t figure out why they’re losing market share when this year the most hard-hitting televised interviews have been conducted by Jon Stewart, Joy Behar and David Letterman? (Do the suits really think Katie Couric’s much-celebrated “What magazines do you read?” is hard-hitting journalism?)
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
December 10th, 2008 at 11:23 amleftside annie – i thought it looked like he was working on it… maybe added 50 so far…
December 10th, 2008 at 11:23 amand i don’t give a damn either!
annie – usually you can watch episodes on the abc site.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am“Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality.” So true, but why is choice even an issue here. Even if one chose to be gay, what does that have to do with anything? People choose to be catholic. If the majority in California decide priests can’t come within 30 feet of children, the fact that they chose to be catholic would be irrelevant. It’s their civil rights that’s the issue.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:29 amPeople like Huckabee aren’t really all that serious about the issue of gay marriage, if they were, then they would be pushing for ALL scripture pertaining to marriage to be enacted into law, i.e, making divorce illegal, severe punishments for adultry, etc.
What this really is, is a scam to raise money through the marginilization of what is perceived to be a group with very little power to fight back, “buy my book, and learn how to defeat the gays” or “send money to our wonderful family organization to keep gay people in their place.”
People like Gov. Huckabee inhale cash and exhale hatred and exist for no other reason. This man is no more Christian than Madeline O’ Hare.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:29 amAnd marriage IS a civil right. We need to get a civil license to do it and we need papers to prove we’ve done it in court – we’ve made it a civil process so it is, by definition a civil right.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:30 amtokin librul Says: “…a stump-broke heiffer.”
Remember Mrs. Huckabee’s black and white Holstein coat from the primary days?
http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:ItO0K53j7XsJ::video.thinkprogress.org/2008/01/HuckabeeLeno.320.240.jpg
Hmmmm…
December 10th, 2008 at 11:33 amWe have more legislation (with teeth, i.e. enforced) against MARRIAGES than we do against ELECTROCUTING SOLDIERS ala KBR, or Blackwater’s havoc (well, we’ll see with this one but it’s not isolated).
If there’s one thing that will hurt society and take down the nation, it’s marriage? What?
Huck:
“Windows on Apples? I’m against it. That’s just the way…”
“Cameras in a phone? I’m against it. It will dilute phones.”
“Work from home? I’m against it, it makes the home less pure. Spending lunch and breaks with your family is beside the point.”
Huck is the kind of guy who would make Arkansas buy Chevys to buy American, even if they have Japanese electronics and the Toyota plant is much closer in Alabama.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:33 amJohn Stewart is straight-up awesome. He always has been, but every so often it is great to get a firm reminder of this.
Best line…
“Semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity.”
Thank you.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:34 amStewart was excellent last night.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:36 amCalm, reasonable, challenging questions to Huckleberry.
Meanwhile, Iowa gives audience to the same vacuous arguments:
“One could easily argue, and we do, that fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it”
http://www.tips-q.com/content/iowa-usual-nonsensical-rationale-bigotry
December 10th, 2008 at 11:39 amThanks, katy – I’ll check that out.
~A
December 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am666lattes says: PLC, you set a fine example for compassion and lack of prejudice, kudos. (pay no attention to the “666? in my name, it’s an economic thang).
Thank you, this is the primary reason I post on these threads. I think it is up to progressive and/or tolerant Christians to call these oppressive “brothers and sisters” for what they are: Christian Pharisees. These people are actually deserving of the “666″ label if they knew its significance in context of ancient numerology.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pmThe thing that makes me nuts about people like Huckabee, is that hate the sin, love the sinner thing he espouses, which is such a cop out.
I actually prefer when the hatred is all out in the open, so I know what I am up against. The Westboro Baptist Church may be insane with hate, but we know exactly what they stand for, no equivocation about it, while guys like Huckabee want to cling to their petty bigotry, but still be thought of in a positive light.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pmPLC: “I think it is up to progressive and/or tolerant Christians to call these oppressive “brothers and sisters” for what they are: Christian Pharisees.”
After re-reading Matthew, what jumps out is that modern conservative christians are simply heretics.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pmWhy is it that the people who say gay marriage “will harm the institution of marriage as we know it” never explain exactly how it will harm it?
I would like to see any conservative christian just list the various ways in which it would do harm. I happen to think that the ONLY way taking away rights is appropriate is if it protects society. I therefore have no problem with taking away the right to own a shoulder-fired Sting missle. So let’s have it: what harm to our society can come from gay marriage?
December 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pm49erDem,
December 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pmI’d like to have answered how heterosexual relationships have harmed the institution of marriage. What with the divorce rate, premarital sex, and extramarital affairs?
(Kind of funny: Drew Carrey once joked “How can it be considered premarital sex, if you don’t plan on getting married?)
A better question to ask any right-wing homophobe is, “At what age did you decide to stay in the closet?”
December 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pmHomosexuality is defined by literalist Christians as a sin and, therefore, “harm to society” or not is irrelevant. It is seen as an affront to God. And this is where their push for secular rules against homosexuality falls short in our Constitution-based society. The ONLY justification for anti-homosexual laws is a particular religious dogma and enactment of such laws favors that dogma over other opposing religious views. Thus, such laws are potentially harmful to our religious freedom.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pmIn expectation that someone will state that our nation was founded as a “christian” nation, here’s a very popular Episcopalian minister from the 1830’s who didn’t agree with you:
“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”
– The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pm49erDem Says:
In expectation that someone will state that our nation was founded as a “christian” nation, here’s a very popular Episcopalian minister from the 1830’s who didn’t agree with you:
“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….
“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”
– The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
In expectation that someone will state that our nation was founded as a “christian” nation,
bit doesn’t believe that your quote would prove the assertion that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.
Nonetheless, bit agrees with you. The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. It was founded for a Christian people.
