Presidential Prediction

[ConcordCowboy]

You know since we are talking about things taught in school..I have a problem when people ONLY want abstinence taught in school as a form of birth control.

Come on people...it's the 21st century...kids are going to have sex...period and here's the bad part...they are going to do it for fun and pleasure.:eek:

Teach the frickin kid about proper birth control already. :rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with teaching abstinence along with the other forms but to act like kids are going to reframe from sex is just ridiculous and unrealistic.

What's more important...teaching them the right way or having unwanted babies.

Just a little pet peeve.

[ConcordCowboy]

There are plenty og ministers or priests that are willing to marry a gay couple. There are many minsiters that stand up for gay marriage, there are also many gay minsiters/priests so if there was a church or minister who opposed it due to bible, the couple could easily find another who wasnt opposed.

This is true.

[heavyg]

They are going to be xposed to it regardless. My daughters friends mom doesn't want her teenage daughter going to the mall because she saw a gay couple make out there. Good luck with that one.

Ok but that girl should come home and ask her mom about it not her teacher. You can not shelter your kids from the world. But as a parent its your job to explain things to them based on your belief system. Then as the kid is out in the world they can make their own decision on things.

[AbeBeta]

If i remember correctly sex ed when I was in school was about reproduction. If you can prove to me that a man can get another man pregnant I wouldnt have a problem with it

And IMO sex ed should not be taught in school. Again that is something that should be taken care of at home. Parents today are relying to much on somene else to raise thier kids and teach them right from wrong.

Sex ed is about sex -- it deals with issues like sexually transmitted diseases, development, and sexual behavior.

Your views of sex ed are a bit outdated.

You want it taught at home? Your kid can opt out of the class. But I know that most parents appreciate that much of the relevant information about sex is handled in school. For those who want to be more actively involved this can serve as a jumping off point for more discussion. And for children of parents who won't talk about this with their kids, at least their kids are getting it somewhere other than the street.

[iceberg]

I think kids should be taught such things at home. Not at school.

trouble is - we do most of our learning in the real world and that is shaped by what we're told at home/church.

[heavyg]

Sex ed is about sex -- it deals with issues like sexually transmitted diseases, development, and sexual behavior.

Your views of sex ed are a bit outdated.

You want it taught at home? Your kid can opt out of the class. But I know that most parents appreciate that much of the relevant information about sex is handled in school. For those who want to be more actively involved this can serve as a jumping off point for more discussion. And for children of parents who won't talk about this with their kids, at least their kids are getting it somewhere other than the street.

There is the root of the problem. Parents don't want to be involved

[Hoov]

Ok but that girl should come home and ask her mom about it not her teacher. You can not shelter your kids from the world. But as a parent its your job to explain things to them based on your belief system. Then as the kid is out in the world they can make their own decision on things.That sounds good to me, kids should go to their parents for advice (though some kids will get terrible advice from their parents depending on how intelligent and responsible the parents are).

But i think the way it is taught in schools is just to bring awareness to the fact that people have alternate lifestyles. Tolerance is taught, which is a good thing becuase you will have less incidents of discrimination and personal attacks, and to let those kids who are homosexual know they dont have to feel like something is wrong with them or live in fear.

If you are homosexual, even if you abstain from sex, it does not change the fact that you are homosexual and still have feelings or desires for someone of the same sex. Why should such people have to feel inferior or feel like they are cursed or "unnatural". Do you realize what that does to a teenagers psyche ? To hear from the church that they are damned or an abomination to god.

[AbeBeta]

There is the root of the problem. Parents don't want to be involved

And many parents who are involved tell their kids terrible things. Like homosexuality is unnatural....

[ConcordCowboy]

They are going to be xposed to it regardless. My daughters friends mom doesnt want her teenage daughter going to the mall because she saw a gay couple make out there. Good luck with that one.


Good Lord.:rolleyes:

[heavyg]

To hear from the church that they are damned or an abomination to god.

The church teaches that because that is what the Bible teaches.

But I can see this topic is going no where...lol.....I wont change your mind and you won't change mind. lol

Just heard on foxnews Romney is about to drop out of the race

[Hoov]

Ok but that girl should come home and ask her mom about it not her teacher. You can not shelter your kids from the world. But as a parent its your job to explain things to them based on your belief system. Then as the kid is out in the world they can make their own decision on things.
I should also clarify, the mom saw the gay couple, the kid is totally fine with it, the mom had a meltdown and said the mall is an unsafe and dangerous place. She should come work at my job where people get shot in the parking lot across the street every so often.

[ConcordCowboy]

That sounds good to me, kids should go to their parents for advice (though some kids will get terrible advice from their parents depending on how intelligent and responsible the parents are).
But i think the way it is taught in schools is just to bring awareness to the fact that people have alternate lifestyles. Tolerance is taught, which is a good thing becuase you will have less incidents of discrimination and personal attacks, and to let those kids who are homosexual know they dont have to feel like something is wrong with them or live in fear.

If you are homosexual, even if you abstain from sex, it does not change the fact that you are homosexual and still have feelings or desires for someone of the same sex. Why should such people have to feel inferior or feel like they are cursed or "unnatural". Do you realize what that does to a teenagers psyche ? To hear from the church that they are damned or an abomination to god.

And THERE is the root of many problems.

[ConcordCowboy]

The church teaches that because that is what the Bible teaches.

But I can see this topic is going no where...lol.....I wont change your mind and you won't change mind. lol

Just heard on foxnews Romney is about to drop out of the race

It's because he just announced he's been hiding it all these years but he's really gay. :D

[ScipioCowboy]

Yeah this hasn't been a secret for a long time. :rolleyes:

You have to expand your horizons outside of the Bible sometimes.

Actually,the Bible makes no claims regarding homosexuality's existence in the animal kingdom. Paul states that homosexuality is unnatural, but in this context, unnatural means contrary to God's laws. Paul also considered envy to be unnatural.

However, to my knowledge, mankind has never looked to the animal kingdom for what constitutes moral behavior.

[ScipioCowboy]

(though some kids will get terrible advice from their parents depending on how intelligent and responsible the parents are).


Some kids receive terrible advice from the schools. Remember those 1950s health films?;)

[heavyg]

It's because he just announced he's been hiding it all these years but he's really gay. :D

LOL!!!! That would shake up the Morman church

[ConcordCowboy]

Actually,the Bible makes no claims regarding homosexuality's existence in the animal kingdom. Paul states that homosexuality is unnatural, but in this context, unnatural means contrary to God's laws. Paul also considered envy to be unnatural.

However, to my knowledge, mankind has never looked to the animal kingdom for what constitutes moral behavior.

Swoosh...it flew right over your head.

[ConcordCowboy]

LOL!!!! That would shake up the Morman church

....:D

[ScipioCowboy]

Swoosh...it flew right over your head.

