Joe, Stacy ... three words ... grace mercy hope. Joe, others see the big picture too and have vastly different opinions on what should be done in various situations. Stacy, I know the pain that Joe talks about because I experienced it when I identified as gay and wanted to marry a man someday. His pain is real and while I think you have some credibilty to your comment (its not just about the gay community's perspective) I think you were dismissive of Joe's valid feelings. Joe, you sounded condescending and Stacy you sounded dismissive. as always I reserve thw right to be wrong. I know my opinions and activities offend others. But the reason I do what I do is because I believe in them strongly. People offend me all the time (people and organizations working to "ruin" my life "wipe" me "off the face of the planet". They are working in policy and private realms to eradicate my core values and prevent those ideas from entering into the public dialog. Even so, I choose to not live in offense and let go of offense so I can move on to do what I got to do and trust God with the rest. I also trust the God of Romans 8:28.
Stacy L. Harp
· 3 years ago
And homosexual "marriages" and lifestyles don't cause anyone pain...like children who lack one parent of each sex, etc.... That's right, it's all about the homosexuals not having "pain" but the rest of us enduring your agenda.
Joe Brummer
· 3 years ago
Lots of children lack one parent or another for many reasons, some lack parents at all and would be happy to have two dads as opposed to no parents at all. Studies show over and over that kids raised by tow dads or two moms do just as well. I may agree having two parents is ideal in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world, we live in this world. What about the kids living in same sex house holds who have no protections at all since their same sex parents cannto mutually adopt them? what happens to them. It is important to see the large picture, the full picture, not just the one that looks good in a perfect world, the one that works in the real world.
Scott
· 3 years ago
Yep, it's an election year. Props for being a prop! I noticed that Lou Sheldon was none too happy about the event.
Kurt Wayne
· 3 years ago
Sheesh...if I'd only have waited one minute to post my earlier comments...
Congrats, Randy!
Scott
· 3 years ago
Yep, it's an election year. Props for being a prop! I noticed that Lou Sheldon was none too happy about the event.
Randy
· 3 years ago
Thanks Kurt. It was exciting stuff.
I did not realize those LIVE posts made it. This treo is quirky sometimes.
Joe Brummer
· 3 years ago
I am proud of you that can stand up for what you believe. I just wish it was not at the expense of people like me in long term committed relationships that get left in the cold from actions like these. Regardless if you agree or disgree with my life, it is sad that you would support something that causes others pain.
Stacy L. Harp
· 3 years ago
And homosexual "marriages" and lifestyles don't cause anyone pain...like children who lack one parent of each sex, etc....
That's right, it's all about the homosexuals not having "pain" but the rest of us enduring your agenda.
Joe Brummer
· 3 years ago
Lots of children lack one parent or another for many reasons, some lack parents at all and would be happy to have two dads as opposed to no parents at all.
Studies show over and over that kids raised by tow dads or two moms do just as well. I may agree having two parents is ideal in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world, we live in this world.
What about the kids living in same sex house holds who have no protections at all since their same sex parents cannto mutually adopt them? what happens to them.
It is important to see the large picture, the full picture, not just the one that looks good in a perfect world, the one that works in the real world.
Randy
· 3 years ago
Joe, Stacy ... three words ... grace mercy hope. Joe, others see the big picture too and have vastly different opinions on what should be done in various situations. Stacy, I know the pain that Joe talks about because I experienced it when I identified as gay and wanted to marry a man someday. His pain is real and while I think you have some credibilty to your comment (its not just about the gay community's perspective) I think you were dismissive of Joe's valid feelings.
Joe, you sounded condescending and Stacy you sounded dismissive.
as always I reserve thw right to be wrong.
I know my opinions and activities offend others. But the reason I do what I do is because I believe in them strongly. People offend me all the time (people and organizations working to "ruin" my life "wipe" me "off the face of the planet". They are working in policy and private realms to eradicate my core values and prevent those ideas from entering into the public dialog.
Even so, I choose to not live in offense and let go of offense so I can move on to do what I got to do and trust God with the rest.
I also trust the God of Romans 8:28.
Joe Brummer
· 3 years ago
Interestingly and encouragingly, you have written what many gays and lesbians feel. That there are those who would love to wipe us off the face of the planet. They are those working to eridicate our core values and prevent our lives from ever being equal.
It is even more interesting that we have more in common than we differ upon. Sadly, the efforts of most are not about finding a common ground for us all, but just continuing oppositon to each other.
If your side and my side of this issue would spend as much energy finding a way to co-exist as they do fighting each other, the world would be the "Beloved Community" Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped for in the world.
Just my thoughts. I apologize if I sounded condescending, it was not my intention.
PdubDC
· 3 years ago
Stacy, I cannont disagree with you more. While you have some great points (particularly that the world we live in is not perfect) I believe that the foundation of your argument is flawed.
What you are saying is that since we cannot have the perfect, the imperfect will do. That may be true in certain aspects of life; buying a car, energy policy, buying a home. But human lives are different.
The imperfect as a substitute for the perfect in medical care is not acceptable. Niether is the imperfect a susbstitute in matters of human rights.
The fact that the imperfect exists is not an argument for settling. It is an argument to strive that much more for the perfect.
In my view, the bottom line is that the child who lives in an imperfect home knows it. The child who lives in a home where they are beaten knows that other kids are not beaten. The child who lives in a home without a dad knows that other kids have dads.
It is a poverty to abandon the hope of the ideal.
