When Asked Whether He Would ‘Consider’ Gay Civil Unions, Steele Replies, ‘What Are You, Crazy?’
When Asked Whether He Would ‘Consider’ Gay Civil Unions, Steele Replies, ‘What Are You, Crazy?’
Last night, actor Sean Penn and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black both won Oscars for their work on “Milk,” which told the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected official. Today, the right wing expressed its disgust that the movie received such acclamation. On his radio show, Mike Gallagher slammed Penn for ignoring “the majority of Americans” by supporting gay marriage rights, saying it went against America’s “fundamental values.”
Gallagher asked guest Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party, if he thought the party “ought to consider” something like civil unions. Steele replied immediately, “No, no, no,” adding, “What are you, crazy?” He made it clear that the party would not budge on gay rights:
GALLAGHER: Is this a time when Republicans ought to consider some sort of alternative to redefining marriage and maybe in the road, down the road to civil unions. Do you favor civil unions?
STEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country? I mean this isn’t something that you just kind of like, “Oh well, today I feel, you know, loosey-goosey on marriage.” [...]
GALLAGHER: So no room even for a conversation about civil unions in your mind?
STEELE: What’s the difference?
Listen here:
Steele’s extremist statements present a sharp contrast from the rhetoric he employed to secure his chairmanship. In November, he told the Washington Times that the party needs to reach out to new communities and that it “has to realize that there are constituencies in the body politic that have no interest in conservative litmus tests based on same-sex marriage and abortion.”
In fact, just days after winning election to head the GOP, he told ABC’s George Stehanopolous that his party would seek to include those who support gay rights:
WALLACE: You are one of the co-founders of something called the Republican Leadership Council which supports candidates who favor abortion and gay rights.
STEELE: Yes.
WALLACE: Does the GOP needs to do a better job of reaching out to people who hold those views?
STEELE: I think — I think that’s an important opportunity for us, absolutely.
Indeed, Steele has talked a big game about reaching new constituencies — saying recently, “We need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets” — yet he advocates bigotry that the vast majority of Americans rejects. A poll from December showed that a full 75 percent of Americans support gay marriage or civil unions, with only about 2 in 10 saying gay couples should have no legal rights.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You mean, it’s crazy to not be a homophobe?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 pmfortunately, no one give a rat’s ass what this clown thinks. afterall, he is “leading” a marginalized party which was thoroughly clobbered in the last two elections and at the rate they’re going will be extinct by 2020.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 pmSo this is the new face of the Republican Party? These are the new ideas that will broaden the tent for Independants? WTF? “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm“2 in 10″
The GOP should be getting real used to hearing that ratio.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:20 pm“Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?”-steele
must have missed that part of the declaration of independence- live, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and marriage? WTF is wrong with these clowns?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:21 pm“When Asked Whether He Would ‘Consider’ Gay Civil Unions, Steele Replies, ‘What Are You, Crazy?’”
– - The denial of civil rights irony that has escaped Michael Steele’s cutting-edge thinking is truly dumbfounding.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 pmNo, that isn’t the only idea. I hear they are also forming a plan to cut taxes for the rich.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pmSTEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?
Like respecting an international treaty?
Republicans have no respect for this country, or its founding principles. They are like children: easily frightened, and incapable of honoring their responsibilities as Americans.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pmIs Steele doing a little “Seig Heil” there?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pmbarfly, you forgot to mention obsessed with booty love
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm“…founding value of this country…”
I must have missed that part in our history books where the founding fathers fled England to escape the gays marrying epidemic there.
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh………Mr. Steele is obviously carrying on the fine RNC tradition of instilling a complete f***ing idiot as Chairman.
Can you say Democratic Super Majorities in Congress?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:25 pmgod, then they wonder why “liberals are filled with hate” dumbasses like steele drive me to it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 pmCaption: “I can spot a fag from a mile away.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 pmThe GOP: Vote for us so we can discriminate against you. We’re off the hook!
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:26 pmWhy is the Republicans so hung up on gay and lesbian issues? Don’t we have enough to worry about other than Steve and Larry having basic civil rights? Can’t they spend time and energy on worthwhile causes like the homeless and poverty? Oh, wait, that would require empathy.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pmOf course the GOP is against unions. they only support big business and corporations.
Sniff, always brings a tear to my eye.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pmphoto caption:
“LOOK! OVER THERE! TWO GUYS MAKING “LOOSEY GOOSEY” EYES AT EACH OTHER! CALL SECURITY!”
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:30 pmOn his radio show, Mike Gallagher slammed Penn for ignoring “the majority of Americans” by supporting gay marriage rights, saying it went against America’s “fundamental values.”
___________________________________________________________
Since when is bigotry a “fundamental value” of America? And since when is “2 in 10″ a “majority of Americans”?
I agree with Steele on one thing, though — when he says “What’s the difference?”, I really wish somebody would answer that question. I’m tired of people claiming they’re against gay marriage but support civil unions without explaining what the difference is.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pmHooray for Mike steel, that gay marriage stuff is just too wierd
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 pmDoes Mr. “Steel” have a wide stance? Is he familiar with Jeff Gannon?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 pmSTEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?
Hmmm, Michael, there are probably some that would argue that slavery would also fall into that “core, founding value” category. What say you to that?
PEACE
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:35 pmThat’s about the size of it Joe. Or as Roger Water’s put;
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
MissMolly, interestingly enough, a church wedding isn’t legal until the marriage license is filed and finalized. Making it an officially recognized “civil union”.
PEACE
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 pmI find it astounding that Republicans refuse to award living, breathing gay or lesbian human beings their full rights, whilst professing undeniable rights for unborn fetuses and completely shutting down the rights of woman to make their own decisions about their own bodies.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:38 pm@katebuckingham 26
Yep.
See
http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/diploid-dave-et-al.html
Even Scalia grudgingly admits that fetuses are not “persons.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
Since when is bigotry a “fundamental value” of America? And since when is “2 in 10? a “majority of Americans”?
I agree with Steele on one thing, though — when he says “What’s the difference?”, I really wish somebody would answer that question. I’m tired of people claiming they’re against gay marriage but support civil unions without explaining what the difference is.
