During D.C. hearing on same-sex marriage, witness interrupts by proposing to his partner.
By on Nov 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
During D.C. hearing on same-sex marriage, witness interrupts by proposing to his partner.
The D.C. City Council held a hearing yesterday on a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in the nation’s capital. However, the hearing was briefly interrupted when witness Andy Hertzberg stopped to propose to his partner. “I would like to take a huge step in my own life,” Hertzberg said. “Andy [Rollman], I’d like to ask you: Will you marry me?” One marriage equality opponent was outraged that they would show their love for one another, saying that for “something like this” to happen in the Council’s chambers, it showed a lack of “respect.” According to the local ABC report, however, most council members were supportive of the proposal. Watch it:
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
However, the hearing was briefly interrupted when witness Andy Hertzberg stopped to propose to his partner. “I would like to take a huge step in my own life,” Hertzberg said. “Andy [Rollman], I’d like to ask you: Will you marry me?”
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 pmMore power to you dude, I hope he said yes. On the other hand, wait til the end of the hearing man, makes things go faster.
While I have no problem with the man’s marriage proposal to his selected spouse, I question the setting in which it was asked. A more romantic setting would be a better choice.
I guess I’m just a hopeless romantic. A better setting to me would be in a quiet, dimly lit, romantic restaurant with a musician playing his violin from table to table.
But…to each his own.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pmTeabagging terrorist outrage in 5…4…3…3…1….
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pmI’m not a big fan of marriage proposals that are so public. It’s maniuplative and way harder for the one being proposed to to decline. That said, if he accepts, I congratulate them both and wish them all happiness.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pmAw, isn’t that sweet. :)
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pmHow many cancervative heads simultaneously exploded when they saw those two dudes kiss on the evening news?? Haha…
Teh outrage!1!1!
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:11 pmUncle Ho says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pmI can’t lie, I proposed in an airport. But deep down, I definitely agree with the more romantic settings for that sort of thing.
Awesome.
Granted, it’s likely that DC will pass gender-neutral marriage laws. But that is still awesome.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:14 pmDr. Hussein Matt says:
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm@3.
Any thoughts on which troll pops up first?
I hadn’t thought about it before, but a proposal made in a public setting might possibly be unfair to the recipient, in the sense that it would be very hard to turn down the offer.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pmWould have been more romantic if he had used a JumboTron.
/snark
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pmI can’t tell the difference between any of them. They all sound and act the same. But, b-kkkup is due for an appearance to voice his concern.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 pm@12.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pmI think he might leave this one alone. I’m betting Kenneth pops up. You should have seen the pro-Hitler rant he was on a couple topics back.
Not my choice of a venue for a proposal, but the guy was courageous and determined – good for him – I am sure if I were there, I would have applauded.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pmI hope he helped the cause.
Churches can continue to hold their religious ceremonies with prayers blessings, etc, and exclude or include whoever they want but marriages are legal contracts, and as such, they should be lawful everywhere.
If churches risk losing their tax-exempt status over this, well, think of the benefit to the deficit. Those wealthy mega-churches operate like huge corporations.
“Three months ago, I met Andrew Hertzberg,” Rollman, who is in his 50s, said. “It was love at first sight.” And now that he’s found the one, he said, “I don’t want a partner, I want a spouse.”
Seriously, why shouldn’t they be able to commit to each other legally and call their partner their “spouse” like straight married couples do? It’s really a civil rights issue.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pmI hope it is K Street Whore. That sissy and I have unfinished business….
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pmNormally, I would bet that ruptured rectum would be the 1st troll on a thread like this. Haven’t heard from rr lately, unless he’s using another alias.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pmFrom what I understand, the polls are swamped. They predicted only 35% turnout. Now they estimate 50% turnout. That could be good news to same sex couples.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pmUSNclerk, Emily68,
If I heard right, Andy said “Yes” almost immediately.
Congratulations to them both, and I wish them many years of wedded bliss together. Good luck, guys.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pmWaitaminnit — BOTH of these guys are named Andy? Andy & Andy — too cute.
I’m sure this is a proposal that both Andys will always remember, and I wish them a lifetime of happiness.
That said — I’m in agreement with others who have said this wasn’t exactly a romantic setting, and public proposals really unfairly put the “proposee” on the spot.
