Yes they (NYT) obviously have an agenda - destruction of the traditional family. Well it won't work in the long term. Just as Communism is antithetical to human nature and existence and after being foisted on a huge area of Eastern Europe after World War II it was soundly rejected by ordinary people: so same sex "marriage" will suffer the same fate. Like a guttering candle it will briefly flare up before it dies. As long as the Catholic Church stands firm against same sex "marriage" it'll never get long term traction.

What I would like to know however is what does the NYT stand to gain from pushing this crap? Are they really that much out of touch with what ordinary people world wide think?
Another Steve | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 4:16 am | #

Russell Shorto is exactly right, which is why I'm converting to Islam immediately.
saintkansas | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 6:31 am | #

What about us intellectuals who are neither Catholic nor orthodox Jews, who have hardwood floors and large incomes, but who don't believe in "gay marriage" because we think that every child is entitled to a mother _and_ a father? We eat Sushi, drink bubble tea and all. Why leave us out?

Don't want no Shorto people 'round here.
rrr | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 8:12 am | #

And we are surprised by this attitude why?
J Rob | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 8:44 am | #

Steve: They ARE that out of touch. See this comment on "The Corner."
Patrick McGrath | 06.21.05 - 8:50 am | #

I love hardwood floors and sushi!
I'm Catholic!
Oh, I'm torn!
Kate B. | 06.21.05 - 9:02 am | #

Talk about reading WAY too much into a plain vanilla story. The reporter has simply reported the mundane facts about the families' homes (both the straight and the gay families). That you seem to view some of the details as more gauche than others speaks to your own biases, not the writer's. Similarly, the job description has nothing to do with considering only the gay family to have "real jobs"; rather, many government employees, when speaking to a political issue unrelated to their employment, will not specify the particular agency for which they work out of concern that it could be incorrectly viewed as the official view of their employer. I'm sure the reporter would have loved to state exactly where Dave worked (given his absurd reliance on arcane details), but Dave presumably didn't want that included.

In any event, the bottom line isn't whether middle-American anti-gay advocates are tacky in their choices of household decorations. Rather, they are as dull and banal as gay families, hardwood floors or otherwise. Families are families, and there is no rational way for you or any of the other posters here to justify treating some differently than others.
Tangerine Olaf | 06.21.05 - 9:25 am | #

Is it possible the reporter is making real observations (i.e. reporting). And that one is simply thinking that his observations are "Times guy with the disdainful eye." I mean, it's a culture piece. He's showing the VERY REAL difference between some folks. At the same time, I think there are many homosexuals who don't live and dress hiply (whatever the definition of hip is). The piece is clearly written to try and explain to the people who don't get it, that "these people" are the majority; they are America. And it's their religious-rooted view on homosexual marriage that is driving the politics end of the debate as well. People need to understand that. Many gays and lesbians -- and New York liberals -- simply don't get it. That some of it is also rooted in "anti-gay" feelings is somewhat valid, I think. I may add, that some conservatives do the stereotyping thing all the time also and you don't hear other conservatives up in arms about that. I mean I read on this very blog once observations of the homosexual pride march that zeroed in on the "yahoos" and hairy-chested Britneys as another (minor) reason (granted, our religious teaching is the number one reason, as Dawn consistently and rightly points out) why their aspirations for marriage are invalid. Long and short of all this, it's a two-way street. And those who oppose homosexual marriage have a lot more cars on the road, thank God. It's good to remind those who don't get it about that reality.
jjoyce | 06.21.05 - 9:27 am | #

Conscience | 06.21.05 - 9:40 am | #

Tangerine Olaf--you maintain that "the writer has simply reported the mundane facts about the families' homes".

I don't agree. What the writer reports are the class-marker facts about the families' homes.

The writer doesn't report non-class-marker mundane facts about the homes (square footage, number of bedrooms, etc.)
Emily | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 9:43 am | #

decorated with Jim Gray's Confederate memorabilia

Oh brother.

Why is it necessary for liberals to paint everyone who doesn't agree with them as a rabid racist?

Is it because they can't handle conservative arguments on their merits?
BillyHW | 06.21.05 - 10:29 am | #

TO,
>>Families are families, and there is no rational way for you or any of the other posters here to justify treating some differently than others.

Society regularly justifies treating families differently based on the mores we deem worthy/unworthy. We treat some families differently by taking children out of a home where they may be abused. At times courts mandate that families recieve counseling to resolve serious conflict. We force children to split time between two homes if the parents are divorced. etc., etc., etc. The actual circumstances and the constitution of families forces different treatment every day. That is a given and it is utterly rational. The only question at issue is what those mores should be. You may not agree with the mores we hold, but to say that there is no rational way to justify them is just plain silly.
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 10:36 am | #

rrr, since you don't fit into the ordained pigeonholes, you can not exist, and must be a deluded figment of your own imagination which will now fade away.
Will Linden | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 10:38 am | #

Another Steve:
"Yes they (NYT) obviously have an agenda - destruction of the traditional family."

Yes. They have secret meetings where they ploy to destroy the world. It's an Austin Powers movie, really. Top Times executives' hands bleed from all the maniacally evil, gleeful hand-rubbing they do. Bwa-ha-ha. Indeed.

Steve G.
"The actual circumstances and the constitution of families forces different treatment every day. That is a given and it is utterly rational. The only question at issue is what those mores should be"

Agreed. And in a society in which laws are not based on religion, certainly not on any one religion, there is no reason to assign a greater moral value to heterosexual relationships than homosexual. After all, the Bible is not a basis for law. So while your mores may well prohibit same-sex relationships, the legal system shouldn't. No one is suggesting that any church be forced to marry same-sex couples, any more than anyone is suggesting the Catholic Church be forced to marry divorced couples. But to suggest that, to carry the analogy on, divorced couples not be legally allowed to marry--just because the Catholic faith sees it as wrong--would be absurd.
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 10:49 am | #

John C., Tangerine Olaf, et al.

Your point just won't hold. There are many reasons to oppose gay "marriage" that are not grounded in religious opposition. It is not helpful to avoid the real issue ... what is best for children? Human history is pretty clear about the answer to that question.
Colleen | 06.21.05 - 11:05 am | #

Dawn,

You are a closet Red-Stater for sure. Come join the rest of us Costco-loving, Mayonnaise-eating, flatlanders who live in fly-over country.

We can break out the Rhinestone stud makers, drink some Liptons ice tea, and swap stories about lawn ornament projects we've been thinking about.

No books here! We don't read, we just make babies! That's right you Yankee elites: We MAKE BABIES!!!! Baw-Haw-Haw-Hawwwww!
Tex | 06.21.05 - 11:18 am | #

>>And in a society in which laws are not based on religion
--
The laws of any democratically base society are based on the mores the majority of the citizenry. Whether those mores are formed by secular humanism or religious understanding is irrelevant. The fact is that each side is fighting for what they deem right.

>>certainly not on any one religion, there is no reason to assign a greater moral value to heterosexual relationships than homosexual. After all, the Bible is not a basis for law. So while your mores may well prohibit same-sex relationships, the legal system shouldn't.
--
The reason is that this is that society assigns the greater moral value regardless of what the motivation is. You take issue because you believe it to be religious (which in and of itself evidences a kind of prejudice on your part), but what if it was not. I know non-religious people who are adamantly opposed to homosexual marriage because they see a natural and evolutionary purpose behind marriage and value it as a positive thing for society. If you think your position morally superior to ours, then argue it and convince society of such. That’s what the democratic process is all about. If however you’ll say that we can’t codify our position because it is based in our religious belief, I’ll have to say your dead wrong.

>> But to suggest that, to carry the analogy on, divorced couples not be legally allowed to marry--just because the Catholic faith sees it as wrong--would be absurd.
--
Agreed, but like it or not, the simple facts show that we are talking about two things of different nature. The fact that it is two men/women involved vs. a man and a woman plainly shows that we are talking about a different animal altogether. You are drawing and equivalence where none exists.
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 11:23 am | #

You know, I don't care about being sneered at by homosexuals, but I DO dislike being condescended to by people who think hardwoood floors are a mark of character or intellect. No they're not; they're a mark of the childless. Have you ever seen what a skateboard will do to a hardwood floor, or tried to clean chewed-up Oreos out of an Oriental rug?

If this couple has two daughters, those girls must have had problems in their upbringing BESIDES having two mommies. I sometimes suspect these people rent kids by the day to show that they can "parent" too.
Joel | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 11:43 am | #

A homeschool family with no books?....what alternate universe was this reporter in?
muzjik | 06.21.05 - 12:00 pm | #

Just went back and took a closer loook at the article...and can not find the author making a comment about "no books to speak of". Was that just Dawn's interjection to try to make a not-so-great article look worse? Or has the original article been changed?
muzjik | 06.21.05 - 12:09 pm | #

It was an interjection which highlighted that the description of the traditional marriage proponents didn't mention books, but that the description of the lesbian couple highlighted that fact...

[T]he living-room bookshelf is crammed with kids' books and photo albums.
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 12:12 pm | #

Colleen:
"It is not helpful to avoid the real issue ... what is best for children? Human history is pretty clear about the answer to that question."

How so? Has there been a copious amount of same-sex parenting examples from which to draw conclusions?

Steve G.
You make a valid point, but the mores of the society are rapidly shifting to a stance in which homosexual relationships are not viewed as in any way deviant. If, say, in another ten years, it's abundantly clear that homosexual relationships are viewed by "the majority of the citizenry" (your words) as no more deviant than, say, interracial relationships are now (and understand that a great many Americans view interracial relationships as JUST as deviant as many here view homosexual relationships) will your opposition cease?

As for your last point, you've hit the nail on the head exactly. You de facto see a relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, as fundamentally different than a relationship between a woman and a man. But you can't say why.