Stacy L .Harp
· 3 years ago
PdubDC,
I have no idea what you're referring to. I never even mentioned the word perfect in my response to Joe.
In response to Randy, I wasn't meaning to sound dismissive if you took it that way, my point was that Joe believes, regardless of how much we may say otherwise, that we are constantly out to hurt him and the gay community.
My point was that it seems to me, and often appears to me, that those who are in the gay community, like Joe, don't seem to care how much their beliefs and actions hurt others.
I think sometimes Joe forgets I had an older gay brother who died of AIDS and I also know the pain that homosexuals feel.
Stacy L .Harp
· 3 years ago
One other thought. I think it may interest you to know Randy, that I invited Joe awhile back to do a weekly podcast with me to discuss these issues. My thinking was that we could do a show that would give us both the opportunity to share our perspectives on a variety of issues. Joe refused.
So lest anyone think that I haven't attempted to bridge the gap and make this dialog more than about homosexuality, it's actually the exact opposite.
I realize that most of humanity agrees on many things. I have conservative gay friends. I have friends in the psychology field who are liberal and disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality, so it's not that I am afraid of diversity at all.
Joe was not open to an honest dialog or real friendship beyond wanting to argue with me about homosexuality. I think it's important that is known and made clear, for what it's worth. :)
Jack Yan
· 3 years ago
Away from the discussion in the comments, I wanted to make a minor quip: that had I known, Randy, you would be that close to the President, I would have asked you to shout out a hi from New Zealand from me! (Writing the Ambassador is not enough!)
PdubDC
· 3 years ago
Stacy, I cannont disagree with you more. While you have some great points (particularly that the world we live in is not perfect) I believe that the foundation of your argument is flawed. What you are saying is that since we cannot have the perfect, the imperfect will do. That may be true in certain aspects of life; buying a car, energy policy, buying a home. But human lives are different. The imperfect as a substitute for the perfect in medical care is not acceptable. Niether is the imperfect a susbstitute in matters of human rights. The fact that the imperfect exists is not an argument for settling. It is an argument to strive that much more for the perfect. In my view, the bottom line is that the child who lives in an imperfect home knows it. The child who lives in a home where they are beaten knows that other kids are not beaten. The child who lives in a home without a dad knows that other kids have dads. It is a poverty to abandon the hope of the ideal.
Tom Tunney
· 3 years ago
What has "saving marriage" to do with this "ex-gay" business? Why this whole extravaganza? The president can emit soothing purrs about how he's not antigay, just pro-marriage, but his appearance on stage with fringe groups belies this. If I were going to sign legislation nulifying Roe v. Wade, I certainly wouldn't have people like Eric Rudolph and James Kopp on stage with me high-fiving one another while I signed. Pro-lifers are supposed to be against what these people represent. I don't mind anyone getting involved in politics; I've been known to do so myself on occasion, but only as a sometimes-distasteful duty, not as a hobby. I just dislike it when people claim that their political views are God's and vice-versa. Also, I have learned from long observation that when A harms or annoys B on the grounds of saving or improving X; A invariably turns out to be a jackass and a fraud. But you will discover this for yourself soon enough. And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming...
Jack Yan
· 3 years ago
Away from the discussion in the comments, I wanted to make a minor quip: that had I known, Randy, you would be that close to the President, I would have asked you to shout out a hi from New Zealand from me! (Writing the Ambassador is not enough!)
Shirley U. Jest
· 3 years ago
Were you able to touch the hem of George's garment? Also, did he walk across the White House swimming pool?
Joe Brummer
· 3 years ago
Interestingly and encouragingly, you have written what many gays and lesbians feel. That there are those who would love to wipe us off the face of the planet. They are those working to eridicate our core values and prevent our lives from ever being equal. It is even more interesting that we have more in common than we differ upon. Sadly, the efforts of most are not about finding a common ground for us all, but just continuing oppositon to each other. If your side and my side of this issue would spend as much energy finding a way to co-exist as they do fighting each other, the world would be the "Beloved Community" Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped for in the world. Just my thoughts. I apologize if I sounded condescending, it was not my intention.
Mike Ensley
· 3 years ago
Randy, you lucky ducky! I can't wait to see the pictures.
ck
· 3 years ago
Kurt Wayne Tuesday, June 06, 2006 at 02:17 PM "1. How would civil unions help the epidemic of divorce? Do you have reason to believe that civil unions would be less likely to end in a split (whether children are involved or not)?" Well, I don't know that divorce is an "epidemic" or that it's the government's place to put a stop/limitation to it. That's your premise, one I haven't necessarily affirmed or denied (I think divorce can be a bad thing, but not always.) My point is just that religious solutions can be sought, especially if it is a religious community that feels that it is undergoing an epidemic (as evangelicals, who have the same divorce rate as the rest of the country seem to think). As far as polyamory, I'll say a couple of things: 1. I think that monogamy gets less press because it is boring. Whether it is "common" or "prevalent" in the gay community is open for debate. I know of a few studies, but we don't have a comprehensive sampling (and they focus primarily on gay men, not on lesbians). As well, I do think the fact that there isn't an existing social structure for monogamy (i.e. civil unions/marriage) impacts this. 2. Polygamy/polyamory is problematic for a number of reasons, among them that it is very convoluted legally. (If we consider a marriage a partnership between two people, then you'd have networks of marriages intersecting.) However, I have heard of solutions where contracts among people who live together are recognized--I'd have to look up which country it is. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but I do think it is more problematic than recognizing existing same-sex partnerships. Why is it that some of the trios in the article couldn't be considered an open marriage? I know of two heterosexuals with such an agreement (and actually, no homosexuals--though that could just be an odd anecdotal fact). There is no need to codify the third into the relationship by law. Finally, I think that the point made by Sullivan and Krauthamer is a good one: on the scale of innate qualities (I believe our self-identity is a hybrid of biological fact and social construction), polygamy is closer to the social construction end. After all, I didn't choose to be attracted to women (or, arguably my partner--though I did choose to be in a monogamous relationship with her). Each day, I choose to be monogamous, even though I'm still attracted to other women. I would venture to guess that most partnered people are attracted to someone other than their significant other--but part of the stability that the government recognizes in a marriage is that you've chosen to build your life with the one person Sorry about the length--it is a difficult subject to parse through, but in the end, I don't think it is a knock-down argument against my three-year monogamous relationship being recognized.