There shouldn’t be a difference. Everyone should have a civil union regardless of whether they are marrying someone of the same or opposite sex. Time to do away with religious terminology if you really want separation of church and state.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:45 pmsteele’s mind is a one armed miget not only that but its also missing it outher arm both legs its head and its sternum with leaves him with only the ass left…..thats rite steeles has a migets ass for a brain
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 pmkatebuckingham Says:
I find it astounding that Republicans refuse to award living, breathing gay or lesbian human beings their full rights, whilst professing undeniable rights for unborn fetuses and completely shutting down the rights of woman to make their own decisions about their own bodies.
If there was ever a way to test fetuses for sexual orientation, I wonder what they would do. Probably change their minds, or find a Bible verse they could manipulate to support abortion for some and not for others.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:49 pmIn general I think the black community is more bigotted against the gay community than other progressive communities by comparision. I think it is partially due to The Bible and the Book of Leviticus.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:50 pmSome one should tell Gallagher, that he and Steele go against America’s fundamental values.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:50 pmkatebuckingham Says:
Makes me think about all the wingnuts who believe being homosexual is a choice – if they were to ever come to the realization that it isn’t a choice, would the hardcore bigot preacher types then encourage their rapture ready sheeple to go on an abortion rampage, killing all “those future gays”?
Crazy, but I wouldn’t put anything past those hate filled lunatics.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:51 pmKeep talking, Steele. You’re leading the lemmings right off a cliff.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:59 pmHuh? I didn’t realize it was in Sean Penn’s job description that he had to in any way be sensitive to the needs of the bigoted. It was his acceptance speech not Gallagher’s. Nor was this was unexpected. It’s not like Penn has ever polled anyone before he did anything.
It’s just more manufactured outrage. If they can’t scare us they’ll try to anger us. Attacking GBLTs is pure bigotry gold.
With the way they get off on gay bashing, you’d think Gallagher and the like sat at home watching the Oscars holding well-thumbed copies of Playguy. Rooting all the while for Penn or Dustin Lance Black to say something rage-worthy. That way Gallagher could spew bigotry over the airwaves today to punish himself for his secret naughty thought.
-AF
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
You forgot about eliminating Social Security and Medicare.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pmSTEELE: No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No. Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?
Freudian slip?
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:07 pmIt’s rare that you get to see one dig one’s own grave. Michael Steele should be very careful when discussing “founding, core values of this country.” Such as, kidnapping black people to be brought here to be sold into slavery? Like the way Union soldiers used to lure Indian braves out as if to fend off an attack while another group of soldiers would then slaughter the Indian women and children left behind?
Michael Steele is doing nothing but performing a little dog & pony show for the only group of people still dumb enough to believe republicans, the evangelical Christian religious right. These nutbags will believe anthing a republican says especially when they mention the words ‘gay’ or ‘abortion.’ All he’s doing is ratcheting up the only base they have left to “catapult the propaganda.”
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 pmShorter Alfred E. Steele: “What, me homo?”
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pmI think Steele was on Chris Wallace’s show and not on Stehanopolous.
I think there is a difference between civil union and marriage. The state should let gays have civil unions, identical to straight people’s civil unions. Marriage should be strictly a matter for the church. If a church wants to not recognize gay marriage, it should be the prerogative of the individual church (a church that should not be tax exempt, BTW). Additionally, if a church wanted to recognize only gay marriage, that should also be the prerogative of the church.
Separation of Church and State in regards to marriage. And true equality in regards to civil unions.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pmWhat absolutely stupid bastards….They keep preaching to the 30 percent who are the base and totally forget the rest of the country.
Keep it up, morons. A 70-30 Barack win in 2012 is fine with me!
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:32 pm“We need to uptick our image with everyone, including one-armed midgets”
Mr. Steele, why do you assume that most one-armed midgets are against you? Isn’t that…prejudiced?
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:33 pmbackup Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I agree with you here. Keep up the good thinking. :)
My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace in a restaurant. I guess people like Mr. Steele would say we’re “not really married”.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:35 pmAs weird as hating someone because you don’t like who they are having sex with?
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 pmbackup Says:
Ah NO the courts have already ruled that marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to Americans so givig it exclusivly to churches would by a violation OF the establishment clause. How about let Gays marry and let Churches decide individually if THEY want to perform gay weddings. If they do fine, they can, if they dont fine, they dont have to.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 pmHe’s a ReichWinger, which means he is going to say crazy things that don’t jive with things he has said before, it’s what they do.
FCUK THE REPUBLICANS
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 pmAnacher Forester Says:
Exactly. You win the award you get the podium you say what you want that is the way it has always been.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:45 pmSuck on it righties!
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pmOdd, this doesn’t seem to appear any where in the Constitution. Perhaps he has it confused with his bible.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:54 pmSteele said “are you crazy? why can’t they all get their dicks sucked in the men’s room like the rest of us?”
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pmWill the Log Cabin republicans now get a clue?
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm“…only about 2 in 10 saying gay couples should have no legal rights.”
Yeah, Daryll and Rapture Ready – if they are 2 different people.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:11 pmEugeneDebs. This is also a good idea. Works for me.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:12 pmbackup Says:
How about let Gays marry and let Churches decide individually if THEY want to perform gay weddings.
EugeneDebs. This is also a good idea. Works for me.
Me, too. Actually, why not just have the federal government say the word “marriage” means nothing to them, only “civil unions” (which are between two, and only two, people) will be recognized. As of the moment the law takes effect, all “marriages” on the books will automatically become “civil unions” under the new law.
If you want to have a “traditional church wedding”, those will also be recognized by the federal governmetn as a “civil union” (so you don’t have to do it twice.) Anyone already empowered to marry two people will be allowed to join two people in “civil union”. Everybody wins, and nobody loses anything.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:18 pmWayne. your post in #56, is exactly what I think. I could not have said it better.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pmAs rhf said, slavery was also a “founding value” of this country.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:32 pmWhy, thank you, backup. That was nice of you to say.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:34 pmI want to calmly ask Mr. Steele if he has no shame in inciting bigotry. Can he look himself in the mirror and not recognize he is the voice of intolerance and hate? He has a position of authority which enables him to be a beacon of moral authority, and he shamelessly promotes intolerance. It is too late in the day to be using sarcasm to deal with people like him. Irony and humor are pointless. He must be shamed. Heis a figure of disgust and abhorrence.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 pmWayne A. Schneider Says: 56
I have nothing against that in theory. However Congress would need to extend all rights of marriage to civil unions and then do something about Loving v Virginia which stated clearly that MARRIAGE was a fundamental right.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
exactly my point. No one is demanding that churches marry ANYONE they dont want to.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:42 pmWhen Asked Whether He Would ‘Consider’ Gay Civil Unions, Steele Replies, ‘What Are You, Crazy?’