Anyway, here’s someone who probably disagreed with the Reverend Doctor:
F
Adams, John Quincy (1821), Address Delivered at the request of a Committee of the Citizens of Washington on the Occasion of Reading the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, 1821 (Washington: Davis & Force), [On-line], URL: http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=b80c023f0 007f89b5b95e4be026fa267;c=jul;idno=jul000087.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:28 pmZooey thinks bit should take his bullshit and cram it up his ass. Yes, she does…
December 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pmbit likes this quote, zooey. How about you?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pmI believe by Huckabee’s definition, heterosexuals who are incapable of breeding or not intending to breed should not be allowed to be married either.
If much of the crux is that marriage is to procreate, family, etc., there is no point for many senior citizens, as well as many others, in loving relationships, to be allowed to marry.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:51 pmralph thinks bit should hang up the phone.
December 10th, 2008 at 1:54 pmHey bitbutt, I’ll see your John Quincy Adams, and raise you a Thomas Jefferson.
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
December 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pmralph thinks that if bit refuses to hang up, and keeps phoning it in, bit should at least get a new calling plan.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm49erDem Says:
In expectation that someone will state that our nation was founded as a “christian” nation, ….
December 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
More support for bit’s assertion that the U.S. is a government for a Christian people follows:
This quote comes from the one who raised the Adams mentioned above.
Adams, John (1850-1856), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).
December 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pmOK, bitbutt. I’ll raise you another Thomas Jefferson and call you.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
December 10th, 2008 at 2:07 pmshoeless Says:
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”- Thomas Jefferson
December 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Jefferson was neither the only founder nor the most important one, but since you appear to be a fan, perhaps you’d like to comment on what Jefferson recommended as punish for sodomy in the state of Virginia.
This may be a little shocking to contemporaries but Jefferson advocated the emasculation as the penalty for the crime of homosexuality in his home state. Jefferson even wrote the bill.
226-227
December 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pmJefferson, Thomas (1903), Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).
Jefferson also owned slaves, which is approved by the bible.
That does not mean Jefferson was in favor of founding the United States as a theocracy, as you contend.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pmhoeless Says:
Jefferson also owned slaves, which is approved by the bible.
That does not mean Jefferson was in favor of founding the United States as a theocracy, as you contend.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Objection. Poster is leading the witness.
You didn’t get this from bit, but there might be more truth in it that you, or bit, knows.
Search TP for bitblt and Jefferson and you’ll probably find a link to a .gov site that show both Franklin’s and Jefferson’s proposed national seals. Both seals are based on Biblical themes. bit takes this to mean that they were more attuned to the Biblical influence in the nation, not that they were interested in a theocracy.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pmHAHA!! Gosh that guy knows he’s wrong, its time to divide!!
Check it out!! http://www.shortershelflife.com These kids are responding fast these days!!
December 10th, 2008 at 2:25 pmNo bitbutt, Thomas Jefferson was hardly a fan of the bible.
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”
December 10th, 2008 at 2:29 pm-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
OK, bitblt, would you approve of laws in the U.S. along the following lines:
1. no one under the age of majority can be baptized
December 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm2. women may not be excluded from the priesthood
3. no church may substitute juice for wine in the eucharist
4. Christians and Jews cannot intermarry
5. pork may not be sold for human consumption in the U.S.
As a minister, Hucklebee is not familiar with his Bible. If marriage is defined in the Bible as a union between one man and one woman, why were Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah and Israel all polygamists and (in effect) womanizers? And if the Mormon church, said to be instrumental in defeating gay marriage in Calif., believes in traditional one man, one woman marriage, why is the head of the fundalmentalist Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints church (Mormon), Warren Jeffs, serving a 10 year sentence in a Utah State Prison for child rape by marrying underage girls to polygamist adult men? What is traditional about that?
Homophobic and hypocritical religious zealots in this country want to impose their will on the rest of us. They say they are against big government, except to legislate our most personal, private, and sacred behavior. Policing the bedroom is what the Taliban does! This is un-American.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pm“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
December 10th, 2008 at 2:46 pm-Ben Franklin
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
OK, bitblt, would you approve of laws in the U.S. along the following lines:
.
.
.
December 10th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
bit will give you a response to these, but remember he’s working from memory. Further, he intends to keep the responses short, because he doesn’t believe you’ll like the responses, and he doesn’t believe you’re really interested.
1. no one under the age of majority can be baptized
No all Christian denominations practice infant baptism. Some churches, Church of the Nazarene for instance, will do it if asked, but this is strictly for ceremonial reasons.
There is no example in the NT of infant baptism. Those who are baptized are old enough to decide. This is why many Conservative Churches don’t baptize infants.
In our tradition there is something of a dedication ceremony for the newborn before the entire congregation, but everyone knows this ceremony is more about our family of believers than it is about saving the child’s soul.
2. women may not be excluded from the priesthood
Most Conservative Christian churches do not have a formal “priesthood.” This may be because the Apostle Paul says that all Christians are priests. bit assume this includes women because Paul very definitely included woman in the church.
3. no church may substitute juice for wine in the eucharist Ok, but you really want a law for this?
4. Christians and Jews cannot intermarry
What? Why? bit is in the dark here.
There is no provision in the NT that races or ethnicities should not intermarry. In the OT there are some very bad outcomes when tribes intermarried.
Personally, bit knows of some very bad outcome where blacks and whites have intermarried. Bet PLC does too.
5. pork may not be sold for human consumption in the U.S. The Apostle Paul gave the Apostle Peter a scolding for his different behavior between his dealings with Jews and Gentiles. Peter also had a vision that nothing – no food – was unclean. Peter eating food only previously eaten by Gentiles was part of the NT demonstration that one doesn’t have to be a Jew to be a Christian. Thus the Jewish dietary laws are not binding.