Stacy L .Harp
· 3 years ago
One other thought. I think it may interest you to know Randy, that I invited Joe awhile back to do a weekly podcast with me to discuss these issues. My thinking was that we could do a show that would give us both the opportunity to share our perspectives on a variety of issues. Joe refused. So lest anyone think that I haven't attempted to bridge the gap and make this dialog more than about homosexuality, it's actually the exact opposite. I realize that most of humanity agrees on many things. I have conservative gay friends. I have friends in the psychology field who are liberal and disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality, so it's not that I am afraid of diversity at all. Joe was not open to an honest dialog or real friendship beyond wanting to argue with me about homosexuality. I think it's important that is known and made clear, for what it's worth. :)
Mike Ensley
· 3 years ago
Randy, you lucky ducky! I can't wait to see the pictures.
Kurt Wayne
· 3 years ago
any conservative, evangelical or otherwise, argue that we abolish divorce itself. To an individual the ones I've read or heard agree that, sadly, it may be necessary in cases of abuse, etc.
But there are a lot of conservatives who say we should take a look at how overused (some say 2/3 of American marriages break up due to) no-fault divorce has become. That we should look at more options, i.e. covenant marriages, more premarital counseling, etc.
What say you who support same-sex marriage?
Wouldn't it strengthen your case, if you really believe that same-sex marriage will help stabilize society, if you also support an examination of no-fault divorce and ways we can help couples (and their kids) avoid this?
I'm an evangelical Christian myself so you can guess where my viewpoint is. But I'm going to tell you, if you'd put together a movement for same-sex marriage and against the (over)use of no-fault divorce, you'd touch a lot of hearts.
What do you all think?
Shirley U. Jest
· 3 years ago
Were you able to touch the hem of George's garment? Also, did he walk across the White House swimming pool?
Randy
· 3 years ago
Thanks for bringing some clarity to your position Stacy. It does help bring things into better perspective from where you are coming from.
Thanks Jack, if I run into W again I will make sure to tell him Howdy for you and Mike...I am a very blessed man in many ways. I don't think I will ever forget yesterday (or the rest of this week.)
Randy
· 3 years ago
Well Ms. Jest, I didn't see W in his robe and we weren't near any water. But what I did take notice of was your IP address attached to your comment. I will be sure to keep it handy. Those handy IP's can tell a LOT about a person who likes to post under pseudonyms.
ck
· 3 years ago
Kurt Wayne, in response to your question-- Myself, I think that we ought to distinguish more carefully between religious and civil marriage. Often the two intertwine, but not always. A covenant marriage (falling under the first category) would do much for Christians who want to be bound by other laws about divorce, infidelity, etc. A civil marriage would be the government's way of recognizing two people who are living together and form a household--for tax and regulatory purposes, without comment on the union's morality or desirability, save for a few criteria (I won't get into why I think polygamy will not get put into the equation, but that's one).
CS Lewis is one of those Christians who believes a clear distinction ought to be made. I don't know what he would say about this situation, but he did have a close gay friend and he struggled with some out-of-the norm sexual feelings himself.
This would also mean that absolutely no religious institution would be forced to recognize a union that they don't want to--be it interracial, same-sex, or a second marriage, or one between different faiths. I think a lot of this has to do with what you think the government is for, as well. How much involvement in society's evolution should the government have? Should it reflect what society is, or should it guide what society will become? etc.
Kurt Wayne
· 3 years ago
The Advocate has a cover story this month entitled something like "Polygamy and gay men: Dirty laundry or sexual freedom". (There's a web link but I won't put it on Randy's forum. Shouldn't be hard to find on line.)
This story is fascinating in that it says polyamory (where one has multiple romantic attractions simultaneously) has long existed in the gay community. It interviews three men who would apparently identify as husbands who says they consider themselves as married as can be, though they keep silent as they're afraid the "religious right" would use them against the movement for same-sex marriage.
Nonetheless, from reading the article I got the feeling multiple (3 or more) committed partners are not an uncommon thing in the gay community nor have they ever been.
If you know what the love you feel for a partner you can't marry feels like, if same-sex marriage is ratified, how long do you think partners like these (who essentially said they have to stay "in the closet") are going to keep quiet, to keep disavowing their love especially when the New York Times runs articles like THIS (free registration may be required)?
Seriously?
Tom Tunney
· 3 years ago
Yes, and showing up at these political dog-and-pony shows certainly tells a lot about whether you are interested in religion or politics. Unless of course, you see them as being one and the same, which would also be revealing.