When pressed , he further added : “Do you realize how many weddings GOP politicians would have , cutting into available election cash ?”
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 pmYou don’t think the public outcry there Wayne from the millions of married couples in this country married in civil ceremonies might be more than the outcry against gay marriage? I think it would. I think that would be a much harder battle to take away peoples marriages rather than extending the title to a wider demograph.
Perhaps a more doable approach would be to have the government stop distinguishing between gender for matters of civil law? After all now that there’s been pregnant men, it pretty much seems like civil matters should be based on the issue and not the gender. We don’t give different drivers licenses to women than we do men. We don’t give different social security numbers to women than we do men, nor social security benefits.
Seems if we took gender out of the equation, then marriage would be a civil agreement between two consenting parties like any other legal contract.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 pmWAYNEBRO Says:
Seems if we took gender out of the equation, then marriage would be a civil agreement between two consenting parties like any other legal contract.
Okay, that can work, too. I just always like to remember that millions of people can be wrong. I think the problem is that not enough people get to hear a rational debate on the subject. Not that there’s a rational argument against gay marriage, but not enough people get to hear the “for” side of the discussion because they get drowned out by the religious zealots who think their losing something if gays are allowed to marry. Of course, I don’t hear these same people arguing that divirce should be illegal.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pmmarriage = person + person
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:08 pmMr. Philby Says:
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pmsmoething he saw on a bumper sticker thus, adding zero value to the conversation.
think before you poat
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 pmThe irony is that the majority of the people who express hatred and disdain toward the gay community are the same types of people who would have been equally intolerant of civil rights for blacks in the 1950s and 1960s.
Ever since the 1960’s, the GOP consistently has been, and will always be, the party of exclusion and intolerance, the party that attempts to diminish those who look different than themselves, pray to a different deity, or follow a different lifestyle. They are the party that uses fear and hatred as a weapon to intimidate any who do not share their points of view. The GOP offers 20th century solutions to 21st century problems.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 pmMr. Philby. I’m assuming that you believe in these words:
How do you read the words and believe that they somehow don’t apply to gay people?
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 pmPhilby=Brainwashed moron
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 pmMr. Philby Says: 74
Any punk who trolls websites because he is too STUPID to engage in actual discussion is a CLEAR moron and YOU are clearly a MORON.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 pmWell. Slavery and segregation were also founding values pretty much.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 pmMr. Philby Says:
Any man that gets off on a coat is definitely gay.
Says our resident expert on all things queer.
Too easy?
Yeah, I know. bwahahaha
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 pmActually surprised one of you guys didn’t beat me to that one…
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 pmBozo The Neoclown Says:
“Why would we backslide on a core, founding value of this country?”-steele
must have missed that part of the declaration of independence- life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and marriage? WTF is wrong with these clowns?
I posted my version of this thinking on another thread a few days ago, taking a shot at Utah’s blight, Buttars:
Buttheaders says: I believe that you will destroy the foundation of American society, because I believe the cornerstone of it is a man and a woman, the family.
Yep. It’s right there in the Prologue of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men-and-women-who-are-married-to-the-opposite-sex are created equal; that only men-and-women-etc-who-then-form-families are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, as long as that happiness occurs only to men and women who are married to members of the opposite sex and who have children so that they become families.
And there is is again in the Preamble to the Constitution: “We, the married-to-the-opposite-sex people of the United States of America. . . ”
For the love of Mike, WHAT “values” does Steele think he is preserving? Has he forgotten how very recently his own “minority” was an object of scorn and disenfranchisement? Has he forgotten the efforts of Democrats and Progressives to win parity for Black Americans? Has he forgotten the hate-filled spewings of repuke “leaders”?
Wake up and smell the Oreos, Steele: you’ve become one.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 pmand Mr. Philby, a bit about connotation in text. When you use a word like definitely it implies you have a rather intimate understanding of the subject matter.
That ones free, the next one will cost ya a quarter.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 pmbarfly Says:
Republicans have no respect for this country, or its founding principles. They are like children: easily frightened, and incapable of honoring their responsibilities as Americans.
But most children eventually grow up. Their version of the Bible must omit this verse: “When I was a child, I spake as a child; I thought as a child; I understood as a child. But when I became an [adult], I put away childish things.”
“Child-like” behaviors and attitudes can be charming.
“Child-ish” versions of the same merely disgust actual adults.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pmDeuce Coupe Says:
Hooray for Mike steel, that gay marriage stuff is just too wierd
How would YOU know?????? Been proposed to by a gay person? Ever proposed to a gay person [and been turned down]?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 pmjb Says:
Does Mr. “Steel” have a wide stance? Is he familiar with Jeff Gannon?
He has a wide blind spot in his world-view.
He has a wide gap in his education and knowledge.
He has a wide lacuna in his ethics.
He has a wide hole in his head.
He has a wide foot, which, Lord willing, will choke him the next time he inserts it in his upper orifice–he’s already got repuke noses in his nether orifice.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 pmWell, DUH! Steele has already said there is no need to change their policies, just try a different marketing message. Man, this is a GREAT plan!
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 pmCats r Flyfishn Says:
Perhaps he has it confused with his bible.
Except for the book of Leviticus–the old, no-longer-valid LEVITICAL laws–and a couple of references in Romans which discuss homosexuality in the context of idol worship, there’s nothing in MY Bible that would support ANY of Steel-head’s claims.
But there’s a plethora of verses–INCLUDING ONE IN THE SAME PASSAGE OF Romans which contains THE “CONDEMNATION” OF HOMOSEXUALITY–which heap blame on accusers, judgmentalists, legalists, Pharisees, bigots, and especially those hypocrites who attack the mote in someone else’s eye whilst ignoring the beam in their own.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 pmMCMetal Says:
When pressed , he further added : “Do you realize how many weddings GOP politicians would have , cutting into available election cash ?”