You intimated that all of Cajun's statements have a Biblical basis. They don't.

[ConcordCowboy]

You intimated that all of Cajun's statements have a Biblical basis. They don't.

No he said that he'd never heard of animals being gay...which was pointed out to him that he was wrong and I said basically if he would read other things besides the Bible as in the articles that were posted...he would know that in fact there are animals that are homosexual.

It had nothing to do with his biblical beliefs.

Basically...read other things than just the bible...that was the point.

[ScipioCowboy]

It had nothing to do with his biblical beliefs.


Yet, you felt compelled to mention the Bible prominently.

I was simply correcting any misunderstanding.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I should also clarify, the mom saw the gay couple, the kid is totally fine with it, the mom had a meltdown and said the mall is an unsafe and dangerous place. She should come work at my job where people get shot in the parking lot across the street every so often.

It is dangerous.

Don't you know you can catch teh ghey from just seeing it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yet, you felt compelled to mention the Bible prominently.

I was simply correcting any misunderstanding.

He never said it was in the bible. To which you state something that was in the bible for clarification.

He said if you looked at other sources BESIDES the bible.

Geez come on now.

[ConcordCowboy]

He never said it was in the bible. To which you state something that was in the bible for clarification.

He said if you looked at other sources BESIDES the bible.

Geez come on now.


Like I said...SWOOOOOSH right over his head.

:rolleyes:

[ScipioCowboy]

He never said it was in the bible. To which you state something that was in the bible for clarification.

He said if you looked at other sources BESIDES the bible.

Geez come on now.

I was trying to clarify any confusion for those who would look to the Bible as a source of moral truth.

If you find that troublesome, let me know and I'll stop.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I was trying to clarify any confusion for those who would look to the Bible as a source of moral truth.

If you find that troublesome, let me know and I'll stop.

It still makes no sense to your reply.

I think you misread his statement and started posting.

[ConcordCowboy]

I was trying to clarify any confusion for those who would look to the Bible as a source of moral truth.

If you find that troublesome, let me know and I'll stop.

There was nothing to be clarified.

I said read other things besides the Bible...pretty basic.

Just to clarify. :rolleyes:

[ConcordCowboy]

It still makes no sense to your reply.

I think you misread his statement and started posting.

And keeps posting.

Even when it's been clarified.:D

[ScipioCowboy]

It still makes no sense to your reply.

I think you misread his statement and started posting.

It makes perfect sense. Cajun stated that homosexuality did not exist in the animal kingdom. Concord responds by saying that Cajun's statement isn't true; Cajun should really read something other than the Bible.

Well, obviously, if Cajun believes that homosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom and the Bible is the only book that Cajun ever reads, it's a reasonable inference (though not necessarily the only one) that Cajun got this information from the Bible.

I'm merely pointing out that he didn't.

I didn't attack Concord. I didn't call Concord names. I didn't belittle his intelligence. I didn't make swooshing noises.;)

I simply corrected a potential area of confusion.

[ConcordCowboy]

It makes perfect sense. Cajun stated that homosexuality did not exist in the animal kingdom. Concord responds by saying that Cajun's statement isn't true; Cajun should really read something other than the Bible.

Well, obviously, if Cajun believes that homosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom and the Bible is the only book that Cajun ever reads, it's a reasonable inference (though not necessarily the only one) that Cajun got this information from the Bible.

I'm merely pointing out that he didn't.

I didn't attack Concord. I didn't call Concord names. I didn't belittle his intelligence. I didn't make swooshing noises.;)

I simply corrected a potential area of confusion.

Well at least by the time Cajun reads the post he will understand.:p:

[ScipioCowboy]

Well at least by the time Cajun reads the post he will understand.:p:

I was thinking about that.

Poor guy.:D

[rbr651]

Nobody said you couldn't think it's wrong.

It's when people try shove that thought down other peoples throats that there's a problem.

Or when they want to discriminate against people because of it.

I mean REALLY...was there ever a need to talk about amending the Constitution because of this?

They wanted to AMEND the frickin United States Constitution because of it. Ridiculous.

I read most of these threads and rarely reply, because I see most of them as ranting of others trying to force their views down others throats, and that is what your first statement says you dislike also.

I don't see discrimination against gays, because sexual orientation is not protected, and should not be as far as I'm concerned. There are many things that some people have no control over, but that doesn't make those things right. Serial killers feel compeled to kill, does that make it right? Pedophiles can't help but reoffend, should we put them in a special catagory and protect their rights?

One more thing, I'm not a Christian and I don't own a bible, or any other type of religious book.

[trickblue]

One more thing, I'm not a Christian and I don't own a bible, or any other type of religious book.

Oh you'll be painted as one soon enough... stand by... :D

[ScipioCowboy]

Oh you'll be painted as one soon enough... stand by... :D

...and a nazi.;)

[Sasquatch]

There are many things that some people have no control over, but that doesn't make those things right. Serial killers feel compeled to kill, does that make it right? Pedophiles can't help but reoffend, should we put them in a special catagory and protect their rights?

Except that adults enter into homosexual relationships willingly without doing harm to others.

[ScipioCowboy]

Except that adults enter into homosexual relationships willingly without doing harm to others.

It depends largely on your definition of "willingly."

For instance, in ancient Greece and Rome, homosexual pedophilia was a common practice, and Christianity stood alone in its rejection of it.

Young boys became the sexual servants of high ranking government officials and philosophers, and the relationship was viewed as "harmless" and "willing."

Now, for the record, I'm a Romosexual, but the two are completely dissimiliar.;)

[Hoov]

I read most of these threads and rarely reply, because I see most of them as ranting of others trying to force their views down others throats, and that is what your first statement says you dislike also.

I don't see discrimination against gays, because sexual orientation is not protected, and should not be as far as I'm concerned. There are many things that some people have no control over, but that doesn't make those things right. Serial killers feel compeled to kill, does that make it right? Pedophiles can't help but reoffend, should we put them in a special catagory and protect their rights?

One more thing, I'm not a Christian and I don't own a bible, or any other type of religious book.
Sinner !!!!!!

j/k :D

[ConcordCowboy]

I read most of these threads and rarely reply, because I see most of them as ranting of others trying to force their views down others throats, and that is what your first statement says you dislike also.

I don't see discrimination against gays, because sexual orientation is not protected, and should not be as far as I'm concerned. There are many things that some people have no control over, but that doesn't make those things right. Serial killers feel compeled to kill, does that make it right? Pedophiles can't help but reoffend, should we put them in a special catagory and protect their rights?

One more thing, I'm not a Christian and I don't own a bible, or any other type of religious book.

Sorry when I read that...I tuned you out.

Absolutely ridiculous comparisons.