Christianity these days seems to be all about striking the right poses, i.e.: gays bad/bigots good; massacring civilians/OK--but don't talk about it, revealing massacres of civilians/treason!
As in the case of Brother Tom Delay, Christianity need not have anything to do with personal conduct, indeed it is often wildly at variance with it.
Considering that the Supreme Court is now packed with Republicans who can be counted on to vote for whatever Administration talking-points are in vogue that week, it's a bit disingenous to claim that this amendment is needed to protect marriage from those horrid "activist judges", a phrase lifted directly from the playbook of last-ditch segregationists. This is not about marriage; this is about tossing the Religious Right some of the red meat it craves.
All I can say is that pointless stunts like this are doing more to discredit Christianity than anything a skeptic could say.
ck
· 3 years ago
good one: on the scale of innate qualities (I believe our self-identity is a hybrid of biological fact and social construction), polygamy is closer to the social construction end. After all, I didn't choose to be attracted to women (or, arguably my partner--though I did choose to be in a monogamous relationship with her). Each day, I choose to be monogamous, even though I'm still attracted to other women. I would venture to guess that most partnered people are attracted to someone other than their significant other--but part of the stability that the government recognizes in a marriage is that you've chosen to build your life with the one person
Sorry about the length--it is a difficult subject to parse through, but in the end, I don't think it is a knock-down argument against my three-year monogamous relationship being recognized.
Randy
· 3 years ago
As a Christian who is also and American citizen willing to make my views known to our democratic republic, your reducing this to a dog and pony show reveals more about your intellectual curiousity (apparently easily satiated by media soundbytes and insults) than my beliefs. I am involved in many arenas: politics, ministry, art, music, philosophy and eating really good Mexican food.... plus a lot of other things.
My Christianity asks me to speak into every arena and I do.
I'm surprised that no one is mentioning what the Bible has to say about divorce--after all, if someone is going to state that same-sex marriage must be blocked because of Genesis, then divorce should be illegal because: Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce (some texts say He hates) divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel... Also see the words of Jesus at Matt. 5:31; Matt. 19:3; Mk 10:11; Luke 16:18; and the punishments for adultery: Deut. 22:22--"If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman." I think those who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage should start with those who can get married. If they are going to follow the Bible and the words of Christ (and try and force others to), then they should begin by changing the constitution to not allow divorce--then work on gay marriage. p.s. I should mention that Deut. 24:1ff allows divorce, but only if initiated by the man.
Tom Tunney
· 3 years ago
What has "saving marriage" to do with this "ex-gay" business? Why this whole extravaganza? The president can emit soothing purrs about how he's not antigay, just pro-marriage, but his appearance on stage with fringe groups belies this. If I were going to sign legislation nulifying Roe v. Wade, I certainly wouldn't have people like Eric Rudolph and James Kopp on stage with me high-fiving one another while I signed. Pro-lifers are supposed to be against what these people represent.
I don't mind anyone getting involved in politics; I've been known to do so myself on occasion, but only as a sometimes-distasteful duty, not as a hobby. I just dislike it when people claim that their political views are God's and vice-versa. Also, I have learned from long observation that when A harms or annoys B on the grounds of saving or improving X; A invariably turns out to be a jackass and a fraud. But you will discover this for yourself soon enough.
And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming...
kevin
· 3 years ago
Hey Randy, I was going to respectfully ask you the same question as Tom Tunney above--why was Exodus involved with the sanctity of marriage issue? I might be wrong here, but I assume you and Alan (Chambers?) were there representing Exodus at the White House. I am just wondering what Exodus hopes to get out of this and why it was there--and I don't mean to sound derogatory here.
Joe Brummer
· 3 years ago
Since I do not feel this is the proper place for this discussion, I will just clear up this one misrepresentation Stacy Harp has posted about me and dialog.
I am after real dialog that will stop all the bashing of gays. It is nothng more than what Gandhi called passive violence, which leads to anger and bitterness. Anger and bitterness eventually lead to physical violence and in this case, that has been against "those evil gays".
As for her claim about doing a weekly poscast, yes, Stacy did invite me to do that. I turned her down because she asked right after she posted a number of posts on her blog bashing me personally on her blog. I didn't see a reason to do a weekly podcast someone who would bash me personally online, call me names, and accuse me of molesting children. Basically someone I couldn't trust and that was my reply to her.
So yes, I want dialog, but a weekly podcast isn't true dialog, it is entertainment. I am not out to entertain people. I am out to stop the hate speech that cost the human lives of gays and lesbians.
Anyone interesting in knowing more about these email conversations between Stacy and I, I would be happy to send them to you.
Randy
· 3 years ago
all of society. Marriage ideally between one man + one woman for one lifetime, has been shown to be a cultural universal throughout history as an accepted benefit. In other countries where gay defined marriage or unions exist, marriage has dramatically decreased because it's importance is completely undermined. It's treated as nothing more than an option, not a lifelong treasured commitment. Granted it is more than the homosexual issue undermining marriage but it is the gay activists using the courts to undermine the will of the people causing the flashpoint right now.
And don't forget, there is a complete paradigm shift of thought going on here. Where you see homosexuality as a "gay" identity to embrace, we see it as a identity/condition that many will choose to change/overcome. This opinion is not new information by the way. Sometimes gay identified people demand that I think like they do and want to belittle me for not seeing their way as the only way.
Same sex attraction is not that narrow and I have gone a different way. Homosexual or "gay" issues is as relevant to me as it is to you.