A stunning troll-swat, Mac!
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 pmMr. Philby Says:
I’ll go out on a limb, here. Steele is a racist, bigot and a homophobe, right?
Mr. Philby Says:
marriage=man+woman
Did the same blogger write both of these?? WTF?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 pmSteele proves himself to be a bigoted, irrelevant idiot. Again.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 pmA black man in favor of denying civil rights.
Ballsy.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:46 pmAmerica’s fundamental values are life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Surely Steele must realize this and recognize that his position on civil unions violates two of those principles. So, why is he demogoguing the Republican indefensible stand for more hate.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:26 amMr. Philby Says:
How long have you been homophobic?
February 24th, 2009 at 12:41 am
How long have you been stupid?
Nevermind, I don’t need to know how old you are.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:48 am.
Dear Mr. Steele,
In case you never heard the words, “Back of the bus,” refers to the inequality black Americans were beseeched with by non-colored folk.
That inequality?
The same injustice perpetrated upon the black community of the past is the same struggle the LGBT community faces today. When will you join the 21st Century?
XOXO
America
p.s.
Marriage = The union of TWO consenting ADULTS.
p.p.s.
PROTECT the INSTITUTE
PRESERVE MARRIAGE
OUTLAW DIVORCE!
.
February 24th, 2009 at 12:48 amZooey,
February 24th, 2009 at 12:50 amIt’s not nice to pick on Mr. Philby…
… He hasn’t stopped beating his boyfriend yet.
Maybe if gay marriage becomes legal the straights will change the title to something else.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:38 amthe more he opens his mouth, the better off the dems are in 2010. keep up the good work mr. steele!
February 24th, 2009 at 4:04 amActually, anything steele says is unimportant.
All of his elected officials, exception of a couple, are self destructing from the state level to the DC level.
Won’t be long before he joins the bush unemployed.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:21 amTodays Republicans have always been against extending equal rights to all Americans. That’s just way too American for them.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:09 am#95 – Mr. Philby Says:
——————————————————-
“How long have you been homophobic?”
February 24th, 2009 at 12:41 am
So, when JB suggests that Mr. Steele might possibly have same-sex attraction, which many anti-gay people actually have which makes them more likely to attack the people they are afraid they might have something in common with, that makes you assume that JB is homophobic?
You really don’t know what the meaning of the word “homophobic” is, do you Mr. Philby? Your intentional mis-charactarization of JB proves that you don’t.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:13 amSo, your wife left you because you aren’t a real man.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:34 amOK Zooey. It’s not nice for you to make coffee shoot out of my nose first thing in the morning.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:37 amTravel back in time with me, ok? Imagine that it is 1967 and Loving vs. Virginia has yet to be decided by the SCOTUS.
Let’s re-imagine this conversation:
Why is the GOP *always* on the wrong side of history? How many battles do they have to lose before they realize that the Culture War is over, and we won?
February 24th, 2009 at 9:21 amIt isn’t just the GOP. This is the problem with conservative philosophy in general. Conservatives have fought progress of all kinds throughout human history. They feel that moving forward is wrong and scary. They prevail on any issue for varying amounts of time. But, in the end, society will recognize that standing still, or even moving backward is counterproductive, and we progress.
I’m sure it was a group of progressives who dragged their conservative brethren kicking and screaming from the caves to build the first huts.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:35 amAny argument against gay marriage is based entirely on religious sentiment. I don’t know any logical secular argument against gay marriage. If this does not represent a constitutional violation of separation of church and state I don’t know what does! It seems that there may be associated violations of privacy as well. What about all the Biblical quotes that very clearly tell us to MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS!
February 24th, 2009 at 9:39 amtelestai2 Says:
barfly Says:
Republicans have no respect for this country, or its founding principles. They are like children: easily frightened, and incapable of honoring their responsibilities as Americans.
But most children eventually grow up. Their version of the Bible must omit this verse: “When I was a child, I spake as a child; I thought as a child; I understood as a child. But when I became an [adult], I put away childish things.”
“Child-like” behaviors and attitudes can be charming.
“Child-ish” versions of the same merely disgust actual adults.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:07 pm
The above quote from the Bible was written by the Apostle Paul, wasn’t it? The Apostle Paul had the most to say in the New Testament about inappropriate sexual behavior, including homosexuality. He certainly didn’t use the above quote to try to justify homosexuality. bit remembers this quote being used to urge spiritual maturity.
The quote below was spoken by Jesus.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4563978
bit understand this quote to be about trust and reliance on Jesus, which Jesus notes as necessary for entry into the kingdom.
These quotes aren’t contradictory. They’re just about different things, not neither is about justifying or accepting of inappropriate sexual behavior.
Jesus says in Matthew 19 that the Creator intended for a man and a woman to be “one-flesh” in marriage. Two same-same gender people cannot be “one flesh.”
February 24th, 2009 at 10:07 amLarry Craig sure intended to be “one flesh” with that undercover cop in the bathroom stall for a while.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:36 amWAKE UP PEOPLE !!
February 24th, 2009 at 10:43 amthe economy is tanking due to the democrats , people prosper under repub government only . prime example oil was 65.00 a barrel when the dems took control of congress two years ago , shortly after oil balloned to 145.00 a barrel . just some fun facts oddly coincidental obama has only two years experience as a senator , the gays alwasy support the democrats and for what reason remains a mystery as the dems hammer away at taking away gay rights . clinton chose to use the “dont ask , dont tell” polocy in the military .
getting back to the subject although there are two sides of a marriage the cival union , the legal aspect and the religious side the marriage acknowledged by freinds government and GOD . while the gays might brow beat everyone down to accept their “marriage” it will forever remain an abomination in the eyes of GOD . LIKE IT OR NOT THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE !!!! you gay liberals wanted to seperate GOD and government , there you have it .
but take heart for there is a viable solution to your problem !! we have the medical technology to transform your gender making it a marriage between one man and one woman after all . all most 100 percent of the people are not oppposed to this option including GOD .