[ScipioCowboy]

Sorry when I read that...I tuned you out.

Absolutely ridiculous comparisons.

So, on one hand, you're "tuning" people out. On the other, you're telling them to expand their horizons.;)

[rbr651]

Except that adults enter into homosexual relationships willingly without doing harm to others.

But that wasn't the initial arguement, I can add ideas to my arguement as well, as the discussion continues to try and further my point.

My point wasn't to argue, my point was you can make your beliefs know, but there is no reason to try and make me believe what you believe. The majority rules. And right now the majority doesn't want homo's to marry or have the same rights as heteros

[Hoov]

But that wasn't the initial arguement, I can add ideas to my arguement as well, as the discussion continues to try and further my point.

My point wasn't to argue, my point was you can make your beliefs know, but there is no reason to try and make me believe what you believe. The majority rules. And right now the majority doesn't want homo's to marry or have the same rights as heterosId be willing to bet that the majority doesnt really care. You have a lot of lobbying from the religious right which is definitely not the majority in this country anymore, and lobbying from the gay community. But most of us just sit here and discuss it without going out of our way to try and change laws. I beleive its just a matter of time before the fundamentalists lose ground on this issue.

[heavyg]

But that wasn't the initial arguement, I can add ideas to my arguement as well, as the discussion continues to try and further my point.

My point wasn't to argue, my point was you can make your beliefs know, but there is no reason to try and make me believe what you believe. The majority rules. And right now the majority doesn't want homo's to marry or have the same rights as heteros


Yes the the left doesnt want it to be majority rules. They want it to be the wants of the few to outweigh the wants of the many

[heavyg]

Id be willing to bet that the majority doesnt really care. You have a lot of lobbying from the religious right which is definitely not the majority in this country anymore, and lobbying from the gay community. But most of us just sit here and discuss it without going out of our way to try and change laws. I beleive its just a matter of time before the fundamentalists lose ground on this issue.

Ive said many times lets put these issues to the vote of the people and settle the argument once and for all

[Hoov]

Yes the the left doesnt want it to be majority rules. They want it to be the wants of the few to outweigh the wants of the manyIf you poll the nation and get oppinions from those under the age of 24, i think you'd find that most think gay mariage a non issue and most of very comfortable with the idea of gay couples.

[rbr651]

Being comfortable with gay people is one thing, however I don't think that the majority are OK with gay marriage. And I don't doubt that most people under the age of 24 are cool with it, but people under the age of 24 just don't vote with the same numbers as those over 30.

[Scorpion42]

Health class was a required class to graduate from high school. I haven't been in H.S. for twenty years. When my health teacher bought the subject up about homosexuality. (Everyone just broke out laughing.) High school hasn't changed that much. I'm sure most students would break out laughing today. The teachers & students names may have changed, but its still the same. Hell! My health teacher was a young woman. She may of taught one of my neices, or nephews the same thing.

I think heavyg's right, sex education should be taught at home. As for kids picking up things off the streets, the bus, or whatever. Its not going to make a kid stop from laughing. Its just the nature of being human.

Let me ask you these questions, why is Hollywood pushing the gay agenda?

Why did President G.W. Bush want to amend the U.S. Constitution in 2004? When a small percentage of people are homosexuals in the Unted States.

I'll let you ponder those questions before I respond any further.

[heavyg]

If you poll the nation and get opinions from those under the age of 24, i think you'd find that most think gay marriage a non issue and most of very comfortable with the idea of gay couples.

No disrespect to alot of the younger people out there......But How many 24 yr olds do you know that really care about serious issues facing this country. They have other things on their minds

[ScipioCowboy]

Health class was a required class to graduate from high school. I haven't been in H.S. for twenty years. When my health teacher bought the subject up about homosexuality. (Everyone just broke out laughing.) High school hasn't changed that much. I'm sure most students would break out laughing today. The teachers & students names may have changed, but its still the same. Hell! My health teacher was a young woman. She may of taught one of my neices, or nephews the same thing.

I think heavyg's right, sex education should be taught at home. As for kids picking up things off the streets, the bus, or whatever. Its not going to make a kid stop from laughing. Its just the nature of being human.

Let me ask you these questions, why is Hollywood pushing the gay agenda?

Why did President G.W. Bush want to amend the U.S. Constitution in 2004? When a small percentage of people are homosexuals in the Unted States.

I'll let you ponder those questions before I respond any further.

Because gay marriage is largely an election year issue, designed to mobilize the core support base?

[Hoov]

Being comfortable with gay people is one thing, however I don't think that the majority are OK with gay marriage. And I don't doubt that most people under the age of 24 are cool with it, but people under the age of 24 just don't vote with the same numbers as those over 30.That is ture, but those are the people who will be in congress 20 to 30 years from now and those are the poeple who will be making up the majority of voters then as well. That is why it is just a matter of time.

[Hoov]

Health class was a required class to graduate from high school. I haven't been in H.S. for twenty years. When my health teacher bought the subject up about homosexuality. (Everyone just broke out laughing.) High school hasn't changed that much. I'm sure most students would break out laughing today. The teachers & students names may have changed, but its still the same. Hell! My health teacher was a young woman. She may of taught one of my neices, or nephews the same thing.

I think heavyg's right, sex education should be taught at home. As for kids picking up things off the streets, the bus, or whatever. Its not going to make a kid stop from laughing. Its just the nature of being human.

Let me ask you these questions, why is Hollywood pushing the gay agenda?

Why did President G.W. Bush want to amend the U.S. Constitution in 2004? When a small percentage of people are homosexuals in the Unted States.

I'll let you ponder those questions before I respond any further.My daughter is 14, things have changed quite a bit from when i was in highschool.

[heavyg]

That is ture, but those are the people who will be in congress 20 to 30 years from now and those are the poeple who will be making up the majority of voters then as well. That is why it is just a matter of time.

My guess is that some of them will swing the other direction by that time. Peoples views change as they grow older. So who knows what they will think by then.......Heck I voted for Clinton when I was 21-22 one of my biggest regrets....lol

[rbr651]

That is why I am glad that I had the opportunity to raise my children now instead of 30 years in the future. I also don't know if I totally agree. Those that are in office today, went to college in the 60's. Far more radical and liberal than the 20 somethings of today. If their ideas held true pot would be legal nation wide and there would be no more military. As we get older we realize that our ideas are just as stupid as the older more seasoned people told us they were.

[Sasquatch]

It depends largely on your definition of "willingly."

For instance, in ancient Greece and Rome, homosexual pedophilia was a common practice, and Christianity stood alone in its rejection of it.

Young boys became the sexual servants of high ranking government officials and philosophers, and the relationship was viewed as "harmless" and "willing."

No comment on whether contemporary homosexual relations can be likened to pedophilia and murder?