Now, this is ALLLL explained on other sites and I will not enter into that debate yet one more time here. I find that the only reason why most folks keep asking the questions they already know the answers too is to launch into their own soapbox sermons ... not that you are doing that ... just sayin'.
And for the record, I didn't see any high fives yesterday. Everyone has a clue as to what yesterday was about and that this issue is far from over.
Kurt, thank you for carrying on the conversations in a respectful manner. Joe, I know there is bad blood between you and Stacy and I pray that you two can come to some sort of civil disagreement (if that is not where you are currently at.) I've let you both say your piece and it is my hope that it will progress into civility and not devolve into ongoing public bitterness.
kevin
· 3 years ago
Randy--you may not believe it, but I really, really didn't know the answer to the question I asked you about. :) And I have to say I haven't gone into the Exodus website either (although I do check the Exodus blogsite for anything new)--next time I will look into these things myself before asking...
Stacy L. Harp
· 3 years ago
Since Joe responded in his comments, I feel the need to say once again publically that I never accused or called Joe a child molester. Despite the numerous times I have explained to Joe the context of my statement, he refuses to read what I wrote with the intent and with what I said.
I'll leave it at that, for the moment.
Randy
· 3 years ago
It is ok to ask. I sometimes tire of saying things over and over. and if I were honest... I am tired and a wee bit grumpy. Please forgive me if I came across stern and unkind.
Stacy L. Harp
· 3 years ago
Since Joe responded in his comments, I feel the need to say once again publically that I never accused or called Joe a child molester. Despite the numerous times I have explained to Joe the context of my statement, he refuses to read what I wrote with the intent and with what I said. I'll leave it at that, for the moment.
Christopher Fahey
· 3 years ago
One simple question: Is there anything wrong with being gay? I mean besides "The Bible says it's wrong" because quite frankly the Bible says it's just as wrong to, for example, pray at altars made of hewn stones (Exodus 20) and that it's okay to kill people whose wives you want to sleep with (2 Samuel 11). The Second Commandment forbids us from making images of *anything* at all, yet we moderns violate that a thousand times a day just by watching TV, viewing movies, and surfing the internet.
In short, the Bible is great in many ways, but even devout modern people agree that we must reconcile the literal words with modern rational thinking, using the brains we have been blessed with.
So, without resorting exclusively to scriptural reference, can you articulate what's wrong with being gay? I'm not gay, but I do think that gay people are pretty great... so I am intrigued why anyone would bother to do anything -- legally or rhetorically -- to try to stop people from being gay and having happy lives as such.
Christopher Fahey
· 3 years ago
One simple question: Is there anything wrong with being gay? I mean besides "The Bible says it's wrong" because quite frankly the Bible says it's just as wrong to, for example, pray at altars made of hewn stones (Exodus 20) and that it's okay to kill people whose wives you want to sleep with (2 Samuel 11). The Second Commandment forbids us from making images of *anything* at all, yet we moderns violate that a thousand times a day just by watching TV, viewing movies, and surfing the internet. In short, the Bible is great in many ways, but even devout modern people agree that we must reconcile the literal words with modern rational thinking, using the brains we have been blessed with. So, without resorting exclusively to scriptural reference, can you articulate what's wrong with being gay? I'm not gay, but I do think that gay people are pretty great... so I am intrigued why anyone would bother to do anything -- legally or rhetorically -- to try to stop people from being gay and having happy lives as such.
Randy
· 3 years ago
First Christopher, thank you for making your opinions known. Second, it isn't fair to shoot down someone's faith and then ask them to not rely on that "exclusively" to make what you would consider a solid articulated argument. Thirdly, I have seen this kind of comment a million times, it is your opinion, wrapped in rhetoric masquerading as a question.
People can be whoever they feel they need to be. We don't "make" anyone not be gay. We are here for those who what our help and to stand up for our convictions.
Obviously you don't believe in the Bible's movement from Old Testament law to New testament grace in the way that I do. Many of the ritual requirements are still true but no longer relevant Even so, all of the relational ones still are still relevant even though the penalty of sin is covered in Christ. In other words, I don't have to worry about what I wear to sacrifice a goat or if I am going to be stoned by modern day Pharisees. Jesus fulfilled all of the old testament law. Even so, relationship are still the same as they have always been. In the age of grace we don't have the penalties of Old Testament law but we still have the consequences of relational sin to deal with.
And for people like me, that's a big life altering kind of deal.
I will not get into it here or allow it to go on here. There is PLENTY of resources everywhere you turn around on the net to get both sides and I won't be drawn into the millionth reptitive argument over these well worn issues.
It's futile. Your comment is very clear that you have made up your mind and willing to cast our efforts in a negative light.
I personally would still be gay if I hadn't met Christ in a very personal way in which He lovingly led me away from homosexuality and my gay identity. I wasn't a very happy person back when I identified as gay but it was the only thing I knew and for the longest time the only option I that I had. There are secular arguments too but... this is my personal blog and I will leave it at that.
If that isn't logical enough ... sorry, I live by faith and that is logical enough for me.
All Comments
Joe, you sounded condescending and Stacy you sounded dismissive.
as always I reserve thw right to be wrong.
I know my opinions and activities offend others. But the reason I do what I do is because I believe in them strongly. People offend me all the time (people and organizations working to "ruin" my life "wipe" me "off the face of the planet". They are working in policy and private realms to eradicate my core values and prevent those ideas from entering into the public dialog.