Joel:
Call me crazy, but I'd MUCH rather clean vomit off of a hardwood floor than a carpet. As my kids get older, I'd be tempted to ditch the area rugs for a while and let them spill, bleed, and have "accidents" on good, wipeable naked wood. ;)

And "I sometimes suspect these people rent kids by the day to show that they can "parent" too?"

I suspect that about boatloads of man-woman parents, so I'm not sure what your point is.
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 12:14 pm | #

You de facto see a relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, as fundamentally different than a relationship between a woman and a man. But you can't say why.

John, does Steve really have to point out the differences between two males, two females, and one of each? Even if you don't assign a moral difference to the combinations, they are obviously different, and two men can't parent in the same way as a mother and a father, or two mothers.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 12:21 pm | #

It's funny how people are more upset at the reporter mentioning someone has Confederate memorobilia than someone ACTUALLY HAVING CONFEDERATE MEMOROBILIA IN THEIR HOUSE.
Rob | 06.21.05 - 12:25 pm | #

Nightfly:
"John, does Steve really have to point out the differences between two males, two females, and one of each?"

In terms of what makes one relationship different than the other? Yes.

"Two men can't parent in the same way as a mother and a father, or two mothers"

Why?
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 12:41 pm | #

John C.
>>If, say, in another ten years, it's abundantly clear that homosexual relationships are viewed by "the majority of the citizenry" (your words) as no more deviant than, say, interracial relationships are now (and understand that a great many Americans view interracial relationships as JUST as deviant as many here view homosexual relationships) will your opposition cease?
--
No, and your opposition to the dominant view does not cease merely because it is currently ascendant. I will of course accept the laws of the land, but I would continue to oppose it in the sense that I suggest you do so currently. I will continue to argue for the correctness of my position and convince others of that in hopes that it will again gain majority support. That’s reasonable, isn’t it?

>>As for your last point, you've hit the nail on the head exactly. You de facto see a relationship between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, as fundamentally different than a relationship between a woman and a man. But you can't say why.

Of course I can say why, though I honestly find it amazing that I need to. The obvious difference is physical. The deeper difference that this reveals is one of the main purposes of the marital relationship, that of bringing into the world and rearing children. A homosexual union admits no such possibility between the two parties. Admittedly, adoption can emulate this, but it doesn’t change the real inherent difference in the relationships.
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 1:06 pm | #

It's funny how people are more upset at the reporter mentioning someone has Confederate memorobilia than someone ACTUALLY HAVING CONFEDERATE MEMOROBILIA IN THEIR HOUSE.

What we're upset about is that the NY Times could only find "Christians" with Confederate memorabilia to represent the Christian position vis-a-vis gay "marriage".
BillyHW | 06.21.05 - 1:45 pm | #

Would it be fair to the liberal side to interview someone in favour of gay marriage who just happened to have child pornography and adoption papers sitting on his desk?
BillyHW | 06.21.05 - 1:47 pm | #

Steve G.
Of course there's a physical difference, but how this changes the dynamics of a relationship, of how two people who are in love interact, I have no idea. As for children, while marriage may have started out simply as a means to producing chldren (and I have no idea of whether it did or not, not knowing much about the history of marriage), it seems very clear that in America today that's not its only purpose. Many, many, many men and women get married every day without the intention, or ability, to ever produce children.
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 1:48 pm | #

"Two men can't parent in the same way as a mother and a father, or two mothers"

John C.: "Why?"

Father will do the best he can,
But so many things a father can't understand
Nobody treats you like your mother can
And when your mother is dead? O Lord...

Or to put it less musically, men and women are different creatures that relate in different ways. A woman IS NOT merely a dude with a womb. The differences go deep into thought and feeling. A single parent (or two of the same kind of parent) can make do, but it isn't the same thing.
Nightfly | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 1:56 pm | #

>>Of course there's a physical difference, but how this changes the dynamics of a relationship, of how two people who are in love interact, I have no idea.
--
There are lots of different types of relationships which involve two people who love one another which are not equivalent. All of these relationships involve a variety of genders combinations, and physical contact of varying degrees. Each type of relationship also involves some level of bonding between the two parties, and that often through physical gestures and contact. But the bonding dynamic varies depending on the nature of the relationship.

For example, I love my brother. I even kiss and hug my brother when we greet, when we are happy, when we are sad. I’ve spent my entire life talking to, learning from, teaching and listening to him. So, we have two men, who dearly love each other, and who often exchange physical gestures of affection. So, is this relationship equivalent to my marriage? The simple presence of two people, love and a physical relationship doesn’t make each relationship equivalent.

This is still true even if the physical relationship takes on a sexual nature. That would change the dynamic again, but it doesn’t change it to the same dynamic between a man and a woman. Between a man and a woman, a unique type of physical act takes place that produces a type of bonding that is simply not repeatable by a same sex act. I am not saying that there is no bonding in the same sex act, but that by definition it’s not the same. The male/female act can be simulated or counterfeited, but it’s still not the same. The bonding is thus not identical. The relationship is thus not identical. Does that help explain how the dynamics are different, and that based on the physical difference alone?

>>it seems very clear that in America today that's not its only purpose. Many, many, many men and women get married every day without the intention, or ability, to ever produce children.
--
You’ll have to take this one up with someone else. I have a purely Catholic understanding of marriage and part of that is the rejection of birth control and an explicit promise during the exchange of vows that the marriage will be open to children. I readily admit that the widespread acceptance of contraception has rendered a powerful argument to your position. If the sexual act becomes primarily about the exchange of pleasure and secondarily about procreation, then it becomes harder to argue the difference between a heterosexual and homosexual sexual act. But since I don’t take that position, I need not, and can not defend it.
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 2:09 pm | #

"Does that help explain how the dynamics are different, and that based on the physical difference alone?"

No, but I appreciate the attempt. ;)Seriously, though while I understand what you are saying, to me you're defining a micro difference rather than a macro. I mean, if I interact sexually with my wife differently than you and yours (if you are indeed married--I can't recall), and I'm sure I do, then the dynamics of those two relationships are different too. But both relationships are, say on a macro level, committed, loving romantic relationships. I guess I stil ldon't see why this isn't true for a gay couple.

As for your second point, while I understand completely, a civil marriage is not the same as a Catholic marriage, nor are they defined the same way.
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 2:42 pm | #

Nightfly:
I'd actually agree; it's not the same thing. But either are, say, my wife and I as parents and any other randomly chosen parents. My feelings on same-sex parenting are this: I have absolutely no doubt that there are many, many same-sex parents who will do an immensely better job raising children than many, many opposite-sex parents. A mother and father may be the ideal, but no parents are ideal in every way. In a perfect world, I might be tempted to agree that gays shouldn't be parents, but in this world I'd argue that it's lunacy for them not to be.
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 2:46 pm | #

>>What we're upset about is that the NY Times could only find "Christians" with Confederate memorabilia to represent the Christian position vis-a-vis gay "marriage".>>

So what are you suggesting -- that he should just ignore it because it makes Christians look bad? Or that he went to twenty different gay marriage opponents until he found ones with Confederate memorobilia on the wall? That's a lot of work!

I mean, the guy didn't put that stuff there himself. You just want to shoot the messenger. To use the other analogy, if a reporter went to interview anyone and found child pornography there, he'd probably report it.

By the way, people here have still not condemned this memorobilia. I mean, these are prominent people in your movement. Is this the kind of thing you want to associate yourself with?
Rob | 06.21.05 - 3:08 pm | #

I am married, and what I state next is not meant to be preachy or attempt to taut any supposed superiority regarding my own marriage. It’s only intended to honestly answer your question to the best of my ability.

I mean, if I interact sexually with my wife differently than you and yours and I'm sure
I do, then the dynamics of those two relationships are different too.

Yes, they would indeed. From my perspective (again, I know you don’t buy it, just explaining), any sexual encounter that ends other than with ejaculation in the vagina would by definition be an immoral sexual act. Immoral sexual acts will not provide the same bonding that moral ones will. Not saying that no bonding occurs, but that it would be different. From your viewpoint, I can understand why you see little difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, because on the macro level there may be little difference. But, a fundamental difference still exists. The potential for your relationship to become equivalent (and in some respects at least part of it may already be so) is inherently present. The homosexual relationship can never allow that potential. It’s a fundamental and real difference.

But both relationships are, say on a macro level, committed, loving romantic relationships. I guess I still don't see why this isn't true for a gay couple.

I didn’t say that they can’t have a loving, committed, romantic relationship. I only said that it is not an equivalent relationship. You are arguing there’s no difference, but there clearly is a difference with the traditional Christian understanding of what a marital sexual relationship entails. Do you admit to that difference?
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 3:18 pm | #

Rob: How do you know that Jim Gray isn't just a history buff? Or a descendent of a Confederate soldier? You seem to be absolutely certain that any possession of "Confederate memorabilia" must mean that someone is a drooling, raving racist whose possession of such materials should be condemned without exception. The article gives no explanation or background for this detail of home decoration, probably didn't even ask--just throws it in so that readers will instantly associate "anti-gay" activism with racism. Sounds like he succeeded with some.
David Fischler | 06.21.05 - 3:30 pm | #

Dear John C.

“Of course there's a physical difference, but how this changes the dynamics of a relationship, of how two people who are in love interact, I have no idea.”

Physical differences are not the only differences are not the only differences among the sexes. There are deeply rooted behavioral differences as well. I’m personally convinced they’re based on biology. If you don’t agree with this, stop here. But if you do, then it’s obvious that the dynamics between gay couples are different than those between straight couples in a way that depends of physical or biological differences. To me the most striking evidence of this is on one hand the difference between lesbian and gay male couples and on the other hand the similarity between lesbian and straight couples. In short, lesbian and straight couples are marked by a greater degree of monogamy and commitment. I’ve seen an open lack of total monogamy among many gay male couples that’s largely absent among lesbian couples and virtually unknown among straight couples.