Sorry to be so disappointing, but your dealing with Evangelical Christian here. One who takes the Bible very seriously.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:00 pmthe whole procreation thing is just an excuse anyway. We really don’t need more people on this planet. We are consuming it too fast as it is. You could say homosexuality could be looked at as a “godsend” to one of our biggest problems…..
December 10th, 2008 at 3:16 pmSo, bitblt would not want U.S. laws to promote or inhibit particular religious Sacraments and any other practices such as baptism, ordination of priests, the eucharist, or dietary laws. Yet, bitblt has no problem with U.S. laws meddling with marriage on the basis of a particular religious view of this practice. How convenient.
I want no law about ANY of this. The question is how far do we take U.S. law to appease a particular religious view? My answer is “nowhere”. Religious freedom and the free will to decide one’s own faith and practice demands separation of church and state.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm#92 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————-
“Sorry to be so disappointing, but your dealing with Evangelical Christian here. One who takes the Bible very seriously.”
December 10th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Wow, Bitbit sure knows how to tell jokes!
Interesting how Bitbit refuses to support the words of Jesus Christ and argue against divorced people getting remarried. Bitbit obviously “picks and chooses” the verses of the Bible that Bitbit considers “worth following” and the other verses that Bitbit “conveniently ignores”. Since there seems to be no standard for which verses Bitbit supports and which verses Bitbit ignores, one can only assume that Bitbit’s Prejudices are what drives Bitbit to “pick and choose” the verses that Bitbit supports and the verses that Bitbit ignores.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:25 pmI too am very confused. butbut thinks the United States was founded as a Christian theocracy, but that covers a wide range of often conflicting rules and regulations. If butbut wants to establish a working theocracy, he needs to be much more specific as to the particular Christian sect he wishes to use as his model for our system of government.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pmNot even organized mainstream Christian denominations agree on practices involving baptism, the eucharist, ordination of priests/ministers, or even marriage. And then there is Christian dogma that is less organized and/or held by many of us who are active members in an organized mainstream congregation but have some differing views. If we as Christians cannot agree on such issues, how can we even expect non-believers to hold to a particular stance? So, even if you call the U.S. a country of Christians or even a Christian nation, how can its laws reflect “common” Christian beliefs when there is a lack of consensus on those values? For civil law to regulate “marriage” it can ONLY do so for secular reasons. There is absolutely NO secular reason for prohibiting gays from marrying one another.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:35 pmbitblt Says:
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12, emp. added).
bit likes this quote, zooey. How about you?
December 10th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Zooey think bit is dim enough to be taken in by fairy tales.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:40 pmCan bit explain to me, why bit worries so much about the private lives of others. Why does bit not just worry about bit? Does bit think others have to think like bit? Is that what bit wants? Does bit believe the words of that great big book of everything are to be taken literally by those who are inclined to care about those words?
December 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pmdabadass, perhaps bit has so perfected his own internal life that he must either turn his attention to helping others perfect themselves, or be forced to watch the E! True Hollywood Story seventeen hours a day?
Nevertheless, ralph has enjoyed seeing bit get pwned by shoeless, Dr. Hussien Matt and other progressives on this thread. Perhaps bit should have taken ralph’s advice and just hung up the damn phone.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pmDemocratic Soldier brings this up each and every time, and idjit ignores it each and every time.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pmSo DRxJ must ponder, is DRxJ going to H E Double hockey sticks because he married a wonderful woman, who happened to marry too young, too soon, and was in an abusive relationship before DRxJ.
Just curious…
ralph has been doing some research and, even though it may violate TP’s terms of use, ralph believes he has identified bitblt’s real name:
bitblt is “Jimmy”.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm“Remember Mrs. Huckabee’s black and white Holstein coat from the primary days?”
That was hers? I thought she was just chilled and Sammy Hagar was being a gentleman…
December 10th, 2008 at 4:10 pmbitblt Says:
No John Adams would NOT have disagreed you get corrected every time you try this idiocy. John Adams also signed the Treaty of Tripoli that said DIRECTLY
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
It cant be said any clearer than that Mr FullRealityDenail
Some Other founding fathers clearly agreed
Benjamin Franklin:
“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [in England] and in New England.”
More Adams
“Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion.”
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature. . . . [In] the formation of the American governments . . . it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven. . . . These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”
President Thomas Jefferson:
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions. . . . I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrine.”
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
President James Madison (”Father of the Constitution” and principal author of the First Amendment):
“There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant violation.”
“Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States. . . .”
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
(Historian Franklin Steiner:) “[W]hen it was proposed to open the Constitutional Convention, over which he [George Washington] presided, with prayer, the motion was lost. Only three or four of the delegates favored it, and it is not recorded that Washington was one of them.”
“The Convention, except for three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.” Benjamin Franklin
(Church-State scholar Robert Boston:) “The Constitution fashioned in 1787 is a secular document. There is no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or a supreme being anywhere in the document. A minority faction of delegates pressed for some type of recognition of Christianity in the Constitution, but their views were rejected.”
“[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution
(The object of Article VI, Clause 3 was) “to cut off forever every pretense of any alliance between church and state in the national Government.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States
“They [the Founders] knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. They knew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. . . . They intended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship; that our laws should make no distinction on account of creed.” Robert Ingersoll
Give it up this was settled more than 200 years ago. This was set up to be a SECULAR GOVERNMENT. It couldt possibly be clearer that the founders of this country didnt want the Church or state within a country mile of each other. I always wonder about people whose faith is so fragile that they think they NEED an imprimatuer or stamp of approval of THEIR faith by government
December 10th, 2008 at 4:26 pmSince bitebutt isn’t around right now, I will answer that question. Yes. That is the Evangelical part of Evangelical Christian.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Let us not forget that the Founding Fathers were Fundamentalist Christians who were thwarted by the 1700s counterpart of the ACLU…
/sarcasm
December 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pmThanks shoelss. I sort of figured but missed bits declaration. Damn organized religion is a weird thing. I am not opposed to it for those that dig it. I just don’t get it and don’t need it.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:31 pmKudos to all the smart people on this thread!!