Even so, I choose to not live in offense and let go of offense so I can move on to do what I got to do and trust God with the rest.
I also trust the God of Romans 8:28.
That's right, it's all about the homosexuals not having "pain" but the rest of us enduring your agenda.
Studies show over and over that kids raised by tow dads or two moms do just as well. I may agree having two parents is ideal in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world, we live in this world.
What about the kids living in same sex house holds who have no protections at all since their same sex parents cannto mutually adopt them? what happens to them.
It is important to see the large picture, the full picture, not just the one that looks good in a perfect world, the one that works in the real world.
Congrats, Randy!
I did not realize those LIVE posts made it. This treo is quirky sometimes.
That's right, it's all about the homosexuals not having "pain" but the rest of us enduring your agenda.
Studies show over and over that kids raised by tow dads or two moms do just as well. I may agree having two parents is ideal in a perfect world, but we don't live in a perfect world, we live in this world.
What about the kids living in same sex house holds who have no protections at all since their same sex parents cannto mutually adopt them? what happens to them.
It is important to see the large picture, the full picture, not just the one that looks good in a perfect world, the one that works in the real world.
Joe, you sounded condescending and Stacy you sounded dismissive.
as always I reserve thw right to be wrong.
I know my opinions and activities offend others. But the reason I do what I do is because I believe in them strongly. People offend me all the time (people and organizations working to "ruin" my life "wipe" me "off the face of the planet". They are working in policy and private realms to eradicate my core values and prevent those ideas from entering into the public dialog.
Even so, I choose to not live in offense and let go of offense so I can move on to do what I got to do and trust God with the rest.
I also trust the God of Romans 8:28.
It is even more interesting that we have more in common than we differ upon. Sadly, the efforts of most are not about finding a common ground for us all, but just continuing oppositon to each other.
If your side and my side of this issue would spend as much energy finding a way to co-exist as they do fighting each other, the world would be the "Beloved Community" Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped for in the world.
Just my thoughts. I apologize if I sounded condescending, it was not my intention.
I cannont disagree with you more. While you have some great points (particularly that the world we live in is not perfect) I believe that the foundation of your argument is flawed.
What you are saying is that since we cannot have the perfect, the imperfect will do. That may be true in certain aspects of life; buying a car, energy policy, buying a home. But human lives are different.
The imperfect as a substitute for the perfect in medical care is not acceptable. Niether is the imperfect a susbstitute in matters of human rights.
The fact that the imperfect exists is not an argument for settling. It is an argument to strive that much more for the perfect.
In my view, the bottom line is that the child who lives in an imperfect home knows it. The child who lives in a home where they are beaten knows that other kids are not beaten. The child who lives in a home without a dad knows that other kids have dads.
It is a poverty to abandon the hope of the ideal.
I have no idea what you're referring to. I never even mentioned the word perfect in my response to Joe.
In response to Randy, I wasn't meaning to sound dismissive if you took it that way, my point was that Joe believes, regardless of how much we may say otherwise, that we are constantly out to hurt him and the gay community.
My point was that it seems to me, and often appears to me, that those who are in the gay community, like Joe, don't seem to care how much their beliefs and actions hurt others.
I think sometimes Joe forgets I had an older gay brother who died of AIDS and I also know the pain that homosexuals feel.
So lest anyone think that I haven't attempted to bridge the gap and make this dialog more than about homosexuality, it's actually the exact opposite.
I realize that most of humanity agrees on many things. I have conservative gay friends. I have friends in the psychology field who are liberal and disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality, so it's not that I am afraid of diversity at all.
Joe was not open to an honest dialog or real friendship beyond wanting to argue with me about homosexuality. I think it's important that is known and made clear, for what it's worth. :)
I cannont disagree with you more. While you have some great points (particularly that the world we live in is not perfect) I believe that the foundation of your argument is flawed.
What you are saying is that since we cannot have the perfect, the imperfect will do. That may be true in certain aspects of life; buying a car, energy policy, buying a home. But human lives are different.
The imperfect as a substitute for the perfect in medical care is not acceptable. Niether is the imperfect a susbstitute in matters of human rights.
The fact that the imperfect exists is not an argument for settling. It is an argument to strive that much more for the perfect.
In my view, the bottom line is that the child who lives in an imperfect home knows it. The child who lives in a home where they are beaten knows that other kids are not beaten. The child who lives in a home without a dad knows that other kids have dads.
It is a poverty to abandon the hope of the ideal.
I don't mind anyone getting involved in politics; I've been known to do so myself on occasion, but only as a sometimes-distasteful duty, not as a hobby. I just dislike it when people claim that their political views are God's and vice-versa. Also, I have learned from long observation that when A harms or annoys B on the grounds of saving or improving X; A invariably turns out to be a jackass and a fraud. But you will discover this for yourself soon enough.
And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming...
It is even more interesting that we have more in common than we differ upon. Sadly, the efforts of most are not about finding a common ground for us all, but just continuing oppositon to each other.
If your side and my side of this issue would spend as much energy finding a way to co-exist as they do fighting each other, the world would be the "Beloved Community" Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped for in the world.
Just my thoughts. I apologize if I sounded condescending, it was not my intention.
"1. How would civil unions help the epidemic of divorce? Do you have reason to believe that civil unions would be less likely to end in a split (whether children are involved or not)?"
Well, I don't know that divorce is an "epidemic" or that it's the government's place to put a stop/limitation to it. That's your premise, one I haven't necessarily affirmed or denied (I think divorce can be a bad thing, but not always.)