But what would have been the reaction of the observers if a witness testifying had interrupted his testimony to propose to a person of the opposite sex? I’m guessing one of ambivalence– it’s really sweet, and they’re a cute couple, but this probably isn’t the best time and place for that sort of thing.
My guess is that Andy Hertzberg probably wanted to show the sincerity of his convictions, and I hope the other Andy wasn’t too bothered by that exploitation of their relationship.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pmKSW is our good friend Olby Sucks, dbadd. He’d have no opinion regarding gay marriage, considering he’s hiding his own love and affection for Olbermann.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pmI think it was just great. I hope a lot of repug heads exploded. This is just great theater, and really sticks it to all the bigots out there. I hope they all get heart burn.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pmIt’s Teh Gay Agenda….run away, hide your head in the sand, buy more guns, your marriage is in trouble, pull your kids out of school, duct tape your windows.
LoL
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pmI miss Daryll on these threads, he was such an idiot…but I did get a huge laugh out of everyone’s responses to his moronic posts.
He must be guarding his lawn while his blowup wife pops out a baby balloon.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pmBut that’s a perfect reason to condemn such love, Purple State. Don’t you see? No one would ever suspect him of harboring homosexual feelings if he’s loudly condemning them! It’s genius, I tell you!
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pmTeh gays are getting noticed more and more. CNN ran a story this morning on “gay mayors” (Houston and Portland.) And Trauma (on NBC?) had an episode recently where a paramedic came out to his homophobic colleague.
Someone said many years ago that once an issue gets to the bumper sticker phase, the case is won. Congrats to teh gays. This issue is far past the bumper sticker phase. Same sex marriage now awaits approval by the courts of the constitutional provision of “equal justice under law,” as expounded magnificently by the California Supreme Court last year.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:43 pmThis is still classier than the jumbotron at a Mets game.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pmIt’s kind of funny though, Here we have ‘Christian’ groups shelling out millions of dollars for something that will eventually happen anyway. The younger generation dosan’t give a crap about this. In fact, young people are supportive of same-sex marriages. These religious and old folks can waste all the money they like. It will happen, so I suggest they get used to it.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 pmOn the one hand I object to this proposal on the grounds that it is repugnant to use marriage politically, but on the other hand…
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pmralph says:
No one would ever suspect him of harboring homosexual feelings if he’s loudly condemning them! It’s genius, I tell you!
Which is why every closeted homosexual Member of Congress denounces gay rights so loudly on the Chamber Floor. Then they slip up a little every now and then.
“Thank you for coming out today.” Sure, Larry Craig. Start with that and then try to claim “I am not gay.” I wonder if any of them think they’re not lying because they’re not actually gay, they’re bi-sexual (and this makes all the difference in their minds.)
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pmdeebaser says:
On the one hand I object to this proposal on the grounds that it is repugnant to use marriage politically, but on the other hand…
Well, what you choose to hold in your hands is none of my business. ;)
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pmBecause, you know, the President’s GAY SCHOOL CZAR is secretly recruiting students into the gay mafia to become gay. If gays are allowed to marry, then they’ll soon pass laws outlawing heterosexuality. And then incest and beastality will be legal, too. Because a consenting relationship is EXACTLY THE SAME as a relationship between a man raping his sister or a woman in a donkey show.
You all have to read between the lines and see what a menace this gay marriage is. Today, it’s marriage. Tomorrow, the world ends!
(there. that trolly enough?)
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” does not just apply to the physical world. The in-your-face displays of affection by homosexuals is a reaction to the repression and oppression they have experienced. When society accepts their civil right to love and marry whomever they are attracted to, then these kind of reactions will diminish.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmCongrats to Andy & Andy, may you live happily ever after!
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmAnd republiklans, well, here’s a full box of extra soft tissue…
These supposedly libertarian-minded, tea-bagger types claim to want less government, yet then they want the government to decide whether consenting adults are allowed to love each other and get married. I’m sure they do not see the contradiction.
They also want to claim there is nothing in the Constitution which says the federal government can provide citizens health care (which is false of course), but where does the Constitution grant the government (state or federal) the power to discriminate against certain people getting married? Doesn’t that violate the equal protection clause?