This is based on my observations at close hand of lesbian, gay male, and straight couples. You’re free to offer your own anecdotal evidence, but I’m convinced on the basis of what I’ve seen that the dynamics of same sex and heterosexual couples are sufficiently different to warrant reservations about calling all these relationships “marriage.”

Yes, there are similarities, but there are similarities between the sexual bonds such as we’ve been discussing and platonic bonds, such as maiden aunts living together. Most households wind up resembling each other one way or another.

However, the greatest marker of difference among the various couples is the ultimate importance of stable, monogamous heterosexual unions. If you’re unsure why heterosexual unions should be viewed as ultimately more important than homosexual unions, think of it this way: If all homosexual unions disappeared overnight, the human race would have no trouble carrying on. On the other hand, if all heterosexual unions disappeared over night …

Is that “macro” enough for you?

I’m not presenting this as an argument for disallowing homosexual unions; but given my view of the matter, I am not prepared to accept that homosexual union have any claim to parity with heterosexual unions. I would accept some kind of arrangement that acknowledged the primacy of the role of heterosexual couples play in perpetuating the human race. But without that acknowledgement I can’t see same sex marriage gaining popular acceptance.

I don’t insist upon this acknowledge out of bigotry or because I’m trying, as a married heterosexual father, to take something away from someone else. I insist upon it because it acknowledges an important reality that much of the current pro same sex marriage thinking denies. For example, the well known pro SSM group “Love Makes a Family” chooses, by its very choice of a name, to do violence to reality. Yes, love is a precious part of any family, but fundamentally, consanguinity makes a family. Blood really is thicker than water sometimes. This kind of thinking substitutes emotion and will, or rather emotionalism and willfulness, for reality.
wtb | 06.21.05 - 3:47 pm | #

>>just throws it in so that readers will instantly associate "anti-gay" activism with racism. Sounds like he succeeded with some.>>

Well, sounds wrong. I don't feel that all anti-gay activists are racists. But I'd feel a little better if someone -- on this board at least -- would say something to the effect, "Well, of course we don't want people who glorify the Confederacy in our movement." Because you know such people still exist. I mean, issues of the Confederate flag came out in the 2000 election.

But instead all the rage is at the reporter. We don't want to say anything against people in our own ranks, we just want to point fingers at other people.

I mean, yeah he just might be an innocent little history buff. Just like someone might be a World War II buff. But if I went to someone's house and saw a lot of Nazi propaganda, I'd be a little creeped out.
Rob | 06.21.05 - 3:48 pm | #

A picture of Jeb Stuart and some Confederate money is hardly equivalent to "Nazi propaganda." Lord, I grew up in New Jersey, and my ancestors didn't even get to the US until 1916, and we had some Confederate money (replicas, not the real thing) just because we thought it looked interesting. Certainly those opposing gay marriage (including me) don't want to be associated with glorifiers of the Confederacy. I just wonder if you didn't jump to a bit more of a conclusion than the information warranted based on your assumptions.
David Fischler | 06.21.05 - 3:56 pm | #

But I'd feel a little better if someone -- on this board at least -- would say something to the effect, "Well, of course we don't want people who glorify the Confederacy in our movement."

Well, of course we don't want people who glorify the Confedaracy (I think it would be more proper to say 'glorify racism', but I'll do as you like) in our movement.

Seriously, I think your not hearing the outrage for the most part because this should go without saying. Racism has no place in Christianity, and I think most folks here talk that as a given.
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 3:58 pm | #

>>Well, of course we don't want people who glorify the Confedaracy (I think it would be more proper to say 'glorify racism', but I'll do as you like) in our movement>>

All well and good. But you know the current President refused to condemn the Confederate flag in 2000, as John McCain did. Kind of makes you uneasy, doesn't it?
Rob | 06.21.05 - 4:20 pm | #

Rob, I've never in my life said anything favorable about slavery or the Confederacy. Why should I suddenly have to say those things are bad? It's wrong to bully people into condemning things simply by claiming that if they don't condemn them, they must support them. I notice you haven't said anything about the Muslims at Lepanto. Surely you would rather they had conquered the Western world and slaughtered the Christian "infidels"!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 4:41 pm | #

Thanks to Patrick McGrath (comment no 5) for that link. Yes Ivory Towers are a long way from ground level.

I posted just before bedtime and wake up to find a very busy scene but very few if any with the courage to try justifying same sex "marriage".

As Colleen said "what is best for children? Human history is pretty clear about the answer to that question."
Another Steve | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 4:49 pm | #

Steve G.
"You are arguing there’s no difference, but there clearly is a difference with the traditional Christian understanding of what a marital sexual relationship entails. Do you admit to that difference?"

Yes. I just don't see how it should impact the definition of a civil marriage.

As for the first part, and since in deference to being in Dawn's house I will abide by her rules and not get graphic or precise, we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;)

wtb:
"I’ve seen an open lack of total monogamy among many gay male couples that’s largely absent among lesbian couples and virtually unknown among straight couples."

This is where you lose me. The notion that a lack of monogomy is virtually unknown among straight couples is completely at odds with my experiences in the world. Statistics are slippery, but don't a substantial percentage of married people have extramarital affairs? If (and I'm making up numbers) 30% of married couples have affairs, and 40% of lesbian couples do, and 50% of gay couples do, is that really so vast a difference? Especially since only the former have available to them a public platform for declaiming their monogomy? As far as the perpuation of the human race goes, as soon as this becomes a concern, we can talk. Until then it's for me a complete non-sequiter.

"Yes, love is a precious part of any family, but fundamentally, consanguinity makes a family. Blood really is thicker than water sometimes. This kind of thinking substitutes emotion and will, or rather emotionalism and willfulness, for reality."

The *exact* same thing could be said in argument against allowing adoptions. I don't agree that blood trumps all.
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 4:52 pm | #

Dawn, you got mentioned in TimesWatch.org:

http://www.timeswatch.org/twarti...05/ 20050621.asp
BillyHW | 06.21.05 - 4:56 pm | #

Dawn -- I just highlighted the fact that people were madder at the reporter for revealing the fact that these people had Confederate memorobilia on their basement than the people for actually having the memorobilia. In fact, the reporter probably could have made a bigger deal out of it. It is certainly a more interesting (and possibly revealing) character trait than leaving your Christmas lights up.

Let's not forget, this is still a real live issue. I hope there aren't too many pro-slavery people out there, but there are plenty of people out there with a far rosier view of the Confederacy than me (and I'm sure you.) In fact, our current President was so frightened of these people that he refused to take a stand on the Confederate flag issue before the South Carolina primary in 2000. So if perhaps I was a little insistent on people condemning this kind of stuff, it's because I've grown fustrated at seeing smoe very politicians constantly dance around it.

But I digress. It's fine to shoot the messenger, but sometimes it's good to look inward as well.
Rob | 06.21.05 - 5:00 pm | #

Yes. I just don't see how it should impact the definition of a civil marriage.

Civil marriage is simply the codification of what society deems acceptable (as we’ve already agreed). You originally had a problem with our advocating for only heterosexual marriage based on the perceived lack of difference between the two types of relationships. By admitting that there is a real difference, while you still may not agree with it (and I assume will still advocate for your position), you hopefully at least see the logic and rational of our position.
Steve G. | 06.21.05 - 5:01 pm | #

"The notion that a lack of monogomy is virtually unknown among straight couples is completely at odds with my experiences in the world."

An OPEN lack of monogamy. That is, an agreement or understanding that being part of a couple somehow means seeing other people. I've seen it with gay men, but almost nobody else.


"The *exact* same thing could be said in argument against allowing adoptions."

However, I'm not arguing against adoption. I'm arguing for the notion that families ought to be understood first and foremost as what they, in fact, are among both mice and men: consanguineaous kin groups. That doesn't mean that adoption shouldn't take place. It means that there should be a clear distinction between consaguineaous (SP, I know) relationships and adoptive ones. Not because there should be a stigma or penalty attaching to the latter; but because it's important to acknowledge the facts of life. Loving adoption is wonderful but it comes about, in many cases, when something has gone wrong. Adoption's a good thing, but it's "abnormal" in a neutral sense. To ignore the distinction is to ignore and misunderstand the unfortunate circumstances that make adoption necessary.
wtb | 06.21.05 - 5:08 pm | #

Billy HW, thanks for the heads-up on the TimesWatch mention. Their article has some interesting additional information on the Times piece's slant.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 5:10 pm | #

Personally, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Lincolnian. That doesn't stop me from having a wee touch of pride in my g-g-grandfather whose regiment on the right flank of Pickett's Charge made it to the Union lines, or the fact that he might have been the person who shot my wife's Medal of Honor winning g-grandfather at the battle of the Crater. I don't have to be a racist to admire his courage. (I am, however, glad that he settled in Brooklyn after the war).
Robert N.G. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 5:10 pm | #

John C.

“As far as the perpuation of the human race goes, as soon as this becomes a concern, we can talk. Until then it's for me a complete non-sequiter.”

First of all, if you’re not concerned about the perpetuation of the species (and you might want to think about this one), maybe you should be concerned about the perpetuation of your society. No, humanity won’t disappear, but societies that fail to acknowledge basic features of human nature will disappear.

In any case, I point out that monogamous heterosexuality is fundamental to the perpetuation of the species not because I fear that the species is going to disappear, but because the pro SSM crowd implicitly trivialize this fact. While humanity isn’t likely to stop propagating itself anytime soon, it’s not trivial or a non sequitur to remind people of the process by which this takes place
wtb | 06.21.05 - 5:38 pm | #

John C.

"In a perfect world, I might be tempted to agree that gays shouldn't be parents, but in this world I'd argue that it's lunacy for them not to be."