Republicans started down their current path under William Howard Taft. The Taft’s are still influential in Ohio, especially in the Cincinnati area. Eisenhower tried to change things a bit but with Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon flanking him he had little success. Nixon’s brand of politics is finally running its course but Steele doesn’t yet seem to realize this — or he simply doesn’t care. Republicans have become the Whigs but there is no Abraham Lincoln to lift them up. (White House Intelligent Group was no accident).
February 24th, 2009 at 10:50 ambitblt seems to have,”a plank in his eye” You can cherry-pick the hell out of scripture! Michael Steel will further isolate the G.O.P. Just like choosing Sarah Palin was supposed to bring in the woman’s vote. This vitriol spewing Trojan horse will alienate more minority voters than they can imagine. He’s the perfect G.O.P. shill. Bing black doesn’t give you the right to talk like a Grand Dragon. bitblt apparently doesn’t realize that Americans aren’t required to be literal interpretationist Christians! This is a pluralist secular society. You can believe or not believe in whatever you choose. Swallow your chaw and shut up with the proselytizing!
February 24th, 2009 at 10:57 amWAYNEBRO …Pink Floid said it best.
Their day is coming.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:00 amtrans menace…go F*** Yourself.
Who got us into this mess????? If you think DEMS…do all of us a favor….take your head…bend over and stick your head up your pie hole. Make sure to close your mouth because Shite stains the teeth and we wouldn’t want to be sick to our guts looking at your crap every time you open your mouth.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:04 amTwo same-same gender people cannot be “one flesh.”….really? If there is a “INNIE AND AN OUTIE” on each person, don’t you think the pieces will fit into eachother???
February 24th, 2009 at 11:08 amBeing a transsexual, it seems strange that you are such a homophobe.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:13 am“the party needs to reach out to new communities” – BUT only if they are straight, white and over 50………..rofl lmao
February 24th, 2009 at 11:14 amtrans menace Says:
WAKE UP PEOPLE !!
the economy is tanking due to the democrats , people prosper under repub government only
The stock market crashed back in September.
.
trans menace Says:
prime example oil was 65.00 a barrel when the dems took control of congress two years ago , shortly after oil balloned to 145.00 a barrel…
Due to the decision made by the President to destabilize the Middle East by invading Iraq.
.
trans menace Says:
the gays alwasy support the democrats and for what reason remains a mystery as the dems hammer away at taking away gay rights . clinton chose to use the “dont ask , dont tell” polocy in the military .
Well, it’s not Democrats out there calling them “abominations,” so gay rights has its best chance with Dems.
DA/DT was a compromise policy. The previous policy of the military was that they could intrusively investigate rumors that an enlisted person was gay.
.
trans menace Says:
there are two sides of a marriage the cival union , the legal aspect and the religious side the marriage acknowledged by freinds government and GOD . while the gays might brow beat everyone down to accept their “marriage” it will forever remain an abomination in the eyes of GOD . LIKE IT OR NOT THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE !!!! you gay liberals wanted to seperate GOD and government , there you have it .
I am sensitive to the notion that most folks consider marriage to be a religious institution, and that many folks’ religious denominations have problems with homosexuality. I think the best solution would be to get government out of the business of validating “marriage,” and have civil unions for everybody, gay or straight. If you want to call your civil union a marriage, that’s between you and your particular congregation.
Once I filter out all of the bile-spewing vitriol from your statement, it sounds like you might be in potential agreement with that approach.
Gay people don’t really want your church to recognize their union as spiritually valid. In fact, they don’t give a crap what your church recognizes as spiritually valid. They just want the same legal rights that straight people get.
.
trans menace Says:
but take heart for there is a viable solution to your problem !! we have the medical technology to transform your gender making it a marriage between one man and one woman after all . all most 100 percent of the people are not oppposed to this option including GOD .
That’s the awesomest crazy thing I’ve ever read here. It’s so awesome/crazy that I don’t even know what else to say about it or where to begin. Congratulations!
February 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pmIf you look at the scripts for religious ceremonies, you often find reference to “Holy Marriage” or “Holy Matrimony” which is a recognition that there is a difference between a civil marriage and a religiously sanctified one. Granting gays’ rights to civil marriage will not change this. There is NO justification for denying gays this civil right to a civil agreement except for promoting a particular religious dogma, which is not accepted entirely even within the religious community itself.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pmThat was freaky crazy. I took it mean that God hates gays, but loves post-op transexuals. I’m also pretty sure it means tranny mensex no longer loaths herself so much.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:29 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
If you look at the scripts for religious ceremonies, you often find reference to “Holy Marriage” or “Holy Matrimony” which is a recognition that there is a difference between a civil marriage and a religiously sanctified one. Granting gays’ rights to civil marriage will not change this. There is NO justification for denying gays this civil right to a civil agreement except for promoting a particular religious dogma, which is not accepted entirely even within the religious community itself.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Believe most of your post is a miss there PLC.
These scripts to which you refer are not sacred themselves, and the likelihood is that references to “Holy Marriage” or “Holy Matrimory” is an allusion to what Christ said in Matthew 19, as bit has shown below.
Quoting Christ directly now:”So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
It’s this “joining” by God that makes it Holy. These lines are often quoted in the scripts to which you refer.
Please note that Christ doesn’t refer to a religion or a government for the “endorsement” of marriage. Christ refers to the Creator, and the Genesis account of the Creator bring the first woman and giving her to the first man.
bit doesn’t believe calling “Holy” is to distinguish it from a civil marriage. bit would be surprise if most civil ceremonies in the U.S. didn’t include these references to Holy Marriage.
As you may have read in bit’s previous posts, many Conservative Christians(cCs) consider marriage to be older than either religion or government. The is what Christ is saying when He says, “…have you not read…?” Christ is referring to the Genesis account.
That’s why cC’s call marriage a God ordained institution.
This is a good think for all Christians to know.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4563978
February 24th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Bitblt, you are ridiculous. The ‘quoting’ of the Bible and Jesus (haha after millenia of translation, anecdote, and pure myth) has absolutely no bearing on this discussion, nor this government. I am ill just thinking about how backwards your world is, when the rest of us in Think Progress are looking forward- to a world with people that can speak critically and pragmatically about an issue, without bringing up magical sky gods, talking snakes, and ’sons of gods’ that are kind of god, kind of not.