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pmThis is a threat to heterosexual marriage! I have no idea how but…
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:50 pmralph the wonder llama says:
But that’s a perfect reason to condemn such love, Purple State. Don’t you see? No one would ever suspect him of harboring homosexual feelings if he’s loudly condemning them! It’s genius, I tell you!
Oh, KSW would love that phrase. Especially coming from Keith.
“Genius! Genius, I tells ya!”
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pmdbadass, as I understand the threat to heterosexual marriage, there is a strain in the electromagnetic-endorphin continuum which distorts the delicate testosterone-charismatic connection to God, thereby resulting in the…
Hell, I don’t get it, either.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pmdbadass says:
——————————————————————————–
This is a threat to heterosexual marriage! I have no idea how but…
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:02 pmMaybe we’ll have a troll tell us how. Because I have spent the past 10 minutes mulling it over, and I can’t see how allowing gay couples to marry affects my marriage in the slightest.
He must be guarding his lawn while his blowup wife pops out a baby balloon.
You owe me a monitor cleaning for this one Buckie Boy.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:17 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss says: @40
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pmwhat did you spray the monitor with? Coffee, or something colder?
Meanwhile, the craziest members of the GOP are crowding into their churches to have blessings and protective spells cast upon them. Surely this is, finally, the real signal for the apocalypse.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pmWow…that was so trolly, I almost voted you down!!
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:36 pmI just hope they ‘leagalize’ gay marriage in my state, because if I get any invites to a destination wedding in Iowa,I will not be amused.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:36 pmIt has always seemed to me that surprise, hugely public proposals of marriage were more about the ego of the proposer than about the proposal itself.
It’s grandstanding, and hugely inappropriate.
Besides, there’s a level of implicit intimidation in it, as if to preclude being rejected AFTER so public a statement…
pretty manipulative, passive/aggressive bullshit, imho…
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pmUSNclerk says:
Worse, orange juice.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pmI was proposed to publicly, in a restaurant where we both worked. I loved it, actually. A stupid co-worker had spilled it hours before hand, and even then, I didn’t see the ring until it was right in front of me. He knew I would say yes, and I did. I was young though, just 24.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 pmMore power to them, they showed the world that there is nothing shameful about their love.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pmRemember the good olde days when gay threads and climate threads were sure to be hysterically funny when the freaks descended?
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:20 pmdb,
They just don’t care anymore….
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:33 pmGood for them, I wish them well.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian says:
——————————————————————————–
dbadass, as I understand the threat to heterosexual marriage, there is a strain in the electromagnetic-endorphin continuum which distorts the delicate testosterone-charismatic connection to God, thereby resulting in the…
Hell, I don’t get it, either.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
So, what is the threat of counterfeit money to real money?
The imitation devalues the real think to the point that neither the real money or the counterfeit are of any use. That’s the threat and it’s significant, and it really is that simple.
Also, MA has shown that a very small part of the population, about 0.09% of the MA population as bit recalls, is actually interest in SSGM (so-called same-same gender marriage). To bit, this begs the question of what value SSGM will contribute to society. Please recall that Dr. Tracey Hansen showed that the children for SSG couples are 4 to 10 times more likely to be homosexuals. Does the society have an interest in having more people be homosexuals?
OTOH, one would reasonably expect that this would happen in D.C. The corruption of this city made it the murder capital of the U.S. – at least at one time, and the corrupt citizens keep a former drug using Marion Berry – believe that was his name – in an elected position.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 pmDC government has reached the point where nothing should be surprising.
bitblt – as usual you are wrong.
Jesse Levey is a Republican activist who says he believes in family values, small government and his lesbian mothers’ right to marry.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 pmGayby boom
Jesse Levey is a Republican activist who says he believes in family values, small government and his lesbian mothers’ right to marry.
Levey is part of the “gayby boom” generation. The 29-year-old management consultant is the son of a lesbian couple who chose to have a child through artificial insemination. He’s their only child.