I agree that denying a needy child a loving home with a couple is, faute de mieux, wrong. However, the presence of these same needy children is as much an argument for strengthening traditional marriage as it is a justification for permitting gay couples to adopt. Sadly, many SSM advocates prefer to point out the shortcomings of traditional marriage rather than work to strengthen it, which could only help everyone.

PS I have hardwood floors, book shelves in every room packed with serious imposing titles, and exquisite taste.
wtb | 06.21.05 - 5:56 pm | #

Dawn,

I love your blog.

I am Christian and (usually) Hip at the same time.

J. Go
J. Go | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 6:01 pm | #

"I agree that denying a needy child a loving home with a couple is, faute de mieux, wrong."

Gay couple, that is.

"faute de mieux" I know there's a way to say this in English, but my exquisite taste recoils at the inelegance of it.
wtb | 06.21.05 - 6:03 pm | #

>>in Times author Russell Shorto's world, believing that homosexuality is .... disordered behavior, equals being "ANTIGAY," which equals hating gays' guts.>>

How about we all ponder this:

If I came here and said that following Christianity or any religion is "disordered behavior," a sign of illness, or whatever nasty adjective I want to throw at it, (NOTE: this is NOT how I feel) wouldn't you also call me anti-Christian? And justifiably so?

When Jesse Ventura said that religion was for weak minds, wasn't he branded anti-religion?

Can people here maybe consider how insult and hurt gay people might be when you use language like that? And how it rings hollow when you say you don't personally dislike them?

Hey, I've sometimes hurt and insulted people. I may not have hated them. It doesn't make what I did any better.

Just something to think about.
Rob | 06.21.05 - 6:47 pm | #

Considering people's feelings is all very well, but you can do them serious injury if you assume that that is the highest need.
Mary | 06.21.05 - 7:52 pm | #

Rob:

While no one wants to hurt people, there are times when it is appropriate and necessary to discuss things honestly and clearly.

You asked whether or not we would be justified in calling you anti-Christian, if you said we were disordered and ill. Yes, probably. I can't imagine you would be pro-Christianity if you thought that.

Would we be hurt if you called Christianity an illness or disordered? No. Not most of us. Apart from the fact that we have heard it a thousand times, the charge is a proposition. It is either true or false and certainly up for discussion, like any proposition.

Once a group enters the public arena demanding changes in the law to accomodate something they deem worth changing the law for, they need to be prepared for serious, adult discussion-- and that includes things that might seem, or actually be, hurtful to individuals.
Colleen | 06.21.05 - 7:57 pm | #

wtb:
"First of all, if you’re not concerned about the perpetuation of the species (and you might want to think about this one), maybe you should be concerned about the perpetuation of your society. No, humanity won’t disappear, but societies that fail to acknowledge basic features of human nature will disappear."

In a sense, though, we're on at least one page together. I too think that strengthening traditional marriage is key to protecting children. I just think that allowing gays too marry would be a huge step in that direction. To strongly pronounce that two peole publicly committing to each other for life is something we want to promote as a society would be a very powerful message for how important we think marriage is.

Not to be harsh, but I greatly look forward to the day when a society that treats homosexuality as a disorder is a thing only of memory. (Well, I look forward to it, but realistically doubt I'll see it in my lifetime, alas. After all, we still don't live in a society that sees interracial couples, to take but one example, as "disordered.")
John C. | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 8:09 pm | #

Rob, the Times' use of the term "ANTIGAY," combined with Shorto's unveiled disgust at traditional-marriage boosters, accuses those who oppose gay marriage of harboring malice towards homosexuals. This in essence dehumanizes Christians by accusing them of dehumanizing others.

It is possible to oppose people's behavior without despising the people themselves. In fact, it is just possible that one can love others while opposing their behavior.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.21.05 - 8:44 pm | #

You mean like Jesus?

:)
BillyHW | 06.21.05 - 9:02 pm | #

Have you ever seen what a skateboard will do to a hardwood floor, or tried to clean chewed-up Oreos out of an Oriental rug?

Hey Joel - I agree with your point but you have to understand the difference between raising girls and boys. I had two sister. There was NEVER a skateboard at our house. Also, my parents had tiled floors so if we DID spew up food they could easily clean it. I've met many little girls that are very neat and careful about the way they play. It may be these girls are like that - wouldn't be uncommon.

Bec
Bec | 06.21.05 - 9:20 pm | #

The NYT is an entire propaganda rag and has been this way for some time now.

One need only look through its recent, or back, issues to see its pernicious pro-gays-as-the-better-family-choice slant.

There was an article they carried a few weeks ago about surrogates preferring gay men 'couples' over 'straight couples' due to the 'burden' involved with heterosexual couples.

It was entirely skewed to make gay men and gay duos look more kind, more loving, more well bred, better educated, and generally just better prospects (* financially, and otherwise) as prospective parents, and, well, humans.

This is only the tail end of a boat load of brainwashing mess churned out by today's secular media to de-sensitize those in the Americas, Europe and Canada to the dead-end and true reality of pain and early, etc. deaths in a homosexual life.

It has only been advancing because of blind men who don't care or those who are ignorant, or men in "power" who are bribed or caught up in such themselves. (This MHO.)

And we know they are not only looking to legitimize this dialectic of talk of "hate" by seeking to pit Christians against gays. They are also looking to undermine families by pushing homosexuality as the "preferred" "lifestyle" choice.

I don't think this is just the fruit (sorry, no pun) of broken homes from the late 1960's on, though I don't think weak men and confused women helped there.

I truly feel this is a definite satanic agenda to marginalize Christians, period, and all the good they value and the best of what their lives demonstrate. In the end it is also, naturally, about marginalizing Christ, (the True).

I'd bet some bi-sexual or gay man is behind this all. I'd bet his first name is one of those Euro sounding ones like "Anti".

Death in all its forms surrounds them, those who push on such a sordid, evil agenda.

They use political gays to the undoing of others and then the poor dupes themselves.

Much of it, also, I think is thriving on the passion and pain of what the 1980's AIDS did to these communities. So the pain there, his or her marginalization, this fervor, this pain, needed SOMEONE to blame.

"Hey", they think, "why not blame the CHRISTIANS!!!"
"Let's have the gays fancy themselves a real possibility for a thriving life-blessed family unit!"
"Let us lie and say their sin is NORMAL!!!"
"And let any contrary mouth be dubbed "HATEFUL" "My, that ought to ruin ‘em’."

Let's hope many of them see the light and stop imagining this is a 'new day' 'in the sun' 'against 'hate’. When, in reality, it is the advancing of the Kingdom of darkness promoting more and more lies.

I lost my cousin this way in 1992. He was 39. He was a beautiful man.

We are all so much more than these lying stereotypes of who we all are.

Ironic, we had their answer all the time.

Also, I am not "phobic" just because I think a behavior displeases God and does not lead to life and blessing, and can hurt others.

I am living in the reality of a mind that has been redeemed, and knows better.
no_one_u_kno | 06.21.05 - 11:41 pm | #

Wow, first fundamentalist Christians ritually sacrifice African teenagers, now they have tacky homes. is there no end to these peoples' perfidy?
seedubya | 06.22.05 - 12:13 am | #

From:

Word of the Day

perfidy PUR-fuh-dee, noun:
The act of violating faith or allegiance; violation of a promise or vow; faithlessness; treachery.

SEE:
http://dictionary.reference.com/...2004/03/ 17.html


"Soon Esther has fallen desolately into the arms of her girlfriend, seeking advice and reassurance about the perfidy of men."
--Janet Maslin, "Rendezvous in Paris," New York Times, August 9, 1996


-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

I rest my case..
Anonymous | 06.22.05 - 12:39 am | #

Joel: your hardwood floors comment and "these people rent" babies comment is so inflamatory... It's unnecessary. Don't blame the couple and their floors on your rage at the NYTimes. It's just not nice.
jjoyce | 06.22.05 - 12:58 am | #

Anonymous, brilliant!
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 1:11 am | #

It’s another evidence of the decadence of our world. The violation of the nature, the abolishment of the traditional family ... all this reminds me of the last days of the Roman Empire.
Constantine | 06.22.05 - 2:15 am | #

I must admit to having Christmas lights yet up my tree in June. Which I view from my wall to wall carpeted front room. Vinyl siding included.

If you've lived in the darling South, some stereotypes that offend hold true. And I'm happy to participate in that place as an old school Christian in new school clothes.

Please consider the home sweet homes of old school gay couples who pepper the South with lovely houses, waiting to embrace children with love and knowledge. God loves them, my compatriots. And so could you. They won't all change in time for you to score a conversion for the kingdom. So help them - and help children who need to be welcomed into a loving home.

Christian persecution complex has been around for decades, stoked by media - like persecution movie dramas I saw in a New Jersey church as a young Christian. Keith Green newsletters in the 80's showing the Russians busting into some American Christian's bedroom to kill them with Communism... or a gun.

If you insist that the world is persecuting you because you tell the worldly they are not included in God's kingdom - you will realise perescution when people fight back at your overt condemnation. It's kind of a given that people will be critical of fundamental Christians who are critical of the world for not fitting the fundamental mold. The apple only has enough room for the core. Not every one will reside in the core of the kingdom (apple). Don't expect people to accept your critisisim of them for not fitting into the core. You ask the impossible.

The difficulty I see with the Christian doctrine on who is in, and who is out of the kingdom, either proven here or in heaven, is if you don't believe based on the King James' Bible - you are out - no ifs, ands or buts. Plain as day for all my studies. So Christians are calling the kettel black when they have ash all over their own hands in the case of defamation.

Sorry - we are exclusionists first and foremost. It's the Christian God's biblical law and we are using it like a club. We are inclusionists if folks follow the biblical rules... depending on what church you belong to.
MiddleGal | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 3:29 am | #

Do you think this is reflecting badly on the Christians to be categorized as working-class?