I'm sure we couldn't find similar heterosexual practices involving older men bedding unwilling young girls married off by their parents that were once socially acceptable. :rolleyes:

As for Christianity rejecting pedophilia, anyone who has followed the news over the past few years knows to take that claim with a grain of salt, since the Catholic church as an institution has a singularly high incidence of pedophilia compared to other institutions.

[Sasquatch]

http://incontext.blogmosis.com/see%20no%20evil.jpg

[heavyg]

As for Christianity rejecting pedophilia, anyone who has followed the news over the past few years knows to take that claim with a grain of salt, since the Catholic church as an institution has a singularly high incidence of pedophilia compared to other institutions.

Again no offense to our Catholic brothers and sisters. But Catholicism is alot different than the Protestant beliefs.

[ScipioCowboy]

No comment on whether contemporary homosexual relations can be likened to pedophilia and murder?

I think you've missed my point. Concepts such as "willing consent" and "harmful to society" vary from culture to culture.

Some cultures view pedophilia as no more or less harmful than homosexuality.

I figured you, as a secular humanist, would appreciate the moral relativism inherent to this point. ;)

I'm sure we couldn't find similar heterosexual practices involving older men bedding unwilling young girls married off by their parents that were once socially acceptable.

We could find them very easily. Once again, it changes from culture to culture.

As for Christianity rejecting pedophilia, anyone who has followed the news over the past few years knows to take that claim with a grain of salt, since the Catholic church as an institution has a singularly high incidence of pedophilia compared to other institutions.

This is rather like blaming all atheists for the actions of Stalin or the legacy of communism.

certainly never taught pedophilia.

[Sasquatch]

I think you've missed my point. Concepts such as "willing consent" and "harmful to society" vary from culture to culture.

Some cultures view pedophilia as no more or less harmful than homosexuality.

I figured you, as a secular humanist, would appreciate the moral relativism inherent to this point. ;)



We could find them very easily. Once again, it changes from culture to culture.



This is rather like blaming all atheists for the actions of Stalin or the legacy of communism.

certainly never taught pedophilia.

Diversionary tactics. Color me shocked.

It was a ridiculous comparison which is why I suspect you choose this tact instead of simply addressing the issue directly.

[heavyg]

I think you've missed my point. Concepts such as "willing consent" and "harmful to society" vary from culture to culture.

Some cultures view pedophilia as no more or less harmful than homosexuality.

I figured you, as a secular humanist, would appreciate the moral relativism inherent to this point. ;)



We could find them very easily. Once again, it changes from culture to culture.



This is rather like blaming all atheists for the actions of Stalin or the legacy of communism.

certainly never taught pedophilia.

also said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me". He never said go to the Priest and confess your sins and say a penitence (Sp). That is why I said there is a difference between the Catholic church and the Protestant Church

[Sasquatch]

But Catholicism is alot different than the Protestant beliefs.

You're right, the problem is apparently more rampant among Protestants.

From the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html).

"Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers."

[rbr651]

Diversionary tactics. Color me shocked.

It was a ridiculous comparison which is why I suspect you choose this tact instead of simply addressing the issue directly.

The comparison was not that of man on man love to that of a serial killer, but the idea that a gay man had no choice in the matter is what made gay sex OK. I was pointing out that just because he didn't choose this lifestyle (which is still up for debate) doesn't make it OK.

[trickblue]

As for Christianity rejecting pedophilia, anyone who has followed the news over the past few years knows to take that claim with a grain of salt, since the Catholic church as an institution has a singularly high incidence of pedophilia compared to other institutions.

And those allegations were swept under the rug by select church hierarchy, not the entire Christian world...

It's a pretty far-fetched theory to indict all Christians on the actions of some sick individuals and their superiors...

[ScipioCowboy]

Diversionary tactics. Color me shocked.

It was a ridiculous comparison which is why I suspect you choose this tact instead of simply addressing the issue directly.

I did address the issue directly. Don't get snippy because you didn't like my answer.;)

You initially mentioned "willing consent," and I merely pointed out that definition of willing consent is hardly consistent from culture to culture.

Do I personally equate homosexuality to murder?

Absolutely not.

But I never mentioned the topic of murder. You did...after realized that your "willing consent" and "harmful to society" arguments didn't hold the desired rhetorical impact.

[heavyg]

You're right, the problem is apparently more rampant among Protestants.

From the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html).

"Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers."

Thats the 1st ive heard or read anything like that. Unfortunately when you have volunteers its hard to monitor thier history. IMO if someone is going to have any contact with children a complete background check should be done.

[Sasquatch]

The comparison was not that of man on man love to that of a serial killer, but the idea that a gay man had no choice in the matter is what made gay sex OK. I was pointing out that just because he didn't choose this lifestyle (which is still up for debate) doesn't make it OK.

Fair enough but homosexual relations do not harm anyone.

[trickblue]

You're right, the problem is apparently more rampant among Protestants.

From the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html).

"Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers."

And that is because pedophiles find the church to be an easy target. They come in and present themselves as trustworthy individuals and can easily find their way into working with children as churches always need volunteers...

[ScipioCowboy]

also said, "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me". He never said go to the Priest and confess your sins and say a penitence (Sp). That is why I said there is a difference between the Catholic church and the Protestant Church

Exactly.

But I would argue that Protestants and Catholics alike are guilty of using the Holy Scripture for their own selfish purposes.

[ScipioCowboy]

And that is because pedophiles find the church to be an easy target. They come in and present themselves as trustworthy individuals and can easily find their way into working with children as churches always need volunteers...

As I said, is it fair to blame all atheists for the 60 million people murdered under Stalin's regime?

Absolutely not.

[heavyg]

And that is because pedophiles find the church to be an easy target. They come in and present themselves as trustworthy individuals and can easily find their way into working with children as churches always need volunteers...

Which is why a Church should be allowed to do background checks on anyone who works for them

[BrAinPaiNt]

I did address the issue directly. Don't get snippy because you didn't like my answer.;)

You initially mentioned "willing consent," and I merely pointed out that definition of willing consent is hardly consistent from culture to culture.

Do I personally equate homosexuality to murder?

Absolutely not.

But I never mentioned the topic of murder. You did...after realized that your "willing consent" and "harmful to society" arguments didn't hold the desired rhetorical impact.

I figured in today's society WE live in willing consent, to be legally acceptable in relation to sex, was another way of saying Willing consent among Adults.

Not saying you specifically but I am always amazed how when people of faith talk about if homosexuality is to be ok...what is next sex with children, animals or polygamy. It always seems to be a stretch. Once again I am not saying you specifically.

[rbr651]

But the age of adulthood as said before will change from country to country as well as state to state. Who is to determine what that age is? If I were to say 14 is an adult would that be OK? I mean if the 14 year old girl and the 35 year old man are OK with it shouldn't you be?