Critics of same-sex marriage say people such as Levey will grow up shunned and sexually confused. Yet he says he’s a “well-adjusted heterosexual” whose upbringing proves that love, not gender, makes a family
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pmAccording to the American Psychological Association, numerous research shows that most kids of same-sex households describe themselves as heterosexual in roughly the same proportion as conventional families. The association also says that homosexuality is not deviant behavior but a normal expression of human sexuality.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 pmmary lacewing says:
——————————————————————————–
According to the American Psychological Association, numerous research shows that most kids of same-sex households describe themselves as heterosexual in roughly the same proportion as conventional families. The association also says that homosexuality is not deviant behavior but a normal expression of human sexuality.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
It appears that not everyone agress with the APA you reference. bit seems to recall having read that even this organization changed its collective mind sometime in the early 70s. Before that, APA listed homosexuality as a mental illness.
Obvoiusly http://www.narth.com doesn’t agree.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
bitblt – you might want to tell your friend ‘bit’ that it’s time to move forward another 35 years or so to the current millenium, to the year of 2009 to be exact:
From the American Pychological Association’s CURRENT online publication entitled:
Lesbian & Gay Parenting: Lesbian & Gay Parents
Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 pmIn a survey of studies by prohomosexual researchers, Dr. Hansen shows, based on these researchers’ own numbers, that the children of SSG parents are 4 to 10 times more likely to be “non-heterosexuals.”
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_prohomo.html
bit expects that interest of the APA would be in maintaining the officials policy of the organization.
November 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 pmOTOH, NARTH appears to be interested in helping their patients be free of unwanted same sex attraction.
The APA, along with all who hold to the belief that same-sex gender attraction (SSGA) is inborn, probably don’t like the following, which suggests that SSGA is “created.”
[15] E-mail interview with Dr. Dean Byrd, 06 April 2009. Here, Dr. Byrd is referring to M. Tomeo, D. Templar, S. Anderson, and D. Kotler, “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior Vol. 30 (3), pp. 535-541.
[16] Ibid. Dr. Byrd is referencing Diane Shrier and Robert L. Johnson, “Sexual Victimization of Boys: An Ongoing Study of an Adolescent Medicine Clinic Population,” Journal of the National Medical Association 80, (1988); he also references Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer I Downey, “Homosexuality,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. #331 (1994): 923-930, (27 April 2009).
From Focus on the family
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/concerns/A000010060.cfm#_edn15
Childhood Sexual Abuse and Male Homosexuality Jeff Johnston
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pmbitbit says “So, what is the threat of counterfeit money to real money?
The imitation devalues the real think to the point that neither the real money or the counterfeit are of any use. That’s the threat and it’s significant, and it really is that simple.”
I assume your meaning is that gay’s feelings toward each other are counterfeit versus the ‘real’ feelings of heterosexuals? Even if this were true, how would it devalue the feelings of heterosexuals to one another, if that’s your meaning.
I find it amazing that you’re able to make this distinction with such confidence.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm#60 – humbug72 says:
———————————————————
“I assume your meaning is that gay’s feelings toward each other are counterfeit versus the ‘real’ feelings of heterosexuals? Even if this were true, how would it devalue the feelings of heterosexuals to one another, if that’s your meaning.”
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Bitbit has held this wrong-headed belief for a very long time, and as Bitbit refuses to acknowledge that Bitbit just may not know the truth, Bitbit intentionally shoves Bitbit’s head in the sand when rational questions of this nature arise. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Bitbit to rationalize how the illogic of his belief can be supported.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 pmBit you are an ignorant hateful bigot. No reasonable human being cares even a little bit what you think.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:33 amhumbug72 says:
.
.
.
I assume your meaning is that gay’s feelings toward each other are counterfeit versus the ‘real’ feelings of heterosexuals? Even if this were true, how would it devalue the feelings of heterosexuals to one another, if that’s your meaning.
I find it amazing that you’re able to make this distinction with such confidence.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Believe bit has previously used the term gender confusion, and bit would describe SSA feeling as being confused. For instance, if a man feels toward another man the way a man should fell toward a woman, then that man’s feelings are confused. bit doesn’t believe that the feelings of 0.09% of the population are worth the cost: the dissolution of the most stabilizing institution in history – marriage.
Further, there is no rule that says I have to react or respond to the feelings of others, particularly when these feelings, these confused feelings, are detrimental to those who act on them.
While bit doesn’t envy what any homosexuals has to endure because of their feelings, tainting the rest of society will not change the feelings that homosexuals have to endure. It’s an unfortunate situation, but that’s the reality of it.