And Annie is most certainly NOT including bit in the above statement.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pmDemocrat Soldier Says:
#92 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————-
“Sorry to be so disappointing, but your dealing with Evangelical Christian here. One who takes the Bible very seriously.”
December 10th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Wow, Bitbit sure knows how to tell jokes!
Interesting how Bitbit refuses to support the words of Jesus Christ and argue against divorced people getting remarried. Bitbit obviously “picks and chooses” the verses of the Bible that Bitbit considers “worth following” and the other verses that Bitbit “conveniently ignores”. Since there seems to be no standard for which verses Bitbit supports and which verses Bitbit ignores, one can only assume that Bitbit’s Prejudices are what drives Bitbit to “pick and choose” the verses that Bitbit supports and the verses that Bitbit ignores.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Believe bit has often noted that in Matthew 19 Christ quotes from Genesis as an answer to a question about divorce. In this chapter of Matthew He notes that the Creator intended for a man and a woman to be one flesh – the Biblical definition of marriage.
Believe bit has also said, in more that one post, that it is a common Conservative Christian saw that if the heterosexual were behaving the homosexual would simply go back into the closet.
bit completely endorses Christ words that divorce is a very bad thing. Believe bit has also noted numerous times that divorce has cause more pain that homosexuality ever thought about, so to speak.
As Jesus said, the Creator intended one man and one woman to be one flesh, in marriage. This is the best advice. If one chooses to ignore this advice, one can expect to suffer.
bit promotes life-long marriage between a man and a woman whenever he gets the chance, Jesus is very clear about the conditions under which a man can divorce and remarry.
Having said that, Matthew 19 still says that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pmand dbadass continues to not care what Matthew or any other long dead if they ever even existed dinosaur has to say on the subject. This is the part needs to get bits hands around. Not all of us feel obligated to have a convoluted book of stories direct our lives. If bit and his are into that cool. Just leave those of us who aren’t out of your weirdness. Talking flaming shubbery? Come on man is this what I am supposed to base my morality on?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pmAnd I still say that secular law must not regulate peoples’ behavior on the basis of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or any other religious writer. If an INDIVIDUAL wants to regulate his or her own life on the principles of these writers, fine, but that individual has no right, secularly or religiously, to force that choice on anyone else.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pmAnd bitblt, you and other Christian Pharisees are definitely not following the Great Commandment to spread the Good News by oppressing others. I see no love in forcing others to believe or act as if they believe as you do.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pmdbadass Says:
and dbadass continues to not care what Matthew or any other long dead if they ever even existed dinosaur has to say on the subject. This is the part needs to get bits hands around. Not all of us feel obligated to have a convoluted book of stories direct our lives. If bit and his are into that cool. Just leave those of us who aren’t out of your weirdness. Talking flaming shubbery? Come on man is this what I am supposed to base my morality on?
December 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
and dbadass continues to not care what…
bit believes you.
Come on man is this what I am supposed to base my morality on?
See the John Adams quote above.
Remember bit has repeatedly summarize the results of a nation that allows|promotes|endorses|tolerates|glorifies two men committing perversion and calls it marriage and that allows|promotes|endorses|tolerates|glorifies a woman destroying her unborn child as a nation that’s not worth preserving.
It seems reasonable to bit to expect that the U.S. may again need a “Greatest Generation.” It also seems obvious to bit that when the citizen start looking for the “Next Greatest Generation,” it’ll not be found.
Catering to much, much less that 1% of the population in the area of same-same gender marriage, so-called, simply isn’t worth the united in U.S. bit believes this issue is a nation buster.
Do not expect bit to willingly give his treasure, his loyalty, or his life to a nation that seems to think that being a paragon of freedom means embracing death a la homosexuality and abortion.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
And bitblt, you and other Christian Pharisees are definitely not following the Great Commandment to spread the Good News by oppressing others. I see no love in forcing others to believe or act as if they believe as you do.
December 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
This is difficult to understand.
Are you saying Jesus was “Ok” with sin?
Hadn’t noticed bit “forcing.” Believe bit is simply expressing his First Amendment rights.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pmdbadass doesn’t buy the greatest geeration bs either. Each generation has their own greatness. The fact that a certain one currently hold sufficient influence to toot their own horns does not mean they are/were anybody nor any worse.
bit has never to my knowledge been specific as to just how a society is hurt by the things which seem to scare and confuse bit. Please be specific as to what these tragic outcomes might be. I care not for vague generalizations linked to a book that suggests that two sons produced a global society with their mom as the only hottie available…
December 10th, 2008 at 5:04 pmwait a second how does homosexuality embrace death?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pmYet, strangely, bit never seems nearly as concerned about the impact of divorce on the institution of marriage as he is about gay marriage.
ralph finds that odd.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pmdbadass would refer ralph to bits less than strong defense of bit’s professed dislike of divorce. Weak though it it seems to dbadass that bit did try to explain away bit’s lack of a complete and total obsession with divorce.
dbadass also wishes ralph well…
December 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pmwhy does bit always fail to acknowledge that abortion has always been and will always be as has homosexuality
December 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pmbitblt, as long as you support a government ban on gay marriage, then you are forcing others to act on your beliefs, even if they harbor different beliefs. That is oppression, a much greater sin in my opinion and one that is against man and, therefore, can be regulated by secular law. If I sin or support sin against God, then I will answer to God, not an earthly judge (elected, appointed, or self appointed).
Exactly where in the Bible are you granted “First Amendment Rights”? Or are you acknowledging that there are secular rights which are separate from Biblical teaching?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Exactly where in the Bible are you granted “First Amendment Rights”? Or are you acknowledging that there are secular rights which are separate from Biblical teaching?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ohhhh SNAP!!!