[Sasquatch]

It's a pretty far-fetched theory to indict all Christians on the actions of some sick individuals and their superiors...

I didn't realize that I was doing that, merely pointing out that they are as susceptible to the yearnings of the flesh as those who are less sanctimonious about moral issues.

[ScipioCowboy]

I figured in today's society WE live in willing consent, to be legally acceptable in relation to sex, was another way of saying Willing consent among Adults.

Not saying you specifically but I am always amazed how when people of faith talk about if homosexuality is to be ok...what is next sex with children, animals or polygamy. It always seems to be a stretch. Once again I am not saying you specifically.

I assure you that wasn't my intent (again, I'm just providing clarification;)).

[trickblue]

I didn't realize that I was doing that, merely pointing out that they are as susceptible to the yearnings of the flesh as those who are less sanctimonious about moral issues.

I'll take your word that you didn't mean it that way, but reread your post. Maybe I didn't take your implication as you meant it...

[ScipioCowboy]

But the age of adulthood as said before will change from country to country as well as state to state. Who is to determine what that age is? If I were to say 14 is an adult would that be OK? I mean if the 14 year old girl and the 35 year old man are OK with it shouldn't you be?

Some societies would argue that your scenario is perfectly valid, and that to deny this relationship is to deny basic freedoms.

Thankfully, in my opinion, ours doesn't make that argument.

[ConcordCowboy]

So, on one hand, you're "tuning" people out. On the other, you're telling them to expand their horizons.;)

Well when you compare people who love each other and just want to be together legally to Serial Killers and Pedophiles...that's not expanding your horizons...that's putting your blinders on.;)

[Sasquatch]

But I never mentioned the topic of murder. You did...after realized that your "willing consent" and "harmful to society" arguments didn't hold the desired rhetorical impact.

You would appear less ridiculous if, among other things, you would simply take the time to read the thread before posting.

I was responding to someone who specifically mentioned serial killers and pedophiles. It had nothing to do with your relativistic defense of Church bigotry against gays.

[ScipioCowboy]

Well when you compare people who love each other and just want to be together legally to Serial Killers and Pedophiles...that's not expanding your horizons...that's putting your blinders on.;)

I tend to agree on the serial killer issue. However, the pedophilia issue is hisortically far more muddied than that. Maybe that blinder has a history book inside it.:D

[ScipioCowboy]

You would appear less ridiculous if, among other things, you would simply take the time to read the thread before posting.

I was responding to someone who specifically mentioned serial killers and pedophiles. It had nothing to do with your relativistic defense of Church bigotry against gays.

I've read every word you've written. I responded directly to your statements about "willing consent" and "harmful to society," explaining that those concepts are subject to much change and revision.

I'm not guilty of being "ridiculous" because I took the discussion in a different direction. That is my right.

[ConcordCowboy]

I tend to agree on the serial killer issue. However, the pedophilia issue is hisortically far more muddied than that. Maybe that blinder has a history book inside it.:D

Well if that history book says you shouldn't protect gay rights because one of these days one of them MIGHT be a pedophile...then it's garbage.

Anyone can be a pedophile...Homo or Hetero.

[Sasquatch]

I'm not guilty of being "ridiculous" because I took the discussion in a different direction. That is my right.

Indeed it is. But my post on "willingness" and "doing no harm" was in response to a post by rbr651 about serial killers and pedophiles. I brought those up prior to your intervention. It had nothing to do with you or your argument as you erroneously claimed with a hint of false triumph. :D

[rbr651]

I had made an attempt to keep my personal opinion out of this but since no one else is, i'll drop my 2 cents. To say that it is no ones buisness about what consenting adults do in there bedroom, I will agree. But keep it in the bedroom. I think that saying "this is OK" is bad for society and bad for children. Our current President's polocies are not what are enraging Muslims and others around the world as some would have you believe. It is our lack of descency, to include tolerance of gays and some of the other garbage you see on MTV and other stations. I will assure you once again that I am far from religious or spiritual. I don't see this as a religious view, but more as a view of a moral person. Thanks to people such as Oprah and Dr Phil now men have to talk about their feelings and cry or they're just some type of caveman. I would rather be called a caveman or a bigot than support gay marriage, or equal rights for gay couples. I don't like seeing "Queer eye for the straight guy" on my TV and I'm sure not going to let my children watch it or think that it's OK....You've seen the men should be men commercials where the beer can drops out of the sky? If I were some of you guys I would make sure I had a strong roof because the forecast is calling for raining beer cans....

[iceberg]

I had made an attempt to keep my personal opinion out of this but since no one else is, i'll drop my 2 cents. To say that it is no ones buisness about what consenting adults do in there bedroom, I will agree. But keep it in the bedroom. I think that saying "this is OK" is bad for society and bad for children. Our current President's polocies are not what are enraging Muslims and others around the world as some would have you believe. It is our lack of descency, to include tolerance of gays and some of the other garbage you see on MTV and other stations. I will assure you once again that I am far from religious or spiritual. I don't see this as a religious view, but more as a view of a moral person. Thanks to people such as Oprah and Dr Phil now men have to talk about their feelings and cry or they're just some type of caveman. I would rather be called a caveman or a bigot than support gay marriage, or equal rights for gay couples. I don't like seeing "Queer eye for the straight guy" on my TV and I'm sure not going to let my children watch it or think that it's OK....You've seen the men should be men commercials where the beer can drops out of the sky? If I were some of you guys I would make sure I had a strong roof because the forecast is calling for raining beer cans....

do hetero couples keep it in the bedroom when they get married?

a gay person cannot be moral?

[Hoov]

I had made an attempt to keep my personal opinion out of this but since no one else is, i'll drop my 2 cents. To say that it is no ones buisness about what consenting adults do in there bedroom, I will agree. But keep it in the bedroom. I think that saying "this is OK" is bad for society and bad for children. Our current President's polocies are not what are enraging Muslims and others around the world as some would have you believe. It is our lack of descency, to include tolerance of gays and some of the other garbage you see on MTV and other stations. I will assure you once again that I am far from religious or spiritual. I don't see this as a religious view, but more as a view of a moral person. Thanks to people such as Oprah and Dr Phil now men have to talk about their feelings and cry or they're just some type of caveman. I would rather be called a caveman or a bigot than support gay marriage, or equal rights for gay couples. I don't like seeing "Queer eye for the straight guy" on my TV and I'm sure not going to let my children watch it or think that it's OK....You've seen the men should be men commercials where the beer can drops out of the sky? If I were some of you guys I would make sure I had a strong roof because the forecast is calling for raining beer cans....Wow, your not using religion but claim gay sex is immoral and tolerance of gay sex is a lack of decency. Who decides what is moral ?