I think that part of the reasons that the Democrats lost political ground in 2004 is that they ended up being seen as the snotty I-know-better-than-you intellectuals, while the Republicans were seen more as the ordinary people. (Dems spent a lot of time calling Bush "stupid" without a good reason. I think this just made the Dems look stuck-up.) I'm not saying that there is a class split between Dems and Republicans (and if there is, it's pretty complex, since the very rich are more likely to be Republican), but that's how it seems to be portrayed.

If anything, I think you should be celebrating. This is another piece that says the supporing same-sex marriage is the provence of intellectuals who look down their noses at the average person.
Kris | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 8:44 am | #

any sexual encounter that ends other than with ejaculation in the vagina would by definition be an immoral sexual act. Immoral sexual acts will not provide the same bonding that moral ones will.


Uh...wha?

Why would anything but ejaculation in a vagina be "by definition" immoral? What definition? What makes ejaculation/vagina special? Why would anything else not be as bonding, or bonding in the same way? Have you ever tried anything else?

Sorry, this is incomprehensible.
Norah | 06.22.05 - 9:16 am | #

He heh.. Christmas lights up in March, that was pretty funny. I usually have mine up through Easter because I'm too lazy to take them down. Thus, they become "Easter" lights.
c matt | 06.22.05 - 10:13 am | #

Norah,
Why would anything but ejaculation in a vagina be "by definition" immoral? What definition? What makes ejaculation/vagina special?

You have to read this in the context of the entire discussion with John C. I am not expecting you to agree with this, I was only explaining my (Catholic) understanding of moral vs. immoral forms of sex.

What makes it special is the fact that this is the only sexual act that leaves itself open to procreation. It’s a logical extension of the understanding of contraception as immoral. By definition, any sexual act that has ejaculation outside the vagina is contraceptive in nature. This doesn’t mean that other acts can’t be engaged in as part of foreplay, only that the completion of the act must occur as described in order to be moral. The position is wholly consistent and logical given the underlying assumption (which again, I know you don’t accept) that contracepted sex is immoral.

Why would anything else not be as bonding, or bonding in the same way?

I explicitly conceded that other acts have a bonding component as well. I only highlighted the obvious fact that different acts all the way from holding hands to sexual intercourse create a different bonding dynamic. I didn’t even place a value judgment on one vs. the other. I only said they are different, which they clearly are.

Have you ever tried anything else? ,

Without going into any detail, sadly, yes. Before becoming a Catholic, I was an agnostic and fairly hedonistic in my behavior. From birth control to pornography, I had no problem with the ‘if it feels good do it’ mentality. Having now lived a good while with the struggles of trying to live up to the admittedly high standards of the Catholic understanding of sexuality, I wouldn’t trade places with my old self for all the money in the world. I have lived on both sides of this issue so may have a clearer perspective on it than you believe.

Have you ever tried partaking in a sexual relationship within the moral framework which I am describing?

Sorry, this is incomprehensible.

I am sorry this is so, and it is likely my fault. The only thing I can suggest is to be sure to keep the comments in context of the larger discussion which was taking place.
Steve G. | 06.22.05 - 10:33 am | #

Sorry, this is incomprehensible.

We understand your incomprehension. Most of us were there once. But now we are no longer of this world, and we speak a languange entirely incomprehensible to those of this world.

But don't you find it the least bit strange that this world worships all forms of sexual relations except those that end with ejaculation in vagina (without any sort of physical or chemical barrier to obstruct the act)?
BillyHW | 06.22.05 - 11:01 am | #

"Anonymous, brilliant!"

Thank you Dawn. (*I am "Anonymous"
above. I didn't have a moment to add my nick here, this one. )

BTW, that reply was entirely random and was very much a chance comeback on these things.

All I wanted was a bit more info. about the last poster's word. I placed it in an online search with the word "dictionary". Next thing I know, I get some dictionary links.

Sure enough, the NYT actually had a quote connecting the word with the words.

But, oh, what telling words!

Yes, sad but true.

God works mysteries.

Hee..
no_one_u_kno | 06.22.05 - 11:52 am | #

"In a perfect world, I might be tempted to agree that gays shouldn't be parents, but in this world I'd argue that it's lunacy for them not to be." John C.

Dear John C.: I would rather see an abandoned child with _any_ loving parent, one or two, either gender; BUT...Once same-sex couples have all the privileges of hetero married folks, then they also presumably would have the privilege of making babies in test-tubes, with anonymous biological parents. Don't you think every child has a right to a father _and_ a mother, a mother _and_ a father? Speaking for the neonate, what gives people the right to manufacture children and willfully deny them the right to grow up in a home where they can say: "My Mom" or "My Dad", and to know both genders as nurturers and completers of their lives and souls?

We are not speaking religion, here, John C., so don't write me off as a dreaded religious extremist. I think that 94% of Americans feel the same way as I do. And it is this common-sense, and not the "Right-Wing Conspiracy", that explains the vote against SSM.
Older & Wiser | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 1:05 pm | #

Older & Wiser:
The issue you raise is not exclusive to same-sex couples. If single parents, or infertile parents, can do this, then so should same-sex parents be able to. If you don't think it should be done, than that applies to any parents.
John C. | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 2:11 pm | #

The issue that Older & Wiser has raised is worthy of a whole article and comments section of its own. I Actually agree with John C. and O&W. But don't really want to derail this thread. So let me ask Dawn, if this is something she might consider for a future discussion:

The "commodification" of children is just one of the a whole slate of related societal ills that really worries me. We already know that many, if not most, adopted children, no matter how much they love their adoptive parents, are driven to know who their biological parents are and to know where they came from. What impact will it have on the psychological well being of the children of the next generation who were sired by an unknown in a petri dish? Or in some other unnatural way? It isn't like we can say "oops, sorry", and make it alright.

So put me on the side of it shouldn't be done, period, when it comes to means of creating children that don't involve the participation (i.e. sperm and egg) of the parents-- a married man and woman. Of course, the genie is out of the bottle. We will see what comes of it.
Colleen | 06.22.05 - 3:35 pm | #

Colleen, like you I agree on many points with both John C. and O&W. I think this is evidence of a kind of philanthropic and generous middle ground in the SSM debate, especially when children enter the picture. No one wants to deny homosexuals the emotional benefits of partnership. Even the Church, or at least the RC Church has said that the love and devotion gay couples display isn't wrong, per se, it's just misdirected. And of course no one wants to prevent children from growing up in a home where they're cared for versus a home where they're neglected or abused. And even thought I have very strong reservations about deliberately bringing children into a home where there's no natural mother or father, I don't think most people want to see such children taken out of those homes in the absence of some egregious abuse.

However, what I see is an effort, largely on the part of mainstream SSM advocates (yes, there are anti-gay nutters out there, like Fred Phelps, but they're not mainstream)to "poison the well" (if that's the correct phrase) in the SSM debate. Their most obvious tactic is to declare SSM a right, rather than a policy issue. Because if it's a right, then Hey Presto! Your interlocuter is converted by rhetorical magic into a malefactor who can be dismissed as an oppressor rather than an opponent.

The other tactic, which I've discussed on this thread, is similar to the above; mamely, declaring in advance that talk about the facts of procreation and marriage is either trivial or, reliably, hateful.

I'm willing to allow a debate about SSM to occur, and if the majority of the country goes for SSM, I'll obey the law. But absent this debate, I don't think SSM has a prayer of winning popular support. I think that's why the SSM folks are going the judicial route. In the long run, they might succeed. But I'm afraid SSM by judicial fiat will only create more, not less, "homophobia".
wtb | 06.22.05 - 4:46 pm | #

Dear John C. and Co-Debaters on Dawn's Blog, Yes, I think it is always wrong for single people and/or same-sex partners to make babies in test-tubes, when there are so many children in the world who need homes and loving parents. It is Sooooo wrong! It is always wrong to deny a child the right to be loved and cherished by two people to represent the genders of the two people who made them, one of them a selfish and lazy lout who plopped them out of his/her vitals for cash.
Older & Wiser | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 6:26 pm | #

wtb:
An OPEN lack of monogamy. That is, an agreement or understanding that being part of a couple somehow means seeing other people. I've seen it with gay men, but almost nobody else.

Isn't this basically irrelevant to the gay-marriage debate? Considering that people who want to get married -- gay or straight -- are professing their monogamy to each other and are willing to make solemn vows in public and before God concerning that monogamy?
Vidiot | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 6:49 pm | #

Dear Vidiot,

I've read something somewhere among Andrew Sullivan's vast corpus in which he suggest that gay male marriage would be the same as straight marriage except that gay male marriage would have provisions for "slippin' around", as the great Clarence Carter terms the practice in the song of the same name.

If this report by the Manhattan Institute is reliable, other prominent SSM advocates have similar ideas:

http://www.manhattan-institute.o...ble.cfm? id=1502

Additionally, the gay male couples I know tend to view "slippin' around" in a much more indulgent light than say, any woman, gay or straight, that I know. Just another indication, to me, that SSM advocates are glossing over the facts when they talk about how gay couples and straight couples have no significant differences.
wtb | 06.22.05 - 7:07 pm | #

wtb,

I have a friend who is seeing two men at once, and if both relationships work out, both could continue over the long term.

I know another person who is married in a non-monogamous relationship.

I don't know any same-sex couples, at least not well enough to comment on whether or not they are monogamous.
Kris | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 7:23 pm | #

I thought I'd add that Sullivan and Signorile are quite realistic They're simply acknowledging the fact that one of the fundamental issues in traditional marriage -- namely sexual fidelity -- holds a different meaning for gay unions. For gay couples, monogamy is an emotional issue with possible economic ramifications.