Well done, PLC. :)
December 10th, 2008 at 5:15 pmZooey, one can try, always try. Thank you for the props.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pmYou want to “preserve the institution of marriage”?
Impose the divorce laws of the “liberal northeast corridor states” on all the evangenital white trash states where divorce is an epidemic. Let Huckleberry put his money where his mouth is, let’s see him support the following for arkansas:
1) you pay alimony until your ex-wife remarries-if she’s single for forty years, you pay alimony for forty years like in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachussetts.
2) If you’re divorced and have kids, you will pay for their education post high school. if your kid is 39 and going for his fourth PhD., in New Jersey you will be paying.
Ironically, the evangenitals recently claimed divorce is no longer a sin eventhough it is in the bible. why? because so many of them get divorces.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pmdbadass Says:
why does bit always fail to acknowledge that abortion has always been and will always be as has homosexuality
December 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Why not keep it in the context that makes sense?
The U.S. has not always been, and nothing suggests that it will always be.
Perhaps you don’t have an interest in the continuation of the U.S.?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pm“Perhaps you don’t have an interest in the continuation of the U.S.?”
sounds like something white trash southerners said 40 years ago when they decriminalized interracial marriage
December 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pmExplain to me exactly how abortion or gay marriage threatens the very existance of the nation. Remember specifics. What exactly will or is happening which will cause the nation to implode?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pmDo not expect bit to willingly give his treasure, his loyalty, or his life to a nation
Perhaps you don’t have an interest in the continuation of the U.S.?
Is our nation only supportable by you when it advocates your particular brand of theology?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pmem>PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
bitblt, as long as you support a government ban on gay marriage, then you are forcing others to act on your beliefs, even if they harbor different beliefs. That is oppression, a much greater sin in my opinion and one that is against man and, therefore, can be regulated by secular law. If I sin or support sin against God, then I will answer to God, not an earthly judge (elected, appointed, or self appointed).
Exactly where in the Bible are you granted “First Amendment Rights”? Or are you acknowledging that there are secular rights which are separate from Biblical teaching?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Is it not “oppression” to force people, especially Christians to accept practices that are clearly contrary to scripture in addition to being detrimental to the their practitioners?
And how can there be a “ban” on something that doesn’t exist – same-same gender marriage, so-called?
The U.S. Constitution does support or endorse immorality – especially licentiousness.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:27 pmshoeless wonders why bitblat hates America.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pmpoor bitty,
just can’t seem to wrap his head around the fact we’re a nation of laws, not religion and “all men are created equal” accroding to the bill of rights.
bitty, answer me this:
December 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pmwhat is lacking in your character and/or life that you feel threatened at the thought of someone having the same legal rights as yourself?
Is it not “oppression” to force people, especially Christians to accept practices that are clearly contrary to scripture in addition to being detrimental to the their practitioners?
Rather arrogant there. Exactly how does allowing people to exercise their right of association and pursuit of happiness force Christians to live their life contrary to their beliefs? We are not talking about forcing you to marry someone of the same gender, just allowing others to do so if that is consistent with their values. We are not talking about you sanctifying that marriage in your church, but allowing other churches to do so if consistent with their values.
And how can there be a “ban” on something that doesn’t exist – same-same gender marriage, so-called?
How can there be a tradition of something that doesn’t exist – heterosexual marriage? Were Adam and Eve married? The Bible does not say they were.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm“Were Adam and Eve married?”
and if so who catered it and where they pissed that they got so shorted on the money envelopes? I suppose the talking snake wrote a check that bounced…
December 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pmdbadass Says:
Explain to me exactly how abortion or gay marriage threatens the very existance of the nation. Remember specifics. What exactly will or is happening which will cause the nation to implode?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Were you paying attention you may recall that bit use to ask some questions about whether or not there would be the U.S. we know, without the influence of Christianity. bit usually followed that question with another question about whether or not the U.S. we know would continue without the influence of Christianity. bit’s not asking you to answer these at this point.
Many Conservative Christians believe the current brouhaha over same-same gender marriage, so-called, is actually an attack on Christianity.
If this is the case, as bit believes, then you might just live long enough to be able to answer these questions about the continued existence of the U.S.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pmbitblt: “bit doesn’t believe that your quote would prove the assertion that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.
Nonetheless, bit agrees with you. The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. It was founded for a Christian people.”
Okay, first, here’s the Father of the Country on your “founded for a Christian people.” I think he would call your assertion the 18th Century’s version of “bunk.”
“If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.”
– George Washington, letter to Tench Tilghman asking him to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, March 24, 1784, in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) p. 118, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church”
Secondly, the original quote was not in any way intended to “prove” the country wasn’t founded as christian, but nice try. What it was intended to show was that popular conservative christians in the 1830’s, far closer to the source than we are, felt that virtually all the Founders and Framers were “infidels” and were angry that the Founders DIDN’T establish the country as a christian nation.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm“Were Adam and Eve married?”
and even if they were they had two sons, Cain and Abel. Now explain to me again how the rest of us got here?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pmI find it interesting that bit dismisses PLC, merely because PLC is a liberal. This shows that bit is adverse to actual thinking, and exists in a sad and tiny bubble.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pmI don’t know. Matthew sure sounds like a liberal to me. I wonder if modern heretics such as bitblt even approve of Matthew?
December 10th, 2008 at 5:41 pmBozo: “Now explain to me again how the rest of us got here?”