From my point of view casual sex between consenting adults is no different than drinking a beer, smoking a cigarrete or eating a favorite food. You do it because its enjoyable and if both people are mature, communicate and consent it is doing harm to no one.

You will most likely lable me immoral and indecent, i would think of you as someone too conservative and a little prudish to share my viewpoints and say you are missing out on a lot of life's experiences. But in the end, whose to say which one of us is right ?

[Sasquatch]

I'll take your word that you didn't mean it that way, but reread your post. Maybe I didn't take your implication as you meant it...

A selective reading might lead one to that conclusion. :p:

But since you didn't take it upon yourself to object to treating all Christians as monolithically "good," I felt compelled to intervene. After all, my post was in response to "in ancient Greece and Rome, homosexual pedophilia was a common practice, and Christianity stood alone in its rejection of it." How many sects of Christianity were there in ancient times prior to the establishment of an institutionalized church orthodoxy and canon?

[ConcordCowboy]

I had made an attempt to keep my personal opinion out of this but since no one else is, i'll drop my 2 cents. To say that it is no ones buisness about what consenting adults do in there bedroom, I will agree. But keep it in the bedroom. I think that saying "this is OK" is bad for society and bad for children. Our current President's polocies are not what are enraging Muslims and others around the world as some would have you believe. It is our lack of descency, to include tolerance of gays and some of the other garbage you see on MTV and other stations. I will assure you once again that I am far from religious or spiritual. I don't see this as a religious view, but more as a view of a moral person. Thanks to people such as Oprah and Dr Phil now men have to talk about their feelings and cry or they're just some type of caveman. I would rather be called a caveman or a bigot than support gay marriage, or equal rights for gay couples. I don't like seeing "Queer eye for the straight guy" on my TV and I'm sure not going to let my children watch it or think that it's OK....You've seen the men should be men commercials where the beer can drops out of the sky? If I were some of you guys I would make sure I had a strong roof because the forecast is calling for raining beer cans....

Why would you keep your personal opinion out of it?

That's why we have this forum.

As far as the rest...it's OK to feel the way you do...but just call it for what it is...just say I'm Homophobic and be done with it.

And to think that our current President's policies aren't enraging the Muslim world..well lets just say that's ridiculous. But on the other hand they love Bush...because he's a recruitment poster boy for terrorists.

Watch out for the Beer cans.:rolleyes:

[Hoov]

Here's a question for some. What if your son or daughter came to you and said Im gay and im in a gay relationship ? Would it change the way you care for and feel about your child ? Would you be embarrassed of your child ?

[ConcordCowboy]

Wow, your not using religion but claim gay sex is immoral and tolerance of gay sex is a lack of decency. Who decides what is moral ?


Somehow he doest protest to much about that. :D

[rbr651]

I figured I would get a couple replies and that's why I tried as long as I could to keep to myself. I agree that everyone should keep their sex life in the bedroom. I also never claimed everything I did was moral either, however I think that things that we do some can be worse than others. I think that homosexuality hurts our society and that I won't further it becoming mainstream.

Wow, your not using religion but claim gay sex is immoral and tolerance of gay sex is a lack of decency. Who decides what is moral ?

I also don't believe in sleeping around on my wife, it's not illegal, but I find it immoral. FYI it is possilbe to live a good like and use word like decency and immoral without being religious or spiritual

[rbr651]

Why would you keep your personal opinion out of it?

That's why we have this forum.

As far as the rest...it's OK to feel the way you do...but just call it for what it is...just say I'm Homophobic and be done with it.

And to think that our current President's policies aren't enraging the Muslim world..well lets just say that's ridiculous. But on the other hand they love Bush...because he's a recruitment poster boy for terrorists.

Watch out for the Beer cans.:rolleyes:
Let the record show I've never met a homosexual that I was scared of, hence I'm not a homophobic :D

[ConcordCowboy]

Here's a question for some. What if your son or daughter came to you and said Im gay and im in a gay relationship ? Would it change the way you care for and feel about your child ? Would you be embarrassed of your child ?

If I didn't chain them up in the basement for the rest of their lives to keep them out of site...I would throw their #@$% Munching azzes out on the street...and never talk to or see them again.

[Hoov]

I figured I would get a couple replies and that's why I tried as long as I could to keep to myself. I agree that everyone should keep their sex life in the bedroom. I also never claimed everything I did was moral either, however I think that things that we do some can be worse than others. I think that homosexuality hurts our society and that I won't further it becoming mainstream.

Wow, your not using religion but claim gay sex is immoral and tolerance of gay sex is a lack of decency. Who decides what is moral ?

I also don't believe in sleeping around on my wife, it's not illegal, but I find it immoral. FYI it is possilbe to live a good like and use word like decency and immoral without being religious or spiritualSleeping around behind your wifes back would not fall into the category of mutaul consent and open communication, that would be lying and deceiving and i would agree that would show weak character.

If i get married again I wouldnt cheat because i dont want to bring the kind of stress and misery upon myself that comes with constant lies and deception.

But for those who are not in committed relationships it is different, and there are married couples that swing and enjoy bringing others into their sexual relationship. I dont see swinging as anything immoral, just a little strange.

[ScipioCowboy]

Indeed it is. But my post on "willingness" and "doing no harm" was in response to a post by rbr651 about serial killers and pedophiles. I brought those up prior to your intervention. It had nothing to do with you or your argument as you erroneously claimed with a hint of false triumph. :D

I never claim or even intimate victory, and I challenge you to show where I have.;)

No one ever wins on the internet.

In any event, you asked me a question that was unrelated to my initial assertion...which, of coures, is your right. But it doesn't make me erroneous.:D

[zrinkill]

No one ever wins on the internet.

I think if you can make someone run away from a forum and change their username ..... you won.


:D

[ScipioCowboy]

I think if you can make someone run away from a forum and change their username ..... you won.


:D

That's quite a talent you have.;)

[AbeBeta]

You've seen the men should be men commercials where the beer can drops out of the sky? If I were some of you guys I would make sure I had a strong roof because the forecast is calling for raining beer cans....

"Men should be men." HA

I know several gay guys who are far manlier than most "men" - contractors, plumbers, Marines, lead singers in metal bands. Beer swilling, weight lifting, car fixing men. Each and every one of them would likely try to kick your *** for suggesting otherwise.

It is really surprising how wrong people can be about members of a group who they've had little if any experience with.

[rbr651]

"Men should be men." HA

I know several gay guys who are far manlier than most "men" - contractors, plumbers, Marines, lead singers in metal bands. Beer swilling, weight lifting, car fixing men. Each and every one of them would likely try to kick your *** for suggesting otherwise.

It is really surprising how wrong people can be about members of a group who they've had little if any experience with.