My point is just that religious solutions can be sought, especially if it is a religious community that feels that it is undergoing an epidemic (as evangelicals, who have the same divorce rate as the rest of the country seem to think).
As far as polyamory, I'll say a couple of things:
1. I think that monogamy gets less press because it is boring. Whether it is "common" or "prevalent" in the gay community is open for debate. I know of a few studies, but we don't have a comprehensive sampling (and they focus primarily on gay men, not on lesbians). As well, I do think the fact that there isn't an existing social structure for monogamy (i.e. civil unions/marriage) impacts this.
2. Polygamy/polyamory is problematic for a number of reasons, among them that it is very convoluted legally. (If we consider a marriage a partnership between two people, then you'd have networks of marriages intersecting.)
However, I have heard of solutions where contracts among people who live together are recognized--I'd have to look up which country it is. I am not necessarily opposed to that, but I do think it is more problematic than recognizing existing same-sex partnerships.
Why is it that some of the trios in the article couldn't be considered an open marriage? I know of two heterosexuals with such an agreement (and actually, no homosexuals--though that could just be an odd anecdotal fact). There is no need to codify the third into the relationship by law.
Finally, I think that the point made by Sullivan and Krauthamer is a good one: on the scale of innate qualities (I believe our self-identity is a hybrid of biological fact and social construction), polygamy is closer to the social construction end. After all, I didn't choose to be attracted to women (or, arguably my partner--though I did choose to be in a monogamous relationship with her). Each day, I choose to be monogamous, even though I'm still attracted to other women. I would venture to guess that most partnered people are attracted to someone other than their significant other--but part of the stability that the government recognizes in a marriage is that you've chosen to build your life with the one person
Sorry about the length--it is a difficult subject to parse through, but in the end, I don't think it is a knock-down argument against my three-year monogamous relationship being recognized.
So lest anyone think that I haven't attempted to bridge the gap and make this dialog more than about homosexuality, it's actually the exact opposite.
I realize that most of humanity agrees on many things. I have conservative gay friends. I have friends in the psychology field who are liberal and disagree with me on the issue of homosexuality, so it's not that I am afraid of diversity at all.
Joe was not open to an honest dialog or real friendship beyond wanting to argue with me about homosexuality. I think it's important that is known and made clear, for what it's worth. :)
But there are a lot of conservatives who say we should take a look at how overused (some say 2/3 of American marriages break up due to) no-fault divorce has become. That we should look at more options, i.e. covenant marriages, more premarital counseling, etc.
What say you who support same-sex marriage?
Wouldn't it strengthen your case, if you really believe that same-sex marriage will help stabilize society, if you also support an examination of no-fault divorce and ways we can help couples (and their kids) avoid this?
I'm an evangelical Christian myself so you can guess where my viewpoint is. But I'm going to tell you, if you'd put together a movement for same-sex marriage and against the (over)use of no-fault divorce, you'd touch a lot of hearts.
What do you all think?
Thanks Jack, if I run into W again I will make sure to tell him Howdy for you and Mike...I am a very blessed man in many ways. I don't think I will ever forget yesterday (or the rest of this week.)
Myself, I think that we ought to distinguish more carefully between religious and civil marriage. Often the two intertwine, but not always. A covenant marriage (falling under the first category) would do much for Christians who want to be bound by other laws about divorce, infidelity, etc. A civil marriage would be the government's way of recognizing two people who are living together and form a household--for tax and regulatory purposes, without comment on the union's morality or desirability, save for a few criteria (I won't get into why I think polygamy will not get put into the equation, but that's one).
CS Lewis is one of those Christians who believes a clear distinction ought to be made. I don't know what he would say about this situation, but he did have a close gay friend and he struggled with some out-of-the norm sexual feelings himself.
This would also mean that absolutely no religious institution would be forced to recognize a union that they don't want to--be it interracial, same-sex, or a second marriage, or one between different faiths. I think a lot of this has to do with what you think the government is for, as well. How much involvement in society's evolution should the government have? Should it reflect what society is, or should it guide what society will become? etc.
This story is fascinating in that it says polyamory (where one has multiple romantic attractions simultaneously) has long existed in the gay community. It interviews three men who would apparently identify as husbands who says they consider themselves as married as can be, though they keep silent as they're afraid the "religious right" would use them against the movement for same-sex marriage.
Nonetheless, from reading the article I got the feeling multiple (3 or more) committed partners are not an uncommon thing in the gay community nor have they ever been.
If you know what the love you feel for a partner you can't marry feels like, if same-sex marriage is ratified, how long do you think partners like these (who essentially said they have to stay "in the closet") are going to keep quiet, to keep disavowing their love especially when the New York Times runs articles like THIS (free registration may be required)?
Seriously?
Christianity these days seems to be all about striking the right poses, i.e.: gays bad/bigots good; massacring civilians/OK--but don't talk about it, revealing massacres of civilians/treason!
As in the case of Brother Tom Delay, Christianity need not have anything to do with personal conduct, indeed it is often wildly at variance with it.
Considering that the Supreme Court is now packed with Republicans who can be counted on to vote for whatever Administration talking-points are in vogue that week, it's a bit disingenous to claim that this amendment is needed to protect marriage from those horrid "activist judges", a phrase lifted directly from the playbook of last-ditch segregationists. This is not about marriage; this is about tossing the Religious Right some of the red meat it craves.