They left the stories from the Talmud out of the Bible, but included them again in the Koran – incest.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:42 pmSo dbadass believes that bit will not be offering any specifics as to just what sort of events will occur which will cause the collapse of a nation based on undifferentiated cells and loving couples marrying. dbadass thinks bit is incapable of offering these specifics. dbadass thinks that if dbadass lives to see the collapse of the nation it will have nothing to do with these issues but in fact will be a function of economic inequalities and the unwillingness of people to offer tolerance and acceptance to their fellow citizens and to work together for the common good. Greed and selfishness will destroy a nation far more quickly than love and caring
December 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm49erDem, dammit, you took the bait i laid out for bitty! i guess that makes incest alright in bitty’s world since cain and abel were banging eve.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pmMany Conservative Christians believe the current brouhaha over same-same gender marriage, so-called, is actually an attack on Christianity.
Many Liberal Christians believe that the oppression of the gay community is a form of blasphemy – replacing God’s position as judge of sin, if there is any, with secular judges. Many Liberal Christians believe that the anti-gay rhetoric of the conservative Christians has kept many gay individuals from a relationship with God. Many Liberal Christians believe that the attack against gay marriage is actually an attack against religious freedom, free will, and faith-based submission (rather than legal-based oppression).
December 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pmbitblt: “Many Conservative Christians believe the current brouhaha over same-same gender marriage, so-called, is actually an attack on Christianity.”
Interesting that religions NOT requiring men to love a man don’t seem to have the same problem. bitblt, do you think that’s relevant? I mean, after all, Nuns “marry” Jesus. You are required to let his spirit “enter” you… You eat his body and drink his…
Okay, enough. I’m getting sick.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pmThose who demand theocratic secular laws have made the government into an idol.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pmSorry, Boz. I just didn’t think he/she would ever respond to that one. There’s a “no-talk” rule on that one I think. Just like the tale of Noah and the Arc, it leads to too much cognitive dissonance.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm“is actually an attack on Christianity”
December 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm::::::rolling eyes::::::
yeah, and we all know exactly how persecuted christians have been throughout history:
The crusades! those poor christian nations were invaded.
the spanish inquisiton!…er, nope, sponsored by christians
the withcraft trials!…whoops, jeebus was in on that too.
i know, the holocaust!…but the vatican gave blank passports to south american for war crimial nazis.
PLC: “Those who demand theocratic secular laws have made the government into an idol.”
Exactly! Thank you. That’s one of the reasons I refer to them as heretics.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pmI wonder if someone like bitblt has ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? On his deathbed, Jefferson listed it as one of his proudest accomplishments. With respect to religion, that tells you all you need to know about Thomas Jefferson.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
.
.
.
How can there be a tradition of something that doesn’t exist – heterosexual marriage? Were Adam and Eve married? The Bible does not say they were.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Genesis says that the Creator made the woman, Eve – the mother of all living, and brought her to the man, Adam, and they were one flesh. No license. No ceremony. But they were married. Many CC’s take this to be God instituting marriage – older than either religion or government.
This account is used by Christ in Matthew 19 when He answers the question about divorce. Christ speaks to the Creator’s intent that a man and a woman would be one flesh.
In this regard, bit suspects that if you asked around you’d find a very large number of people, especially women, who believe that if a man and a woman have sex, then they are married.
The Genesis account of Isaac marrying Rebekah simply says the he took her into his tent. This appears to mean that Isaac was going to have sex with her. They were married. No ceremony. No license. No religious blessing.
The real power of a marriage is that people recognize a man and a woman as being married.
There’s not a court in the world that’s powerful enough to make someone recognize the relationship of two same gender people as a marriage.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm49erDem, despite all of bitblt’s posturing, I’m afraid he really does not know all that much about the King James Bible so I don’t expect him to know about the Jefferson Bible.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm“There’s not a court in the world that’s powerful enough to make someone recognize the relationship of two same gender people as a marriage.”
Ironically enough, other first world nations find us extremely primitive since we don’t.
December 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pmFirst of all, bitblt, it was actually “a’dam” which simply means “first man” – it was not a name. Secondly, the Bible says Eve was made as a “helpmate”. Thirdly, I think it is possible that God brings together gay couples as well as he does heterosexual couples. I recognize that is a belief, but I and others are entitled to it. Fourthly, if the tradition of marriage is that the act of sexual union is what defines “marriage”, then if gay people have sex together then are they not “married”? Finally, no, the “real power of marriage” is the love that unites two people, not the recognition of others. Many people in history have been “recognized” as married but are not because love is lacking. Why, many of your fellow conservatives openly questioned the marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton!
December 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pmSo whereas through the years I have taken more than a few woman into my tent, am I a polygamist?
Has bit ever entered nit’s tent? If so has bit only ever had on tent visitor or is bit also a polygamist? Does bit condone polygamy?
December 10th, 2008 at 6:00 pmralph was unaware of any attempts to force Christians to gay-marry. If such attempts are commonplace, ralph indeed decries them as infringements of the rights of those Christians.
ralph fully supports the rights of Christians and non-Christians alike to refuse to marry a person of the same sex.
however, ralph is still not sure, nor has bit yet clearly articulated, how gay marriage is “detrimental to the their practitioners?” Perhaps once bit explains this clearly, we will all see things as bit does.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pmoops soory bit. nit clearly was intended to be bit. Names and manners matter….
December 10th, 2008 at 6:02 pmHey Bit, You still haven’t answered the question about where did the rest of us come from if Cain and Abel were both male?
For all other posters, please don’t flag and ban bit, in todays’s economy inexpensive entertainment is hard to come by.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pmI have to get out of here in a few minutes. I trust that others will continue to debate bitblt if he is still lurking.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pmBit, my 34th anniversary is coming up in a couple of months. My 2 daughters are both getting married in the next six months, do my wife and I have to worry that our next door neighbors (Jill and Sarah) WERE planning on going to California to get married, will kill out 35th anniversary?
December 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pmJust curious.
“detrimental to the their practitioners?”