But keep going, please. The world is changing whether you like it or not, and you and your kind will always freak out and try to hinder progress with whatever pathetic means you have.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pmPLC recognizes that bitblt misses the point of the whole discussion of gay marriage. bitblt wants to impose his religious views on society as a whole while PLC wants people to make their own personal choice about religious matters and not have them dictated by others. PLC recognizes that Americans have the right to choose their church which has the right to choose its dogma and PLC opposes any and all efforts to undermine those rights. PLC also recognizes that these rights, by definition, must be extended to individuals and churches which do not adhere to any particular dogma or the “rights” are meaningless. PLC is opposed to restrictions or prescriptions in the secular law for religious ceremonies of any kind, unless there is exploitation or direct harm which can be proven. No such exploitation or direct harm to anyone is demonstrative with gay marriage. Prohibiting the free exercise of the right to marry whom you wish, enter into a legally recognized union with that person, and to have that union sanctified by a religious organization if that organization so chooses is restriction of religious freedom. PLC does not accept bitblt’s attempts to justify such restriction as bitblt bases such justification solely on his religious beliefs, a core of religious oppression.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pmPLC would also like to present the following exercise in discernment:
PLC and bitblt die on the same day and arrive in heaven. There the truth of God’s view on homosexuality is clear. Assume that PLC has been wrong, believing that God alone should be the judge of gays and not man who should simply love, fight oppression, and recognize that perhaps God created gays for His own larger purpose (such as to test treatment of “these the least”). What would be PLC’s sin?
Assume that bitblt has been wrong, believing that God finds gays to be an abomination and it was bitblt’s sacred duty to prevent gays access to marriage or general acceptance into society, including the church itself. What would bitblt’s sin?
Blasphemy, idolotry, not loving your neighbor, not caring for the oppressed, being a stumbling block to gays being in relationship with God – these would be bitblt’s sins. PLC would have no sin (in this area, anyway!).
February 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pm#123 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————-”Matthew 19
[6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. ”
February 24th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
So, Bitbit is stating Bitbit’s support to outlaw divorced people from ever re-marrying? Or is Bitbit simply “picking and choosing” one portion of the Bible’s verses to support while Bitbit contonues to ignore other portions of the Bible’s verses?
What could be driving Bitbit to support one verse of the Bible and ignore another verse of the Bible altogether? Until Bitbit can explain why Bitbit practices a “pick and choose” approach to the Bible, Bitbit’s methods for his choices are suspect, and seem to be driven by Bitbit’s prejudices.
Bitbit has been asked to explain why Bitbit seems to be practicing a “pick and choose” approach to the Bible, but Bitbit hasn’t yet explained why Bitbit does this.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm#112 – trans menace Says:
———————————————————
“WAKE UP PEOPLE !!”
February 24th, 2009 at 10:43 am
We already have, we all woke up after the 8-year nightmare that was the Bush Administration. Now that the Republicans have finished destorying our economy, and Pres. Bush has been shown the door, the elected majorities may now start fixing all the problems that were left by the outgoing administration.
Reminds me of 1992 all over again, except this time the Republicans have made an enormous mess that will require more time to fix.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:12 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
PLC would also like to present the following exercise in discernment:
.
.
.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
From the Bible bit understands that one doesn’t go to Heaven because they are free of sin. One goes to Heaven because of faith in Jesus Christ. This, too, is a good thing for a Christian to know.
bit also understands from the Bible that endorsing, encouraging, or promoting evil is a very bad thing.
being a stumbling block to gays being in relationship with God – these would be bitblt’s sins. PLC would have no sin (in this area, anyway!).
bit doesn’t expect anything from a homosexual Christian that he doesn’t expect from a heterosexual Christian. If a Christian cannot maintain a God endorsed sexual relationship – a man and a woman in a marriage, then the Christian should learn to be celibate. bit believes that if the Christian’s faith in Christ is real, God will make a way to get through any situation.
BTW, your 1:55 pm post is very well reasoned.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pmbitbitbitbit
I was NOT “using the Bible to justify homosexuality”!
I was using it to demonstrate that hatred, bigotry, selfishness, cruelty, and childish, immature thinking receive MUCH more scriptural commentary than do sexual matters.
To paraphrase: if someone hates [his or her] [brother or sister], that person does NOT have the spirit of God within.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pmbit also understands from the Bible that endorsing, encouraging, or promoting evil is a very bad thing.
PLC smiles in recognition that bit danced around the discernment question in his typical circular reasoning. The question remains: what if bit’s interpretation of homosexuality as “evil” in God’s mind is wrong, a shared folly from the beginning of the Judeo-Christian history?
PLC understands from the Bible that endorsing, encouraging, or promoting oppression in God’s name is a very bad thing.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
bit also understands from the Bible that endorsing, encouraging, or promoting evil is a very bad thing.
PLC smiles in recognition that bit danced around the discernment question in his typical circular reasoning. The question remains: what if bit’s interpretation of homosexuality as “evil” in God’s mind is wrong, a shared folly from the beginning of the Judeo-Christian history?
PLC understands from the Bible that endorsing, encouraging, or promoting oppression in God’s name is a very bad thing.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Actually, PLC, you know about bit’s opinions and his promotion of “ideal” behavior based on Biblical teaching.
But you have no idea how bit deals with actual people. On TP bit assumes all opinions are solicited.
In real non-cyberspace life, other than taking every opportunity to promote the idea of one man and one woman forever – like when bit teaches middle school Sunday school class, the opinions bit expresses here would have to be solicited and appropriate for the occasion.
The question remains: what if bit’s interpretation of homosexuality as “evil” in God’s mind is wrong, a shared folly from the beginning of the Judeo-Christian history?
It’s much too easy to ask you the same question, PLC.
From the Bible bit understands that one doesn’t go to Heaven because they are free of sin. One goes to Heaven because of faith in Jesus Christ. T
A Christian doesn’t have to be an 100% on target to be saved.
A Christian just has to be as on target as possible including striving for a life of purity…and be faithful.
The Apostle Paul does say something like: “…walk worthily of your calling.”
February 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pmtelestai2 Says:
bitbitbitbit
I was NOT “using the Bible to justify homosexuality”!
I was using it to demonstrate that hatred, bigotry, selfishness, cruelty, and childish, immature thinking receive MUCH more scriptural commentary than do sexual matters.