And I would welcome the challenge. Question are they really gonna want to ruin their manicure doing this though?

[zrinkill]

I know several gay guys who are far manlier than most "men"


:eek:


:D

[AbeBeta]

And I would welcome the challenge. Question are they really gonna want to ruin their manicure doing this though?

Again, nothing but lame stereotypes.

But hey, when you are ignorant, that's all you've got to go on.

[Hoov]

And I would welcome the challenge. Question are they really gonna want to ruin their manicure doing this though?you are kidding i assume. Not all gay men are feminine.

I have several friends who are gay and they are all characters, i love to go out for drinks with them, they are some of the funniest people i know.

I also play on a coed flag football team. 3 of the girls on my team are gay and they are great to hang out with. I actually have a little fantasy that would involve 2 of them but they are not bi so its not likely to happen.

[ConcordCowboy]

Again, nothing but lame stereotypes.

But hey, when you are ignorant, that's all you've got to go on.

Yep the true colors will always come out eventually.

[Hoov]

BTW, anyone watch Boston Legal ? Im thinking of the episode were the judge had "same sex attraction disorder" and was in a lawsuit because he underwent therapy for same sex attraction disorder but was not cured. That was a pretty funny one.

[Vintage]

This thread is pretty disappointing in some aspects.

But the thing that offers some sort of "consolation" prize is that the people in this thread with the viewpoints I disagree with are twice as old as me....

IOW, at least they are getting older.

[zrinkill]

But the thing that offers some sort of "consolation" prize is that the people in this thread with the viewpoints I disagree with are twice as old as me....

IOW, at least they are getting older.

Nice thought ...... but unfortunately its always kids your age who we hear about beating some poor gay guy to death for no reason.

Its sad.

[vta]

Nice thought ...... but unfortunately its always kids your age who we here about beating some poor gay guy to death for no reason.

Its sad.


:lmao:

[Hoov]

Nice thought ...... but unfortunately its always kids your age who we here about beating some poor gay guy to death for no reason.

Its sad.
Well i have to agree that was pretty funny

[Vintage]

Nice thought ...... but unfortunately its always kids your age who we here about beating some poor gay guy to death for no reason.

Its sad.

May be true.

However, I think my generation whenever we do actually get out and vote....will be the difference in ending any supposed gay marriage ban and allowing for gays to marry.

Because they have every right to get divorced in high rates as the next couple.

[ScipioCowboy]

This thread is pretty disappointing in some aspects.

But the thing that offers some sort of "consolation" prize is that the people in this thread with the viewpoints I disagree with are twice as old as me....

IOW, at least they are getting older.

You're only 14?:eek: ;)

[rbr651]

What kills me are all these so called tolerant people. Lib's are tolerant as long as you believe what they say, but let one person think different then they do, and that person is evil. Also I said lib not dem. The 18-28 crowd can think what they want, but as long as they don't vote it dosen't matter.

[iceberg]

May be true.

However, I think my generation whenever we do actually get out and vote....will be the difference in ending any supposed gay marriage ban and allowing for gays to marry.

Because they have every right to get divorced in high rates as the next couple.

gays have just as much right to be as miserable as everyone else.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I had made an attempt to keep my personal opinion out of this but since no one else is, i'll drop my 2 cents. To say that it is no ones buisness about what consenting adults do in there bedroom, I will agree. But keep it in the bedroom. I think that saying "this is OK" is bad for society and bad for children. Our current President's polocies are not what are enraging Muslims and others around the world as some would have you believe. It is our lack of descency, to include tolerance of gays and some of the other garbage you see on MTV and other stations. I will assure you once again that I am far from religious or spiritual. I don't see this as a religious view, but more as a view of a moral person. Thanks to people such as Oprah and Dr Phil now men have to talk about their feelings and cry or they're just some type of caveman. I would rather be called a caveman or a bigot than support gay marriage, or equal rights for gay couples. I don't like seeing "Queer eye for the straight guy" on my TV and I'm sure not going to let my children watch it or think that it's OK....You've seen the men should be men commercials where the beer can drops out of the sky? If I were some of you guys I would make sure I had a strong roof because the forecast is calling for raining beer cans....

how is it hurting society?

[zrinkill]

gays have just as much right to be as miserable as everyone else.

:lmao:

[AbeBeta]

how is it hurting society?

nobody seems to be taking up the mantle on that one.

wonder why that is?

probably they type out a response and then, even through the filter of their hatred, they realize that whatever they might say is idiotic.

[heavyg]

nobody seems to be taking up the mantle on that one.

wonder why that is?

probably they type out a response and then, even through the filter of their hatred, they realize that whatever they might say is idiotic.

Its almost impossible to take up the mantle on this. Because the argument againts the gay lifestyle is based on Christian principles which those who support the gay lifestyle do not hold. You can deny it if you want to. But this country was founded on Christian principles. Almost all the founding fathers were Christians. Through the years amendments were made to support a more liberal "open minded" thought process. I do not hate homosexuals or think they should be locked away somewhere. I do however disagree with thier choice of lifestyle. And yes I believe it is a choice. But it will do me no good to continue this discussion because those on the oposite side of my belief will never agree with me nor I with them.

[Vintage]

Its almost impossible to take up the mantle on this. Because the argument againts the gay lifestyle is based on Christian principles which those who support the gay lifestyle do not hold. You can deny it if you want to. But this country was founded on Christian principles. Almost all the founding fathers were Christians. Through the years amendments were made to support a more liberal "open minded" thought process. I do not hate homosexuals or think they should be locked away somewhere. I do however disagree with thier choice of lifestyle. And yes I believe it is a choice. But it will do me no good to continue this discussion because those on the oposite side of my belief will never agree with me nor I with them.

I don't get how homosexuality can be a choice.

I never made the decision to be attracted to women. I didn't wake up one day and say "damn, women are attractive."

And I doubt those who are homosexuals do either.

[heavyg]

I don't get how homosexuality can be a choice.

I never made the decision to be attracted to women. I didn't wake up one day and say "damn, women are attractive."

And I doubt those who are homosexuals do either.

See thats where we differ. The bible talks about a man leaving the natural use of a woman and a woman leaving the natural use of a man. The bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God. Like I said its impossible to argue againts it without using Christian Principles.

[Vintage]

See thats where we differ. The bible talks about a man leaving the natural use of a woman and a woman leaving the natural use of a man. The bible says homosexuality is an abomination to God. Like I said its impossible to argue againts it without using Christian Principles.

You are right.

It differs on what we believe the Bible actually is.

[heavyg]

You are right.

It differs on what we believe the Bible actually is.