Damn! Despite dbadass’s fondness for the llama, clearly the llama is not reading for content. bit’s suggestion is that this is not only detrimental to the practitioners but also to the entire nation. bit believes but is unwilling to explain how this will most definitely lead to the impolsion of the nation.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:09 pmI commend PatrioticLiberalChristian for being all three of those things
December 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pmUnbelievable.
I have to believe that we, just like the many who passively ignored (or supported) segregation, will someday be forced to look back and confront our sins — how we justified denying homosexuals their civil rights because 60 percent of the population said so.
Just shameful.
http://www.thedavidsoncommentary.com
December 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pmralph understands dbadass’s objection to ralph’s point, but ralph has seen how bit pays no attention to the more salient points that bdadass has raised.
ralph wonders if perhaps one meets bit nearer the mouth of his lair, one may be able to coax him out into the sunshine.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:13 pmbitblt: “There’s not a court in the world that’s powerful enough to make someone recognize the relationship of two same gender people as a marriage.”
Irrelevant, as usual. The issue is taking civil rights away from a minority group of citizens, not forcing you to personally recognize anything. Nobody really needs or cares about your blessing or tolerance – this is about the majority taking civil rights away from a minority which is unamerican.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pmWhat a pathetic piece of humanity.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pmoops — “dbadass” — NOT “bdadass”.
ralph hopes his friend knows the high regard in which he holds dbadass and the sincere remorse he feels for an embarrassing typo.
Side note: ralph wonders how bitblt can stand sounding like such a pompous windbag all the time, what with referring to himself in third-person without pause?
December 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pmShould have added putrid to above: What a pathetic putrid piece of humanity!
December 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pmI see how it is.
Adam & Eve were married because they were “one flesh,” and Issac married Rebekah because “he took her into his tent,” which is a mere interpretation of marriage by somebody bit is willing to believe.
But interpreting marriage to include same sex couples is somehow wrong, and ruinous of marriage.
Like I have said many a time, bit is so full of shit, his eyes are brown and leaking.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pmno prob ralph. I am out for a bit but hope you all are still about upon my return. Oh and Zooey if you are still here then I have a new tent….
December 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
First of all, bitblt, it was actually “a’dam” which simply means “first man” – it was not a name. Secondly, the Bible says Eve was made as a “helpmate”. Thirdly, I think it is possible that God brings together gay couples as well as he does heterosexual couples. I recognize that is a belief, but I and others are entitled to it. Fourthly, if the tradition of marriage is that the act of sexual union is what defines “marriage”, then if gay people have sex together then are they not “married”? Finally, no, the “real power of marriage” is the love that unites two people, not the recognition of others. Many people in history have been “recognized” as married but are not because love is lacking. Why, many of your fellow conservatives openly questioned the marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton!
December 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Adam may mean dirt, or the Hebrew word Adam sound like the Hebrew word dirt.
Your remark in the bold area is of modern origin and, strictly speaking, not Biblical. That’s not to say that people in the Bible didn’t love each other. They did, but the reasons to marry in the Bible never include “really love each other.”
This means that bit understands the PLC modern understanding of love doesn’t fit the scripture.
The NT says there are four reasons to marry: morality, companionship, procreation, and a fourth which bit can never remember. The Apostle Paul instructs men to love their wives, and he instruct the older women to teach the younger women to love their husbands.
Besides, do you really expect that if two same-same gender people “really love each other,” the story turns into a love story and not one of perversion. bit can only imagine that someone would think this because they believe that same-same gender marriage, so-called, is on equal with natural marriage. bit knows of nothing in scripture that supports this.
Guess that means that adultery is Ok if the adulterer and the adulteress really love each other. Wow! Now adultery is a thrilling love story and not some gut wrenching ordeal, destroying lives and families.
bit believes he can categorically say that scripture expects responsibility in the sex lives of believers.
You know, of course, that early in Matthew Christ says that adultery is not only action but attitude ( man lusts in his heart he commits adultery). Can you imagine this mention of “lust in the heart” would be spoken by someone who was Ok with homosexuality?
Fourthly, if the tradition of marriage is that the act of sexual union is what defines “marriage”, then if gay people have sex together then are they not “married”?
Genesis says that Adam – the man – and Eve – the woman -were one flesh. This “one flesh” is not achievable by two same-same gender people. This is bit’s opinion which he believes is supported by scripture.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:26 pmA shocking breach of decorum!
But given that liberal men tend to find intelligence and wit in a woman very sexy indeed, entirely understandable.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pmFor those of you more intellegent than I, please anwer this question. My wife was born and raised in Korea. We were married during my first tour there. The “marriage” process took over three months and the actual “marriage” amounted to two day of traipsing from one government office to another and then to the U.S. Embassy. At some point were seemed to be handed a piece of paper that said we were married. Were we married?; was it a “civil union”? What is it? Am I free to go “mess around”? Just curious
December 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pmintellegent s/b intelligent. Told you I’m not.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pmSimple answer: YES. It is a love story.
bit displays his bigotry and hatefulness in one simple question, posed rhetorically but with hardly the effect that bit must have planned.
ralph feels sorry for bit, with thesevere limitations on the meaning and expression of love that constrict bit’s world.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pmToo bad I’m not into camping… ;)
December 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pmYeah, but many conservative Christians also believe that the Earth is only 6500 years old, the devil put fake dinosaur bones in the ground to fool scientists, and there is an invisible superhero who lives in the clouds, and they are going to fly naked through the air to live with him, leaving their clothes and gold fillings lying in their lounge chairs.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:31 pmDoes bitblt ever get tired of being pwned?
December 10th, 2008 at 6:33 pmbitblt: “bit believes he can categorically say that scripture expects responsibility in the sex lives of believers.”
This is a good example of cognitive dissonance that must be tough to handle. Christians often say this, but the facts are that states with the highest populations of conservative evangelical christians also have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, divorce rates and child abuse in the nation. And how do words “expect” something? Please.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:35 pmI don’t care what scripture expects…or demands.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:37 pmralph: “ralph feels sorry for bit, with thesevere limitations on the meaning and expression of love that constrict bit’s world.”