The same holds true for straight couples but to a greater degree: If a man is unfaithful to his wife and destroys a marriage, the unfashionable fact is that the woman will suffer economically to a greater degree than the husband. This doesn't hold true in homosexual couples; or at least the economic deprivation will not be based not sex but rather on individual circumstance. But the consequences of infidelity in straight couples can also affect the male inordinately when, for example, a woman becomes pregnant by a man other than her husband.

I will reiterate, ad nauseam, that these are not trivial concerns. True we don't talk about them much; but only because they are so fundamental to the idea of marriage that we don't think about them till they become an issue.
wtb | 06.22.05 - 7:38 pm | #

Kris,

I know I'm presenting anecdotal evidence. However, I'm convinced on the basis of my experience that in general gay men, and men in general, have a lighter view of sexual fidelity and monogamy than do straight or gay women. Of course there are straight and gay men who place great value on monogamy and fidelity. In fact, I won't even say that they're exceptions to the rule. It's more a case of men being weighted to the "free-n-easy" side of the sexual fidelity spectrum. However, while there is an overlap between the sexual behavior of staight men and straight women that allows us to say that women and men aren't all that much different after all (which is what I take you to be saying), that overlap disappears when men are free to express their sexual desires without taking into account women's needs and desires.

For instance, the sexual behavior of gay men is an example of what happens when men don't have to take into acount the behaviors that, generally speaking, characterize feminine sexuality. That's not because they're gay; it's because they're men.
wtb | 06.22.05 - 7:56 pm | #

Actually, there is quite a bit of research evidence out there to support the notion that monogamy is not much valued by gays.

More anecdotally, in addition to comments by the aforementioned Sullivan, Bruce Bawer wrote one of the first full apologias for homosexual marriage in "A Place at the Table" (ca. 1993)where he slipped in, almost as an afterthought that monogamy wasn't very important to gays.

Well, we knew that already from the Aids epidemic, from the gay community's resistance to closing bathhouses, even the gay fiction that I am familiar with is uncommonly honest about that. (Digression-- a novel I found profoundly moving and sad called "The Beauty of Men" by Andrew Holleran examines the psychology of gay men. Holleran is gay and, presumably, knows what he is talking about).

So one really has to ask oneself what the movement for SSM is aiming at. Is it worth devaluing marriage any further, to improve gays social acceptance? Again, I want to recommend as a starting point for thinking about these issues from a non-religious viewpoint, the article Sex and Consequences" by Peter Wood.

What I particularly found of interest in this article was his discussion of what redefining marriage would mean, particularly in light of other arrangements like polygamy-- and how that would likely impact women.

In light of the story that just came out this last week about the teenaged boys that were abandoned and cast out by their polygamous families (excess men are a real problem under the polygamy regime) in Utah, I don't think we can dismiss the author's concerns out of hand.
Colleen | 06.22.05 - 8:24 pm | #

Oops, forgot to give the url for the article in case anyone is interested:

http://www.amconmag.com/07_28_03...8_03/ cover.html
Colleen | 06.22.05 - 8:27 pm | #

Not to mention what an affront this-all-is to heterosexuals.

This is so much more than about ideas of "fairness" to the gay community.

This is an idea whose time would never "come" to a world or nation seeking safety, strength, and wholesome continuity, in life, for its children and grandchildren.

All empires, before they fell, were given over to homosexuality and its "ideals".

I don't chuckle when the phrase "What about the children?" is aired with such vigor and concern.

I hear it and say: "They are OUT for your children!" (Whether you know this, or they even know this..)

There are, most assuredly, factions, if not chunks, within political gay realms (their judges, lawyers. et al.)
who are most DEFINITELY looking to lure, recruit and, at times, threaten and/or intimidate children, and at times, adults, into their sad, confused shadowy lost world.

This is not to condemn your average gay person who is not pushing a slant or agenda. This is sharing that many gays are being used to the end of a political purpose to hurt the strength and wellness of our nations.

What about the children? I say, home school them, or keep them quite informed about the vile insemination of "queer" ideology for sometime now being pumped into our schools, universities, and some government programs.

Secular media in many ways may have a lot to do with such undoing. But let us not forget that big outfits like The New York Times walk hand in hand with Hollywood, and secular universities, in many respects, to string along these sordid tunes. Playing a happy (for them) song to our nation's demise.
no_one_u_kno | 06.22.05 - 8:42 pm | #

Jay, you are so out of line you are a complete circle. I don't agree with John C in all regards but he has added real substance to the discussion here which, I am sorry to note, you have not.
Colleen | 06.22.05 - 10:01 pm | #

Colleen:

Thanks.

Dawn:

I may be a moron, in fact it wouldn't surprise me at all, but wouldn't that qualify as name-calling? Not a problem, actually, I had been feeling guilty, since on this site's comment threads the conservatives have typically been the more polite and less rude; nice to know it's not always the case. ;)
John C. | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 10:41 pm | #

John, you're right, that comment was blatantly out of line. I deleted it and banned the commenter.

Since I realize commenters enjoy having a rapid back-and-forth, I don't hold up comments so that I may moderate them. I trust that most commenters will be polite, so I let the comments go up first and then scan them for insults and foul language. Some people take advantage of this, which is sad. I appreciate it when commenters give me heads-ups on rude comments in case I don't spot them right away.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.22.05 - 11:11 pm | #

))All empires, before they fell, were given over to homosexuality and its "ideals".((

someone up above laid in that one.
please enlighten me what empires fell and how it was due to the gays.

don't most empires fall when straight men wage one too many wars or repress too many people?
the soviets? the british? the spanish? the germans? please, again, enlighten me how the gays are to blame. i'm waiting.

the vitriol in your comments is extraordinary ... well, not really.
jjoyce | 06.23.05 - 2:43 am | #

wtb,

My point was that there's is some number of outwardly normal heterosexual couples that practice consentual non-monogamy. Since I'm talking anecdotally, I can't guess at a number or a percent--I know two or three personally. (And I'm not talking about the sort of polygamy that where one old geezer marries a bunch of 15 year old girls--in these cases, everyone is an adult, and both the women and the men have multiple partners.)

Saying that same-sex marriage should not exist because gay men have less tendency to be monogamous is placing a standard on marriage which my heterosexual friends wouldn't qualify, and one which F-F couples might be more likely to meet than M-F couples.

Kris
Kris | Homepage | 06.23.05 - 8:12 am | #

Dawn:
Let me post my appreciation for you not moderating comments before they appear. If the price to pay for the quick back and forth that makes this site worth a daily visit is the occasional "moron" shouted my way, I'll gladly pay it, especially when I've heard (and, honesty urges me to regretfully admit, dealt out) much worse elsewhere.
John C. | Homepage | 06.23.05 - 10:20 am | #

"All empires, before they fell, were given over to homosexuality and its "ideals".

I stand by that.

But, I don't have the time (nor the dime ;)) to sit around and teach you world history (nor the truths in it, how it should be taught).

You might want to start by doing a search online about the Fall of The Roman and Greek empires. The homosexuality pushed and promulgated there was legion and it's pretty common knowledge.

Babylon also was a city given over to men of perverse and out-of-control passions. We all know how that went.

Then there's the most famous city that fell and was the one where we get the actual name for homosexual activities: SODOM=SODOMY.

This city was lifted up as so debased in its activities; it set the standard for evil, with a capital "E" in much of the Bible.

For a little more up to date info. Related to these facts, why not try out this article. It sums up what I mentioned quite nicely, and you may also want to do that bit of homework on your own, for your own awareness.

America on the Decline

http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/20.../ lsb_0226.shtml
no_one_u_kno | 06.23.05 - 11:33 am | #

no_one_u_kno ,
I think you are vastly overstating the case here. It could reasonably be asked if homosexuality was a cause or a symptom of these declines. It seems much more defensible to argue that as society’s progress and become ‘fat and happy’; they begin to indulge in things that previously they had neither the societal time nor inclination for. In fact abortion, sex selection, and a host of other issues have parallel paths with homosexuality in the Roman and Greek Empires.

In addition, I think there’s pretty good evidence that homosexuality was acceptable in both Greek and Roman culture well before the decline of each began. More importantly, in order for this argument to have any weight, you’d have to establish that the Ancient Roman/Babylonian/Greek cultures understood marriage and family in a similar way to Western Christian society. This is manifestly not the case. Familial structures in these cultures were vastly different from what we are familiar with and were radically transformed by Christianity (I’d suggest reading Rodney Starks’ ‘The Rise of Christianity’ for a better understanding of this). If homosexuality threatened anything in these empires it was not the family as we no it today.

Finally, your argument does not address the question raised as to how this is an across the board thing, as it seems to have had little or no bearing on the fall of the USSR, pre-Communist China, Pre-WWII Japan, etc., etc., etc.

I am not arguing for the acceptance of SSM, but I think this common charge of homosexuality somehow being intrinsically linked to the fall of empire is a tired one that we should all retire as it has little basis in reality. It seems clear that this is one symptom among many in SOME cultures that decline has either already started or is on the way.
Steve G. | 06.23.05 - 12:03 pm | #

I think Steve G. has the better of the argument here. I, too, think that history shows that societies decline and then a whole host of ills and aberrant practices seem to creep in. The Weimar republic springs to mind as well as turn of the century Austria.

The Greeks were certainly more tolerant, to a point, of homosexuality. But they didn't think it a good thing. They had an ideal of friendship between two men which would lead them to virtue not physical indulgence-- Plato's Symposium addresses friendship and love along some of these lines. The Spartans and later the Romans in their republican days were rather more intolerant.

However, I would rather address root causes than symptoms. What has caused our cultural malaise? Certainly the loss of a sense of community, shared values, etc. plays a role. We Americans have always prided ourselves on our personal freedom. But it seems to me we have radicalized the notion of individual autonomy to the point that we no longer worry about the impact of our individual desires on others.
Colleen | 06.23.05 - 1:10 pm | #

We Americans have always prided ourselves on our personal freedom. But it seems to me we have radicalized the notion of individual autonomy to the point that we no longer worry about the impact of our individual desires on others.
Amen sister!