All I can say is that pointless stunts like this are doing more to discredit Christianity than anything a skeptic could say.
Sorry about the length--it is a difficult subject to parse through, but in the end, I don't think it is a knock-down argument against my three-year monogamous relationship being recognized.
My Christianity asks me to speak into every arena and I do.
Malachi 2:16 For I hate divorce (some texts say He hates) divorce, says the Lord, the God of Israel...
Also see the words of Jesus at Matt. 5:31; Matt. 19:3; Mk 10:11; Luke 16:18; and the punishments for adultery: Deut. 22:22--"If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman."
I think those who want to preserve the sanctity of marriage should start with those who can get married. If they are going to follow the Bible and the words of Christ (and try and force others to), then they should begin by changing the constitution to not allow divorce--then work on gay marriage.
p.s. I should mention that Deut. 24:1ff allows divorce, but only if initiated by the man.
I don't mind anyone getting involved in politics; I've been known to do so myself on occasion, but only as a sometimes-distasteful duty, not as a hobby. I just dislike it when people claim that their political views are God's and vice-versa. Also, I have learned from long observation that when A harms or annoys B on the grounds of saving or improving X; A invariably turns out to be a jackass and a fraud. But you will discover this for yourself soon enough.
And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming...
I am after real dialog that will stop all the bashing of gays. It is nothng more than what Gandhi called passive violence, which leads to anger and bitterness. Anger and bitterness eventually lead to physical violence and in this case, that has been against "those evil gays".
As for her claim about doing a weekly poscast, yes, Stacy did invite me to do that. I turned her down because she asked right after she posted a number of posts on her blog bashing me personally on her blog. I didn't see a reason to do a weekly podcast someone who would bash me personally online, call me names, and accuse me of molesting children. Basically someone I couldn't trust and that was my reply to her.
So yes, I want dialog, but a weekly podcast isn't true dialog, it is entertainment. I am not out to entertain people. I am out to stop the hate speech that cost the human lives of gays and lesbians.
Anyone interesting in knowing more about these email conversations between Stacy and I, I would be happy to send them to you.
And don't forget, there is a complete paradigm shift of thought going on here. Where you see homosexuality as a "gay" identity to embrace, we see it as a identity/condition that many will choose to change/overcome. This opinion is not new information by the way. Sometimes gay identified people demand that I think like they do and want to belittle me for not seeing their way as the only way.
Same sex attraction is not that narrow and I have gone a different way. Homosexual or "gay" issues is as relevant to me as it is to you.
Now, this is ALLLL explained on other sites and I will not enter into that debate yet one more time here. I find that the only reason why most folks keep asking the questions they already know the answers too is to launch into their own soapbox sermons ... not that you are doing that ... just sayin'.
And for the record, I didn't see any high fives yesterday. Everyone has a clue as to what yesterday was about and that this issue is far from over.
Kurt, thank you for carrying on the conversations in a respectful manner. Joe, I know there is bad blood between you and Stacy and I pray that you two can come to some sort of civil disagreement (if that is not where you are currently at.) I've let you both say your piece and it is my hope that it will progress into civility and not devolve into ongoing public bitterness.
And I have to say I haven't gone into the Exodus website either (although I do check the Exodus blogsite for anything new)--next time I will look into these things myself before asking...
I'll leave it at that, for the moment.
I'll leave it at that, for the moment.
In short, the Bible is great in many ways, but even devout modern people agree that we must reconcile the literal words with modern rational thinking, using the brains we have been blessed with.
So, without resorting exclusively to scriptural reference, can you articulate what's wrong with being gay? I'm not gay, but I do think that gay people are pretty great... so I am intrigued why anyone would bother to do anything -- legally or rhetorically -- to try to stop people from being gay and having happy lives as such.
In short, the Bible is great in many ways, but even devout modern people agree that we must reconcile the literal words with modern rational thinking, using the brains we have been blessed with.
So, without resorting exclusively to scriptural reference, can you articulate what's wrong with being gay? I'm not gay, but I do think that gay people are pretty great... so I am intrigued why anyone would bother to do anything -- legally or rhetorically -- to try to stop people from being gay and having happy lives as such.
People can be whoever they feel they need to be. We don't "make" anyone not be gay. We are here for those who what our help and to stand up for our convictions.
Obviously you don't believe in the Bible's movement from Old Testament law to New testament grace in the way that I do. Many of the ritual requirements are still true but no longer relevant Even so, all of the relational ones still are still relevant even though the penalty of sin is covered in Christ. In other words, I don't have to worry about what I wear to sacrifice a goat or if I am going to be stoned by modern day Pharisees. Jesus fulfilled all of the old testament law. Even so, relationship are still the same as they have always been. In the age of grace we don't have the penalties of Old Testament law but we still have the consequences of relational sin to deal with.
And for people like me, that's a big life altering kind of deal.
I will not get into it here or allow it to go on here. There is PLENTY of resources everywhere you turn around on the net to get both sides and I won't be drawn into the millionth reptitive argument over these well worn issues.
It's futile. Your comment is very clear that you have made up your mind and willing to cast our efforts in a negative light.
I personally would still be gay if I hadn't met Christ in a very personal way in which He lovingly led me away from homosexuality and my gay identity. I wasn't a very happy person back when I identified as gay but it was the only thing I knew and for the longest time the only option I that I had. There are secular arguments too but... this is my personal blog and I will leave it at that.
If that isn't logical enough ... sorry, I live by faith and that is logical enough for me.