Well, I think you have to keep in mind that many christians believe god showed his “love” for the world by having his only son tortured to death. That kind of dogma is bound to lead to some confusion on this thing we call love.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:37 pmZooey: “I don’t care what scripture expects…or demands.”
Exactly! Because you’re not christian, right? Sounds like such a simple concept. The fact that so many people can’t get that is testimonial to the strangeness of their dogma.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:40 pmExactly, 49erDem.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:45 pmbitblt: “The NT says there are four reasons to marry: morality, companionship, procreation, and a fourth which bit can never remember.”
Fine. So, I take it that if a person is sterile, they can’t get married. And, since I’m reasonably sure many gay couples are morally dedicated to eachother, you’re talking about a very specific definition of “morality” which will be dictated by your particular religious text – this implies people can’t get married unless they accept christianity’s specific rules on morality, right? Companionship? Well, sure, gay couples are certainly companions…
I think you better come up with that elusive “fourth reason.” The first three aren’t really holding up to scrutiny that well.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:46 pmbitblt Says:
Is it not “oppression” to force people, especially Christians to accept practices that are clearly contrary to scripture in addition to being detrimental to the their practitioners?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh yes it is. There can be no doubt about it. That statement was purely ignorant. It is a plain un-American statement. The very first comandment is I am the Lord thy God thou shalt have no other God before me. YOU have no choice but to accept that others have every right to worship other Gods or no God at all. My nieghbor has the right to worship, Shiva, The Flying Spaghetti Monster of the Blue Frog that jumped his fence last week. I cannot see how anyone could even THINK that them FORCING others to comply or that they cannot accept the right of others to believe as they see fit whether or NOT it compies with the Bible is not 100% against the constitution then again you have NEVER made sense NEVER had the slightest idea what you were talking about and we get only senseless babble from you I dont know why today would be any different. This is NOT a Theocracy and those like YOU who would make it one are un-American
December 10th, 2008 at 6:48 pmbit you pretentious moron this is really VERY simple. You have every right to believe as you choose and follow the Bible and Christian ways. You have ZERO right to demand others do so. If you CANNOT make an argument against gay marriage that is not religiously based then you arent even IN the discussion.
December 10th, 2008 at 6:54 pmBecause it’s a civil right. In the middle of the 19th century, pro-slavery people used the bible as their main source to argue that slavery was a proper and appropriate way to run a society.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:00 pmAh yes, the oppressiveness of forced tolerance. What a freaking nightmare, right bitblt?
December 10th, 2008 at 7:01 pmI so wish that, at the end of the interview, when “President-elect Huckabee” (h/t: Daryll) tried to close with a joke and said, “Jon, I’m not going to marry you,” Jon had simply deadpanned, “I don’t recall asking, Governor.”
C’mon — that would have been great. No?
December 10th, 2008 at 7:15 pmdid bit split?
December 10th, 2008 at 7:37 pmThat was awesome. Although I would have liked it if Jon kept pushing Huckabee on when he chose “not to be gay”. Religious people constantly use the “choose to be gay” mantra to validate their belief that gay people don’t deserve equal rights since it’s a lifestyle choice.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:38 pmWhy do you all think that gay related threads seems to generate the largest number of posts? Gayiety seems mad phat as they say…
December 10th, 2008 at 9:05 pmThink back. We used to have this much fun on threads pointing pointing out the outrageous lies of the Bush administration.
The Bush worshippers would lie for hours on end about how Bush’s lies weren’t really lies, they were something else.
Then Hurricane Katrina hit, and suddenly, the eyes of the general public awoke to the nightmare of cronyistic government.
Of course, the Bush flying monkeys flew around shitting on our heads for as long as they could. But, eventually the realization of ultimate corruption, unacceptable incompetence, and hypocrisy forced the most ardent supporters of the Bush administration, and the Republican party in general to basically go underground.
By that, I mean, the 23% deadenders are still there. They are a large part of our population. They are still very dangerous, due to their insanity, and their large numbers.
As defenders of our country, we must never again allow these 23%er’s to scheme their way into control of our country.
This thread has been so much fun.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:50 pmFind out the FACTS
December 15th, 2008 at 12:44 amThis is not as cut and dry as many on this blog think. Homosexuals are not born gay. There are many documented cases of gay people taking up with the opposite sex There are no cases of Hispanics becoming Orientals or (without the aid of technology) men becoming women. The gay’s will say that is being bi, OK so did you start bi or homo or hetro? Whatever the answer, that state of emotion does not constitute a birth condition that is immutable. Gay leaders are on record as acknowledging that homosexuality is not a condition from birth. But they know that they need the public to think it is to advance the gay agenda. Recently the father of the Human Genome Project concluded that homosexuality is not hardwired. We have a responsibility to order our society by implementing best practices regarding sexual behaviors. Keeping marriage as between man and women , not mano a mano is in keeping with that duty
#192 – oncedarkness Says:
———————————————————–
“Find out the FACTS
This is not as cut and dry as many on this blog think. Homosexuals are not born gay. There are many documented cases of gay people taking up with the opposite sex.”
December 15th, 2008 at 12:44 am
And there’s about 100 times more cases of married couples breaking up because one partner recognizes his/her sexual orientation is towards thier own sex.
So sad that you want to marginalize a minority.
December 16th, 2008 at 7:08 amoncedarkness Says:
You dont HAVE facts, You have bigoted opinions. Stupid ones at that. You SAY gays are not born gay but you have NO way of knowing that. Your argument doesnt come close to showing that. first it isnt that either or. You have many bisexuals and a spectrum among them. You also dont know if that change was NOT just succombing to societal pressure. You argue from bigotry and ignorance. Rent a clue.
February 17th, 2009 at 6:08 am