I think another nefarious thing that's crept into our thinking is a flawed libertarian notion (which I used to subscribe too), which says, 'What I do is my own business as long as it doesnt' harm others.'

The trick here is that harming others is defined as direct harm only. But in truth, we can indirectly harm others in a multitude of ways. What jumps to mind is pornography. By indulging in this, one may not be directly harming the women involved, but ones financial support of the industry makes the direct harm of these women possible.

Some might argue that this is the woman's choice to participate in the industry, but anyone whose seen the heartbreaking interviews with women who've been sucked into this industry and hooked on the money they can make from it, knows that this is largely false.
Steve G. | 06.23.05 - 1:36 pm | #

I seem to remember the Germans scapegoating a certain class of people in WWII as no_one_u_kno does... But I guess he forgot.
See, it's arguments like that that SO radicalize some gays. They truly do believe that they are hated to the core -- and that nothing but bad is wished upon them. I applaud Dawn for making a very clear distinction (love the sinner, hate the sin), but I believe folks here have to admit there are a lot of people who wrap themselve in religion, and others like no_one_u_kno (with false interpretations of history), whose preaching against homosexuality goes beyond what most churches endorse. And I think you cannot blame the sometimes radical response and distrust many gays and lesbians, etc. show because of it. But Steve G & Dawn, thank you for being reasoned and logical and factual in your postings.
jjoyce | 06.23.05 - 3:39 pm | #

jjoyce:

I think your last comment is making presumptions about me personally, and my spiritual state, as well as my personal position about homosexuals as a rule and as individuals. Both things, estimations about my heart, and my view of any group or person, a thing you know nothing about.

However, there is really nothing I have said here that can cause you to have any leg whatsoever to stand on when you make comments, which are either:

1. Personal judgments of my heart/mind/character:

"I seem to remember the Germans scapegoating a certain class of people in WWII as no_one_u_kno does... But I guess he forgot.."

2 Or comments about my faith, Christian walk, or spirituality:

"but I believe folks here have to admit there are a lot of people who wrap themselves in religion, and others like no_one_u_kno (with false interpretations of history), whose preaching against homosexuality goes beyond what most churches endorse"


Steve G.

My comment, which drew the response, and your reply, was this:

"All empires, before they fell, were given over to homosexuality and its "ideals".

And I still stand by that comment.

The accompanied article was by another author who I am in agreement with.

You discuss what could "reasonably be asked", not the simple words I have said which stand as facts.

You go on and on and on quite a bit there Steve G. and I had only made one comment, which caused all this reply.

Look again. Here was the comment:

"All empires, before they fell, were given over to homosexuality and its "ideals".

And to some degree, over the course of an empire falling apart, these things are true.

If you want to extrapolate on these ideas, or add to them your views and insights, fine.

But, I won't "debate" what is a fact, particularly since you (Steve G) seem to be seeking to make my one comment into an entire drawn out ideology.
And you seem to be replying to a history course worth of comments I never actually said. *s

Colleen, you can feel free to "side" with Steve G., but my "argument" was hardly meant to be one.

If I were to go into an analysis of why what I said is fact, I would not have suggested the party replying to my comment look things up for themselves.

Not quite sure why you and Steve G. found such amazingly long replies to ideas, thoughts and comments ("arguments"?) I did not actually make.

But it's nice to see that you and he and jj get along so well.

As for you jj, I will refrain from making broad, untrue and grossly unfair generalizations about your views of humans, and others, and not come to comments about "you", who I do not know.

Pity you could not do the same in your "estimations" 'about me", and your assessment of me as a Nazi.

I will hope and pray that for all of you that your grasp of understanding others' points is only surpassed by your judgments of character.



P.S.jj, I am a woman.
no_one_u_kno | 06.23.05 - 9:39 pm | #

Dear lady,
Why so sensitive? I wasn't trying to 'attack' you, only giving my thoughts on the issue being discussed. Forgive me for being rather long-winded. I realize it's a fault (my wife thinks so too). ;-)

In any event, despite you protests, there seems to me to be a lot packed into this simple statement...

"All empires, before they fell, were given over to homosexuality and its "ideals"

...and I don't think I am totally unreasonable for seeing in there an explicit linkage being implied between fall of Empire and homosexuality. If you say that I was mistaken regarding your intent, I'll take your word for it and ask forgiveness.

Now, without going into historical detail, it seems that the comment itself is blatently false. I've named a few empires that fell without apparently being given over to homosexuality and it's ideals (USSR, Japan, China), and could go on and on (Britain, Spain, France, etc.). It doesn't take much research to no that the generalization you are making is simply not accurate despite whether it was true for the Roman Empire or not.
Steve G. | 06.23.05 - 10:15 pm | #

no_one_u_kno:
I think you have taken offense where none was intended. You said "Colleen, you can feel free to "side" with Steve G., but my "argument" was hardly meant to be one."

Your post led us into an interesting but relatively brief discussion of what drives the decline of empires and nations. I don't think we were really arguing against you or debating you, so much as finding your comment interesting and using it as a jumping off point.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Homosexuality? (and other behaviors that might be characterized as social ills) or decline? I and Steve, if I understood him correctly, come down on the decline side first, since I, at least, think a healthy society will not produce a critical mass of social ills.

But, of course, I could be wrong.
Colleen | 06.23.05 - 10:19 pm | #

Steve G. and Colleen,

You're right.

I see (now) you were (both) addressing what looked like a broad generalization and over simplification.

Thank you for not taking offense at my being offended. (Am I sounding like Alan Alda?*s
”It’s nice to be nice to the nice”)

I think my reply was coming off the of wind/heels of another comment made to me here.

Perhaps a better word than "All", (my background is not in history, I would not be honest or fair to make assessments about every single empire the world has ever known, though I do not trust a lot of today's history books, but that's another long reply from ME, and not this topic.)would be most, or many.

My point was, from what I have learned, seen and understood/stand, homosexuality and such lifestyles which were deviant,(sorry if that offends, it is a deviation from the norm) in contrast to the general population (i.e. martially faithful and heterosexual) were more of a prevalent thing during the latter stages of the degeneration of many (most?) empires.

Can I say every empire? Maybe. I cannot say that is not a possibility. As I understand, though, an increasing incidence, and growing affinity, for homosexual activities and lifestyles was very much a part of many major empires, and was particularly evident at the time of their falls.

I also agree with all you wrote above in your reply to me Steve G.

Homosexuality, while not necessarily always or only the chief cause of empires falling, almost always accompanied such things either in the early stages or in the degradation along the way. (Which, from what I can glean, is basically what you said.)

I think it was Constantine (above), or some other poster, who said it seems we are in a Neo-Babylonian period in time in America. I truly agree. But, I don't think these painful symptoms are just showing signs in the United States.

As for the gay angle, I have my own pains and loving memories about a few people who were practicing homosexuals, but were so much more than just some label for me.

I don't really need to go on about that here though, or justify my heart, which someone suggested was sullied per gays, because I did not use the perfect words to convey a thought.

I still say these activities and lifestyles were ample and abounding and may have indeed hastened the end of these empires. They surely did not help, and I think that's possibly an understatment..

I do not think such thoughts make a hill of beans though, when it comes to making judgments about a soul.

I hope we continue to be loving and forgiving of everyone who participates in actions or activities which promote an anti-Christ or anti-Christian mindset. And, of course, we also want to keep being kind to those of any background or persuasion.

But, I, for one, do not think it unloving to share with others that what they do may not be stemming from a life source that is God or His will.

In all honesty, and I am honest, I think the real "nazis" are right in our backyards. In MHO it is they who seek to breed enmity against Christians, Orthodox Jews and those of conservative traditional family-friendly faiths.

I believe it is they who are the ones fueling Planned Parenthood, these 'death' loving movements and Communism itself, in its entire variant 'isms'. I think they were behind the Terri Schiavo thing too, and I hope you can glean where I am coming from with these words.

So, in the end, we are all talking against the same thing and people.

But, let me be plain, as I tried to in earlier posts, this is not about "gays" verses "Christians" so much as it is about the devils trying to incite such "hate" such rifts, and lies.

The New York Times has very long-time-dirty hands here. (Now we are making an understatment)

I do feel we have their answer (for the gays, Christ), and we can only share that lovingly.

I say this with not one piece of processed cheese in our refrigerator*s

Though I like much on it, you still can't pay me to pay for PBS ;)


P.S. Side note. I just saw the tail end of a TV show “E.R”(?). In it, a man just put a gun in his mouth and, well..it was quite horrific.

These death meisters must have cozy shacks over at some of the major networks.

My opinions on them are far less loving than those on gays.

And still, we are required to forgive..

It angers me and grieves me how the true "Nazis" push on in their anti-life agendas, pumping poo across the airwaves and raking in the wealth.

Also, Steve G. I am sensitive. Perhaps this is just a result of some recent painful losses in my life. It may be that’s just how I am sometimes. Maybe both.
no_one_u_kno | 06.23.05 - 11:24 pm | #

NOUK,
I am so sorry for your loss and will offer prayer for you and yours in the coming days.

In all honesty, and I am honest, I think the real "nazis" are right in our backyards.

While I don't agree with all you say, and agree with other parts, the only thing that sent off major alarms was this statement. I think my own sensitivity lies in attributing motives to others and labeling them based on those attributions. Behind the 'them' are a multitude of souls (and I think you did acknowldedge this to some extent). All of them struggling to find the meaning of life. All with their own pasts, pains, joys, crises, etc., which have led them to where they are.