To paraphrase: if someone hates [his or her] [brother or sister], that person does NOT have the spirit of God within.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
bit agrees with the following….
It is not bigotry to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral.
It is no more anti-American to believe that homosexual behavior is immoral than it is to believe that polyamorous or incestuous behavior is immoral. I think it’s safe to assume that most, if not all, of our pro-American Founding Fathers believed homosexual behavior to be immoral.
The belief that homosexual conduct is immoral does not constitute incitement to violence or hatred. It no more constitutes hatred of homosexuals than does the belief that polyamory or selfish behavior is immoral constitute hatred of polyamorists or selfish people.
Even behaviors that emerge from feelings that may be shaped in some way by biological influences are not automatically moral. All humans experience feelings that are likely shaped in some way by biology, but that existential reality does not mean that it is always and automatically morally legitimate to act upon those biologically influenced feelings.
from:
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271
February 24th, 2009 at 3:11 pmSo, bit, let’s cut to the chase. TP is a political blog. The issue of whether or not to permit gay marriage is political. Do you, bit, believe that the government or the majority of Americans have a right to limit the free exercise of religion and personal choice by denying gays the right to marry (and you can’t use the language card by protesting the word “marriage” saying it is owned by your religion)?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
So, bit, let’s cut to the chase. TP is a political blog. The issue of whether or not to permit gay marriage is political. Do you, bit, believe that the government or the majority of Americans have a right to limit the free exercise of religion and personal choice by denying gays the right to marry (and you can’t use the language card by protesting the word “marriage” saying it is owned by your religion)?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
You’re making it tough, PLC.
You do understand that same-same gender marriage is not representative of those who practice homosexuality. Numbers from both MA and CA show that only about 3% of the homosexual population – much less that 1% of the general population, are interested in SSGM. bit believes he remembers seeing other statistics from around the world that are in-line with the percentages.
However, the answer to your question is yes.
Here’s two questions for you, and bit is sure that PLC will graciously answer them with little or no qualification.
Is the right of so-called same-same gender marriage worth the destruction of the U.S.? This means that if you knew that the Federal imposition of so-called same-same gender marriage on the states would indeed bring about the dissolution of the U.S., would you still call it a right?
February 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pmLet’s not get overly dramatic bit. The ability to marry another man might destroy your marriage to your wife, but it will not destroy the United States.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:15 pmIs the right of so-called same-same gender marriage worth the destruction of the U.S.? This means that if you knew that the Federal imposition of so-called same-same gender marriage on the states would indeed bring about the dissolution of the U.S., would you still call it a right?
That’s really only ONE question with the “second” being merely an explanation. And my answer is an unequivocal “yes” because individual freedom of religion and other issues of personal conscience are the foundation of a truly free society. IF (that is, BTW, a huge strawman)gay marriage can destroy the US, then the US is not truly a free society and we have been living a lie since 1776. And, you, bit, are contributing to the US being a theocracy, not a representative democracy. Why stop with “gay marriage”? Why not outlaw work on the Sabbath (not the fake Sunday Sabbath, but the Friday sundown to Saturday sundown one)? Why not outlaw baptism of infants, which has no basis in Scripture? Why not outlaw use of grape juice rather than wine in the Eucharist? Why not fine or otherwise punish people for not “praying continuously”? Why not punish people for dishonoring their parents? Why not punish people for coveting? Why not punish people for not loving God with all their heart? Why not imprison people who do not tithe? Why not have the government demand that all the denominations of Christianity unite? Why not demand that a man marry the widow of his deceased brother? Why not pass laws to prohibit the consumption of shellfish, selling cloth of two materials, and not giving your first born to the church?
February 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pmBitblt has a profound lack of understanding of scripture! Does he not realize that the original Greek and Aramaic texts contain many words and phrases which have no precise English, or Latin translation? Could it be possible that these passages could have been translated by people with an agenda? For example,”Do this in Memory of me,” can just as well be translated into,”Remember me when you do this,” which can be interpreted in a wholly different manner. Are we supposed to break bread and drink wine or are we to remember Yeshewa when we celebrate the Sadr at passover? I am a devout Christian but I don’t identify myself that way for fear that I may be associated with your ilk! Who appointed you the seer of truth? God’s gonna be pissed!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pmbit, I suspect the reason you are not likely to endorse government control of any religious dogma other than oppression of gay rights is that those other issues would restrict you personally. I also suspect that you are personally repulsed by homosexuality, in others if not yourself. But you fail to recognize that repulsion and attraction are the polar opposites that prove the existence of natural sexual affiliation. Gays are equally repulsed by heterosexual behavior, FOR THEMSELVES. But they do not try to force that repulsion on others as you do.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pmPelotonpro 048 Says: Does he not realize that the original Greek and Aramaic texts contain many words and phrases which have no precise English, or Latin translation?
Very true! Further, English did not come up with the phrase “homosexuality” until the end of the 19th century, so any Bible translation which uses this term is adding to and potentially distorting the meaning of Scripture. It’s like the argument that “privacy” is not contained in the Constitution as a right. I just read something that I should have recognized – “privacy” was the act of using the “privvy”, the toilet, in the time of the Founding Fathers so of course there would have never been a mention of this word.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pmPelotonpro 048 Says: I am a devout Christian but I don’t identify myself that way for fear that I may be associated with your ilk!
Please consider voicing both your acceptance of Christianity AND your opposition to the narrow interpretation of our religion. I am convinced that only by doing so, can we protect both our religion and our country. We must speak out for separation of church and state as a protective wall for each. We cannot let the Christian Pharisees own the issues.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:36 pmPelotonpro 048 Says:
Bitblt has a profound lack of understanding of scripture! Does he not realize that the original Greek and Aramaic texts contain many words and phrases which have no precise English, or Latin translation? Could it be possible that these passages could have been translated by people with an agenda? For example,”Do this in Memory of me,” can just as well be translated into,”Remember me when you do this,” which can be interpreted in a wholly different manner. Are we supposed to break bread and drink wine or are we to remember Yeshewa when we celebrate the Sadr at passover? I am a devout Christian but I don’t identify myself that way for fear that I may be associated with your ilk! Who appointed you the seer of truth? God’s gonna be pissed!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Why do you call yourself a devout Christian when you straightaway undermine the authority of scripture? You undermined the authority of scripture with some very irrelevant examples I might add.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pmSo the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Joshua 10:123
Scripture is wrought through the hands of man and, therefore, is subject to man’s errors. Unless you believe that the sun moves in the sky, across the earth, creating a “day” then the above Scripture is not literally factual. Scripture must be understood contextually by referencing the language, understandings, and purposes for which it was given to the people at the time. It must be understood as well by the fact that it has been translated across various languages with different nuance in meaning across time.