There’s also the practical matter of not reacting to every feeling that one has.
BTW, isn’t that what makes a homosexual – one who acts on their confused feelings?
Most people have to control their feelings, like a man can’t have sex with every attractive woman he sees. Most people don’t act on every feeling they have.
bit has given the advice that one’s heart gets one into trouble, but it’s your head that saves your derriere – so to speak. Believe you’ll find that people who are slaves to their feelings aren’t particularly happy.
The essences of marriage is not feelings. Sorry if that’s not consistent with anyone’s “People Magazine” romantic view of marriage, but you might want to notice that most people in “People” are happy for rather short periods of time.
The best advise for all involved is one man one woman forever. This is essentially what Christ says the Creator intended in Matthew 19:
bit has not seen any suggestion that two same-same gender people can be “one flesh.”
November 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pmSo where is SSGM, so called, going in the county?
Well a state on the west coast and a state on east side of the CONUS, both with A in their abbrevations – CA and MA, have citizens who have declared that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.
But where will SSGM really lead us, the US? bit notes that all the arguments for SSGM, except one, could be used to support polygamy.
Obama’s polygamy pushers
Phyllis Schlafly
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114883
bit understands that some TP readers may not be able to read anything on wnd, so here’s an excerpt from her article.
There might be some Mormons who would be happy about this.
OTOH, there is another religious group in the US that might welcome the practice of polygamy, and there are many more of them that there are of the Mormons.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:24 pm#64 – bitblt says:
——————————————————
“bit has not seen any suggestion that two same-same gender people can be “one flesh.””
November 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Watch the movie Brokeback Mountain. That shows two men who are in love with each other, and were “one flesh” numerous times.
If you are talking about two people’s love for each other transcending trials and tribulations from close-minded gay-haters, all you have to do is visit your local gay community center. There are numerous instances where two men or two women are “one flesh”. just because you intentionally ignore reality doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:52 am#65 – bitblt says:
——————————————————-
“So where is SSGM, so called, going in the county?”
November 4th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
50 years ago, gay people didn’t speak up for themselves, so nobody else would. It wasn’t an issue, and anyone arrested for same-sex activity got the worst punishment available.
40 years ago, some drag-queens in the bar Stonewall fought back against police harassment, and started to fight for their rights that have been consistently denied to them by everyone.
30 years ago, Dan White assisinated Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone because he hated gay people. When White was acquited of murder, but found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the citizens of San Francisco rioted at the lack of justice for two assisinated men. Something that would have been unmthinkable 10 years earlier.
10 years ago, Vermont allowed enacted civil unions specifically for same-sex couples. Massachussetts followed in 2004 with allowing same-sex marriages. Since that time, Vermont and Massachussetts have consistently had fewer divorces among opposite-sex marriages than in any state that has out-right banned same-sex marriages, proving the fabricated hysteria over same-sex marriages to be a farce and a lie.
Now, states are very narrowly supporting bans on gay-marriage due to out-of-state mines and anti-gay special-interest groups that have no interest in the state itself bu only in persuing their anti-gay special-interest agenda.
Another interesting fact is that younger people consistently support gay marriage, and believe that gay people deserve the same rights as all American citizens.
It’s obvious that in time, same-sex marriage will eventually be approved by Americans and gay people will not be trated as second class citizens. It’s just a matter of time, waiting out the out-dated views of older Americans who can’t bring themsleves into the 21st century.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:20 ambit believes Jesus, in Matthew 19 quoted above, qualified one flesh as being a relationship between a man and a woman.
When Christ was quoting from Genesis in this scripture, bit believes He was making the definitive statement on what marriage is. Christ says this one flesh relationship was the intent of the Creator, “…he who made them from the beginning…”
November 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm#68 – bitblt says:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
And when two men who are intensly in love with each other, who are created by God, as you said “…he who made them from the beginning…”, want to remain in a committed relationship, then that relationship is “marriage” no matter what term you want to apply to it.
Jesus never mentioned inter-racial couples, even though those same racists used the Bible to support their opposition to inter-racial marriages.
Jesus never once mentioned that same-sex couples were against the dictates of the Bible. Somehow that never seems to come up.