While I certainly think there are some truly evil folks who have agenda's (and of course THE evil one stalking all of us), I think that much of the generalization about such is wrong. I think the 'other' side is composed variously of: Principled and intelligent folks who simply view the world differently, principled and ignorant people who view the world differently, lazy folks who don't like to think much, some folks who simply like to be accepted, etc., etc., etc.

And the same could be said of 'our' side as well. Being a sinner myself, having lived for a long time in error, and knowing how weak and susceptible I am to making mistakes in judgement, I am inclined to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and assume that they disagree with me out of principle rather than a nefarious agenda.

Furthermore, as you know first hand such attributions are hurtful and alienate the very folks we are supposed to be a shining light to. I'd rather make friends, then speak openly and honestly about what I believe, then let God do the heavy lifting of converting hearts and minds.

While it's true that Jesus sometimes threw down tables and had some pretty harsh words for hypocrites; He was in a fairly unique position to do so (what with being perfect and all). Until I reach that state ;-), I'll stick with attempting to be humble and friendly with those whom I disagree.

OK, I am done *climbs off soap box*.

In Christ
Steve G. | 06.24.05 - 12:28 am | #

NOUK said:

>>Homosexuality, while not necessarily always or only the chief cause of empires falling, almost always accompanied such things either in the early stages or in the degradation along the way.
MiddleGal | Homepage | 06.24.05 - 2:06 am | #

Oops... did I make an incomplete throw or was my last comment trimmed? Either way - my bad...

[It was an incomplete throw.—Ed.]
MiddleGal | Homepage | 06.24.05 - 10:19 am | #

Steve G.

"I think my own sensitivity lies in attributing motives to others and labeling them based on those attributions."

Whatever word one uses for people who are involved in such things, the participation in such things remains the same. I do not think those comments here label anyone in any meaningful permanent way.

I truly do think there are people involved in such things who have no flicker of conscience about it at all.These are those I refer to.

"Behind the 'them' are a multitude of souls (and I think you did acknowldedge this to some extent). All of them struggling to find the meaning of life. All with their own pasts, pains, joys, crises, etc., which have led them to where they are. "

I never suggested otherwise, Steve G.

"While I certainly think there are some truly evil folks who have agenda's (and of course THE evil one stalking all of us), I think that much of the generalization about such is wrong."

I don't know that my words are "generalization" so much as seeing a trend. And the trend is based often on things done and ideologies that most of the noted folks have no shame about. At least, in the public eye.

"I think the 'other' side is composed variously of: Principled and intelligent folks who simply view the world differently, principled and ignorant people who view the world differently, lazy folks who don't like to think much, some folks who simply like to be accepted, etc., etc., etc."

I don't doubt that Steve G. Like much of what you've said, I don't disagree with the comments. In fact, respectfully, for me, they are stating what is obvious and understood, in terms of my views and opinions on these things. But, they make my replies no less valid in all or in part.

"And the same could be said of 'our' side as well. Being a sinner myself, having lived for a long time in error, and knowing how weak and susceptible I am to making mistakes in judgement, I am inclined to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and assume that they disagree with me out of principle rather than a nefarious agenda."

I don't know for certain that there is a "nefarious agenda", though one might be hard pressed to wonder, with the propagation of mindsets which are so awfully negative about Christians and derogatory in nature.

Plus all the other related current events which amply illustrate a disdain for the good and the Godly.

I am the first to hesitate when thinking of all these things clumped up as some big "agenda", but then there are agendas, and some may very well be realted.

That's not a sin to see. We must see the forest for the trees.

"Furthermore, as you know first hand such attributions are hurtful and alienate the very folks we are supposed to be a shining light to."

Perhaps, in the case of my reply "Nazi" was not the best word.
But I can think of no better word that personifies such a cluster of attributes. I find the use of the word unfairly labeling.And it can be inflammatory, we should not be quick to use it.

Yet, how else can a word be used to accurately identify a mindset which is anti-life and anti-God at once? My apologies if my word choice offended anyone. It was late, and the word seemed fine, oif for the sake of time, brevity.

Also, I think it was me who encouraged us loving others, from any background or persuasion, and to be hesitant in labeling and making a mockery of anyone.

I also urged that we not join in the very encouaraged labeling and the, often, falsely erected rifts between various groups member :e.g. "Christians verse gays".

It would take a lot more than these broef discussions to understand my (or your, or anyone's ) heart, or the full scope of their feelings, insights and opinions on these things..


"I'd rather make friends, then speak openly and honestly about what I believe, then let God do the heavy lifting of converting hearts and minds."

That's probably best. I have few close friends at this time. This is not so much a reflection on me, as limited time being out there in recent years, and circumstance. It wasnt always so.

"While it's true that Jesus sometimes threw down tables and had some pretty harsh words for hypocrites; He was in a fairly unique position to do so (what with being perfect and all)."

If we all waited till we were "perfect" to call a wrong a wrong and label a thing or an action the bad that it is, no good would come in the world any faster, and we all might be dead before any of it does.

"Until I reach that state ;-), I'll stick with attempting to be humble and friendly with those whom I disagree."

I hope that I have been friendly Steve G. Are you suggesting I have not been? I try to be humble.

Again, I do not think I am required to be "perfect" to call a thing as I see it.

If I see it wrongly, I suppose "humble" and not "perfect" folks can always come along side me and let me know, eh ?;)

In any event, peace Steve G.*s
no_one_u_kno | 06.24.05 - 11:09 am | #

NOUK,
I think you are still seeing me as attacking you, when that definetely is not my intent. I'll try to be more clear in my intent from now on and only offer a few points of clarificaiton.

In fact, respectfully, for me, they are stating what is obvious and understood, in terms of my views and opinions on these things.

My real point in my previous post revolves around this issue. I don't question or doubt your motives for a moment, and agree that many of these observations are obvious....to you and maybe to me and many others who are already in agreement on many of these issues. But to JJ, or other folks on the other side of the issues, this is exactly the point. It's not obvious to them. And even well intentioned use of 'nazi' as descriptor does little to explain to them where we are coming from or make our case.

In order to speak to the other side, there is a sense in which we must speak their language, and do so with more charity than we receive. We take way too much for granted with folks who don't agree with us in these discussion. For someone with no little or no religious ubringing or formation, I think much of what is said to them is simpy incomprehensible.

If we all waited till we were "perfect" to call a wrong a wrong and label a thing or an action the bad that it is, no good would come in the world any faster, and we all might be dead before any of it does.

I didn't mean to suggest that we not label things as what they are. I think if you were to look at most of my comments here, I am not shy about doing so. I am only trying to suggest that (for the most part) we are not dealing here with pharisees and scribes who should know better (and need rebuking), but rather with the lost, the lonely, and the broken who need to be told to go and sin no more, but in an extremely compassionate way.

I hope that I have been friendly Steve G. Are you suggesting I have not been? I try to be humble.

I am not suggesting that you haven't been humble or friendly, and I truly appreciate the humility of your previous post. I am deeply sorry if I have led you to think otherwise.

In Christ
Steve G. | 06.24.05 - 12:53 pm | #

No, it's fine Steve G. I think your comments all make good points, and are very well thought out.

I suppose, for me, the worst of what I said was using a word like "Nazi" to apply to anyone. But, for me, the application applied, in terms of the mindsets and agendas, if you will, being put forward, put forth.

I cannot retract, however, my comment making mention of another party here suggesting such a thing about me. That was obvious, and I called them on it.

Perhaps that's also what got me going, in these talks, about that word. But me being called a thing, and it not being so, makes its application to others no less valid-or the idea of such- if they are happy to wear the shoe that fits.

My point was, I think there are some that might not like the name, but very much are moving along that spiritual sphere, with no regret.

We need to look at history, with God's Holy Spirit, not only to never forget atrocities, but to guard our own hearts from such ways of thinking and being.

Perhaps I was too quick to use such a word about them, but it by no means makes them less guilty for all their undoing.

And these are things that hurt me and make me a bit mad.

I don't blame "the gays" or anyone else for how they are being used in that dialectic or process. I also forgive those who constantly smear and misjudge we Christians with glee.

I don't see you as attacking me Steve G. I apologize if I seemed to do so to you. I wasn't trying to..My other point was, none of us is "perfect", that should not limit us to speak freely about what we see as wrong. Regardless of imperfect words used, intonation, or information.

I have not been the only one who, at times, said the wrong thing at the wrong time, but with the right heart, or well-meaning, but not fully thought out ideas. We can even speak out of hurt, or misguided good intentions. And we all have blurted out foolish things, that were really just from hurt or spite.

We can all only speak from our "frame of reference", so to speak. I do not fault you for yours, or anyone for theirs.

I have not disagreed with almost all you have said.

Thank you for your apology though, and especially your kind words about our loss. It was very hard on us both.
We appreciate all your prayers.

P.S. If anyone is looking for "vitriol", you would not get me loving heady debates here. I fight the fight of faith for Christ and God's will. This fight must make us eager to hate evil, but place down our egos and "rights", particularly when we are wrong..

Also, I made it a conscious aim to give up sarcasm for my Christian walk in the late 1990's. It is not a way of thinking I look on kindly, especially if used against others.

I am not offened by you or your words Steve G. Please, feel free to make your comments or posts, without contention from me. I may, or may not, always agree, but you will not find me anyone's foe.
no_one_u_kno | 06.24.05 - 1:22 pm | #

I cannot retract, however, my comment making mention of another party here suggesting such a thing about me. That was obvious, and I called them on it.

And you were absolutely justified in doing so.

Please, feel free to make your comments or posts, without contention from me. I may, or may not, always agree, but you will not find me anyone's foe.

Ditto back atchya.
Steve G. | 06.24.05 - 1:42 pm | #

I deleted two comments--one socially conservative, one not--that merely linked to outside articles. Please, if you link to an outside article, have something to say about it that adds to the discussion. Thank you.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 06.26.05 - 1:18 am | #