But, again, bit, the issue here is that each of us is supposed to have a personal relationship with God, not a cookie cutter one dictated by anyone. God, but NOT you, can question the devotion and acceptance of Christ.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pmbit, you should also remember that Jesus was accused of being a blasphemer, not devout, a violator of the Law, and against the authority of Scripture.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Pelotonpro 048 Says: Does he not realize that the original Greek and Aramaic texts contain many words and phrases which have no precise English, or Latin translation?
Very true! Further, English did not come up with the phrase “homosexuality” until the end of the 19th century, so any Bible translation which uses this term is adding to and potentially distorting the meaning of Scripture. It’s like the argument that “privacy” is not contained in the Constitution as a right. I just read something that I should have recognized – “privacy” was the act of using the “privvy”, the toilet, in the time of the Founding Fathers so of course there would have never been a mention of this word.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Pelotonpro 048 Says: Does he not realize that the original Greek and Aramaic texts contain many words and phrases which have no precise English, or Latin translation?
Well. bit’s only studied three languages so this is not really a surprising statements.
But what’s the point, and why would anyone say this? Is it because the only way to “explain away” the scriptures to which bit refers is to say that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it says, or we can’t really understand what it says because the original text weren’t written in English?
And this remark: “English did not come up with the phrase “homosexuality” until the end of the 19th century,” there was a point to it. The word dinosaurs is also a word from the latter part of the 19th century. There were dinosaurs before the word was invented.
Are you saying that “homosexuality” was discovered after the Bible was written?
Lucky for us a describe is adequate to describe what the act is: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. ” Lv 18:22
February 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
bit, you should also remember that Jesus was accused of being a blasphemer, not devout, a violator of the Law, and against the authority of Scripture.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
And had He not had the authority of the Son of God, Jesus would have been all those things.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:36 pmHey bit! I knew the antisemitism was just below the surface!!! There was absolutely nothing irreverent about my commentary. Yeshewa was a Jew not a Christian! An observant Jew!!! People like you think He was a Christian and what is even richer is that you even think you know what he looks like! Go to sheol!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pmbit says: Are you saying that “homosexuality” was discovered after the Bible was written?
For someone who has studied three languages, bit certainly fails to understand the comments I made in English.
The bottom line is bit has his religious beliefs, which I will defend even though I disagree, but, more germaine is that he has made it crystal clear that he demands that his beliefs be the basis of American law. That, I will fight!
February 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pmPLC, I am not at all ashamed of my beliefs but I get tired of having to qualify myself by saying,”But not THAT kind of Christian.” These people have been speaking as if there is only ONE kind of Christian since the late ’70’s. They have used the faith I love to justify war, capital punishment, racism and conservative economic policy which flies in the face of scripture. Trying to reason with some of them is an exercise in cognitive dissonance theory. They are driving MANY people away from Christianity and faith all together. I’m quite content to identify myself as a Universalist! Thanks and keep on bloggin’
February 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pmIs bobby losing it. he’s talking like we aren’t in a recession. Plus he sounds like he’s making a high school speech. HAHAHA
February 24th, 2009 at 10:32 pmWho is he?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:52 pmPelotonpro 048 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Hey bit! I knew the antisemitism was just below the surface!!! There was absolutely nothing irreverent about my commentary. Yeshewa was a Jew not a Christian! An observant Jew!!! People like you think He was a Christian and what is even richer is that you even think you know what he looks like! Go to sheol!!!
February 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Irreverent is not the same as irrelevant.
Yes, Jesus was a Jew, an observant one who read, quoted, and apparently believed the Old Testament.
The New Testament makes a remark about Christ’s appearance that is something like, “…He was not comely.” Why you think bit believes Christ looks a certain way – perhaps Caucasian – may be one of the great mysteries of the universe.
You probably need to stuff your straw man a little tighter.
Go to sheol!!!
Believe the word you’re looking for is the NT word
“ghenna.” Bit doesn’t think the concept of “sheol” and “ghenna” are identical.
I’m quite content to identify myself as a Universalist!
Please correct bit if what he assumes from this remark is incorrect. bit assumes this means you identify yourself as UUC. Bit understands that UUCs don’t necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ. bit further understands that there are people who identify themselves as Christian but don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. If this describes Pelotonpro 048 bit would appreciate knowing this.
bit says: Are you saying that “homosexuality” was discovered after the Bible was written?
February 25th, 2009 at 12:49 amThis is humor – very dry and moderately lame, but humor nonetheless.
If Christ was God, How did they kill him?
February 25th, 2009 at 9:42 pmLucky for you, Leviticus also spells out a lot of other evil things for you to avoid! Here’s a few:
“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
Wow, how many kids would we have to put to death every day, do you think, if we made this part of religion into law? Great for the pro-death penalty types.
“…do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19)
Quick! Check your shirt tags! Those poly/cotton blends are going to get us stoned to death! Or at least condemn us to eternal damnation….
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)
Be sure to buy your slaves from Canada or Mexico…
Here’s my personal favorite, and I’m sure one of yours, since you’re so fond of throwing out that “abomination” word:
“But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you.” (Leviticus 11:10)
Why aren’t you demanding that Long John Silver and Red Lobster be put out of business? Fighting for laws banning the presence of shrimp and lobster from our restaurants? Protecting our children from the disgusting and amoral popcorn shrimp offered in cafeterias and fast food chains all over the country? Get it in gear, Christians! The eating of seafood is going to be the damnation of us all!
So, seriously. Keep your crazy rules out of our secular government and laws. I’m going to go make some crab salad and try to, once again, explain to my daughter why her parents can’t get married in this wonderfully free country of ours.
February 26th, 2009 at 12:47 am