Jesus DID mention that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven. The “c”hristian apologists parse that particular verse of the Bible to fabricate support for not helping out the poor or needy.
It seems the only time scripture is literal is when it supports the hate-filled agenda of the right-whiners. Why is that, do you suppose, Bitbit? Why is it that the difference between what is “literal” and what is “alegorical” depends solely on the subject that American “c”hristians find objectionable?
I think you need to address your “pick & choose” approach to the Bible before you use your Biblical argument, founded on shifting sand, to suppoort your prejudices.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pmDemocrat Soldier says:
#68 – bitblt says:
November 5th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
.
.
.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
And when two men who are intensly in love with each other, who are created by God, as you said “…he who made them from the beginning…”, want to remain in a committed relationship, then that relationship is “marriage” no matter what term you want to apply to it.
Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman as Christ says in Matthew 19. Please notice that bit does not attempt to substitution his view for the words in the Bible, which what you’re trying to do here.
BTW, what is the “authority” that says the two same-same gender people can be married? It’s certainly not Christ who said the Creator intended that a man and a woman would be one flesh.
The authority is not the people of the U.S. who have voted down SSGM every time the issue is placed on the ballot and who have now done so in thirty states.
So, if you have a “book of faith” that authorizes SSGM, would you please reference this book?
Jesus never mentioned inter-racial couples, even though those same racists used the Bible to support their opposition to inter-racial marriages.
Holding that there is no such thing as SSGM does not make one a racist. Besides, there is no evidence that homosexuality is in any way the same as race.
Jesus never once mentioned that same-sex couples were against the dictates of the Bible. Somehow that never seems to come up.
Christ does very specifically say what the intent of the Creator is: one man and one woman. Elsewhere in one of the Gospels Christ does use Sodom in a comparison. Using your reasoning, bit notes that Christ didn’t say that what happened to Sodom was a mistake.
Jesus DID mention that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven. The “c”hristian apologists parse that particular verse of the Bible to fabricate support for not helping out the poor or needy.
This remark you’ve made is really off topic. Even if what you describe is accurate, what doesn’t is have to do with so-called SSGM?
bit hears this allusion to the “…easier for a came…” comparison frequently in church, and bit often uses that comparison in conversation.
bit’s current favor in the area of is Big number 10 of the Big 10: “Thou shall not covet…”
If government aid makes the poor and needy corrupt, and steals their freedom, has government aid actually helped them?
Or, does government aid simply make the poor covet that to which they are not entitled? The U.S. Constitution does’t really provide for taking what one person has and giving it to someone else.
It seems the only time scripture is literal is when it supports the hate-filled agenda of the right-whiners. Why is that, do you suppose, Bitbit? Why is it that the difference between what is “literal” and what is “alegorical” depends solely on the subject that American “c”hristians find objectionable?
Are you trying to say that Christ’s remarks in Matthew 19 are allegorical? The writers of the Bible did use metaphor – just like modern writers, but Christ’s answer to a question about divorce seem to extremely literal. So, what does this remark have to do with anything?
I think you need to address your “pick & choose” approach to the Bible before you use your Biblical argument, founded on shifting sand, to suppoort your prejudices.
This is a preposterous remark. bit respects, believes, and lives by Matthew 19, and bit believes he has benefited from from his faith and action.
For your reading…
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/A000008950.cfm#_ftnref1
“Transgenderism” and the Deconstruction of Gender
You’ll please note that this “deconstruction of society,” makes perfect sense in the context of the Genesis account of creation and the fall.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm#70 – bitblt says:
———————————————————-
“Christ does very specifically say what the intent of the Creator is: one man and one woman. Elsewhere in one of the Gospels Christ does use Sodom in a comparison. Using your reasoning, bit notes that Christ didn’t say that what happened to Sodom was a mistake.”
Jesus DID mention that the only reason that Sodom was destroyed was due to their inhospitality to visitors. This was during a time when there were no hotels, and people depended on the people in a city to extend hospitality. Re-read the Bible, and stop fabricating your illusionary stories.
Jesus never opnce said “one man and numerous women” which contradicts the many times in the Bible in which someone took multiple wives. Why do you intentionally gloss over this particular point in your rush to support your prefudice with targeted condemnation?
This remark you’ve made is really off topic. Even if what you describe is accurate, what doesn’t is have to do with so-called SSGM?
to prove that you only take the portions of the Bible that support your prejudice, and ignroe all else. Why don’t you spend your time helping the millions of people who are poor? You, sir, are a hypocrite. You might want to look that term up, as you seem to ignore anything to do with your being wrong as you rush to judgement on anyone that disagrees with your sanctamonious and prejudiced positions.
Are you trying to say that Christ’s remarks in Matthew 19 are allegorical? The writers of the Bible did use metaphor – just like modern writers, but Christ’s answer to a question about divorce seem to extremely literal. So, what does this remark have to do with anything?
Funny that you, again, Aassign “literal” to something that oould be considered “alegorical”. “One man and one woman” was the answer to a question about a man and woman. Makes one wonder what Jesus’ response would have been if the question was “What if two people are in love, but the close-minded citizens refuse to allow us to marry?”
I’m sure you’re going to answer for Jesus at this point much like you’ve done in the past.
Bitbit, you need to stop trying to tell God and Jesus how to act, and maybe, just maybe, start acting LIKE God and Jesus. If you stop trying to tell others how to act, and simply live the life, your example will speak better than your words ever can.
FInal thought: 100 years ago, if you said “should black people be integrated?” the vote would have been overwhemlingly “NO”. 50 years ago, if you said “Should laws against gay people be rescinded?” again, the vote would have been overwhemlingly “NO”.
As we grow up from our adolescent past and childish attitudes, we learn that others deserve respect and compassion. Same-sex marriage will be approved by Americans, and not one single opposite-sex marriage will be negatively impacted by it. Stop the lies, stop the hate, stop the myths.
November 7th, 2009 at 8:22 am#70 – bitblt says:
——————————————————–
Democrat Soldier says:
“I think you need to address your “pick & choose” approach to the Bible before you use your Biblical argument, founded on shifting sand, to suppoort your prejudices.”
This is a preposterous remark. bit respects, believes, and lives by Matthew 19, and bit believes he has benefited from from his faith and action.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Oh, really? Name for me, one time, just one time, that you posted “People who get divorced and remarried are going straight to hell, no questions asked. Jesus said this practice is sinning, and if these people do not reject the sin, they will burn in hell.” In fact, you could say “I’m talking about you, Senator McCain!” or “I’m talking about you Newt Gingrich!”
Until you can prove that you bundle divorce & remarriage in the exact same category that you, personally, hold gay-marriage, then you are not just hypocritical, you are ptoven to be a “pick & choose” ‘c’hristian. No two ways about it.
Something that struck me last night: when Jesus said “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
So they are no longer two but one flesh.”
So, did Jesus mean these two people suddenly become one person, unable to walk anywhere without the other, “one flesh”? No, he couldn’t have meant that.
Did Jesus mean that their flesh lost all genetic individuality and become identical to each other? (Trust me, Jesus would have known about DNA.) No, they maintained their own genetic inheritance.
Lets re-visit the definition of “allegory”:
Main Entry: al·le·go·ry
Pronunciation: \?a-l?-?go?r-?\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural al·le·go·ries
Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek all?goria, from all?gorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -?gorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly — more at else, agora
Date: 14th century
1 : the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression
2 : a symbolic representation
So, it seems that verse ‘the two shall become one flesh’ is a representation that two people will, in the eyes of GOd, be seen as committing to each other forever. It is beyond obvious that “allegory” perfectly fits the intent of this verse, dispite your claims against the truth.
The answer that Jesus gave was in reference to the queestion about men and a women. Jesus never said “one man and one woman of roughly the same age” even though child-marriage was common among Biblical times.
Jesus never said “one man and one woman, and as many concubines as you want ‘cuz you’re not marrying THEM”, even though every King of that time had many concubines.
Sounds like Bitbit is reading into scripture something that isn’t mentioned at all to support Bitbit’s pre-concieved prejudices. Bitbit, search your soul, and ask yourself why you allow your prejudices to drive your “pick and choose” approach to scripture. I will pray that you recognize your prejudice and that you stop allowing it to drive your approach to the Bible and misunderstanding of God and his will for every individual.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am