The Bible is the written Word of God..what more is there to say ;-)

[theogt]

Its almost impossible to take up the mantle on this. Because the argument againts the gay lifestyle is based on Christian principles which those who support the gay lifestyle do not hold. You can deny it if you want to. But this country was founded on Christian principles.I won't deny it, but the U.S. Senate in 1797 denied it:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This is from a treaty ratified in 1797 by the Senate unanimously and then signed into law by John Adams.

Almost all the founding fathers were Christians.And many weren't.

Through the years amendments were made to support a more liberal "open minded" thought process.I'm pretty sure those first ten were added immediately, not "through the years to support a more liberal 'open minded' thought process."

[junk]

I won't deny it, but the U.S. Senate in 1797 denied it:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This is from a treaty ratified in 1797 by the Senate unanimously and then signed into law by John Adams.



It isn't common to see that idea floated out there however. I think more out of desire than anything.

People originally came to this country looking for religious freedom. Now, 200+ years later, people are looking to eliminate those freedoms by trying to align the government with a specific religion.

Believe whatever you want (that's part of what makes this country great). Just don't push it on me and keep it out of schools and government.

[heavyg]

WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?

http://www.afn.org/~govern/Christian_Nation.html

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

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…"

Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of , Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.

Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.

The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.

Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".

In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'

It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.

It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.

When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.

Tex Browning

[theogt]

Did you actually read the article? There's nothing that suggests that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Many of the Founding Fathers were followers of John Locke who attempted to derived the principles upon which the nation was founded from religion.

[heavyg]

Did you actually read the article? There's nothing that suggests that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Many of the Founding Fathers were followers of John Locke who attempted to derived the principles upon which the nation was founded from religion.

No it says is was founded on Christian Principles which is what I said.

And actually there is this in the article:

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

[theogt]

No it says is was founded on Christian Principles which is what I said.The principles it was founded on were also shared by Christianity, but do not of necessity derive from Christianity.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.No, that sounds like one Founding Father's opinion.

[Sasquatch]

People originally came to this country looking for religious freedom.

The Pilgrims wanted the freedom to practice THEIR religion and discriminate against others. Those who challenged them were promptly exiled to places like Rhode Island. Can't comment on the other colonists (i.e. the Catholics in Maryland).

[theogt]

I can post random internet articles too. :)

The Christian Nation Myth
Farrell Till

Whenever the Supreme Court makes a decision that in any way restricts the intrusion of religion into the affairs of government, a flood of editorials, articles, and letters protesting the ruling is sure to appear in the newspapers. Many protesters decry these decisions on the grounds that they conflict with the wishes and intents of the "founding fathers."

Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of , the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).

Jefferson was just as suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is "the inspired word of God." He rewrote the story of as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to and ended with his burial. The Jeffersonian gospel account contained no resurrection, a twist to the life of that was considered scandalous to Christians but perfectly sensible to Jefferson's Deistic mind. In a letter to John Adams, he wrote, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise" (August 15, 1820). In saying this, Jefferson was merely expressing the widely held Deistic view of his time, which rejected the mysticism of the Bible and relied on natural law and human reason to explain why the world is as it is. Writing to Adams again, Jefferson said, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of , by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823). These were hardly the words of a devout Bible-believer.

Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others we have quoted from Jefferson's writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their "Christian-nation" claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on "biblical principles." The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency. Saul K. Padover's biography related the bitterness of the opposition that the clergy mounted against Jefferson in the campaign of 1800

The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).

William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City, made perhaps the most violent of all attacks on Jefferson's character, all of it based on religious matters. In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn "accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality'" (Padover, p. 116). He referred to Jefferson as a "true infidel" and insisted that "(a)n infidel like Jefferson could not, should not, be elected" (Padover, p. 117). He concluded the pamphlet with this appeal for "Christians to defeat the `infidel' from Virginia"

Will you, then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence... vote for Mr. Jefferson?... As to myself, were Mr. Jefferson connected with me by the nearest ties of blood, and did I owe him a thousand obligations, I would not, and could not vote for him. No; sooner than stretch forth my hand to place him at the head of the nation "Let mine arms fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone" (quoted by Padover, p. 117).

Why would contemporary clergymen have so vigorously opposed Jefferson's election if he were as devoutly Christian as modern preachers claim? The answer is that Jefferson was not a Christian, and the preachers of his day knew that he wasn't.

In the heat of the campaign Jefferson wrote a letter to Benjamin Rush in which he angrily commented on the clerical efforts to assassinate his personal character "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." That statement has been inscribed on Jefferson's monument in Washington. Most people who read it no doubt think that Jefferson was referring to political tyrants like the King of England, but in reality, he was referring to the fundamentalist clergymen of his day.

After Jefferson became president, he did not compromise his beliefs. As president, he refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, a fact that Justice Souter referred to in his concurring opinion with the majority in Lee vs. Weisman, the recent supreme-court decision that ruled prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional. Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Before sending the letter to Danbury, Jefferson asked his attorney general, Levi Lincoln, to review it. Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the letter a means of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets" (quoted by Rob Boston in "Myths and Mischief," Church and State, March 1992). If this was indeed Jefferson's wish, he certainly succeeded. Twice, in Reynolds vs. the United States (1879) and Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court cited Jefferson's letter as "an authoritative declaration of the scope of the [First] Amendment" and agreed that the intention of the First Amendment was "to erect `a wall of separation between church and state.'" Confronted with evidence like this, some fundamentalists will admit that Thomas Jefferson was not a Bible-believer but will insist that most of the other "founding fathers"--men like Washington, Madison, and Franklin--were Christians whose intention during the formative years of our country was to establish a "Christian nation." Again, however, history does not support their claim.

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion. This paper, long considered a landmark document in political philosophy, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman. The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly, and in 1786, the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom of which Jefferson and Madison were the principal architects. The preamble to this bill said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." The statute itself was much more specific than the establishment clause of the U. S. Constitution "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".

Realizing that whatever legislation an elected assembly passed can be later repealed, Jefferson ended the statute with a statement of contempt for any legislative body that would be so presumptuous "And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right" (emphasis added).

After George Washington's death, Christians made an intense effort to claim him as one of their own. This effort was based largely on the grounds that Washington had regularly attended services with his wife at an Episcopal Church and had served as a vestryman in the church. On August 13, 1835, a Colonel Mercer, involved in the effort, wrote to Bishop William White, who had been one of the rectors at the church Washington had attended. In the letter, Mercer asked if "Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all..." (John Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, p. 103). On August 15, 1835, White sent Mercer this reply

In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you (Remsberg, p. 104).

In his Annals of the American Pulpit, The Reverend William B. Sprague, D.D., wrote a biographical sketch of the Reverend James Abercrombie, the other pastor of the congregation Washington attended. In this work, Sprague quoted Abercrombie in confirmation of what White had written to Mercer

One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it "With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it" (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by Remsberg, pp. 104-105).

Abercrombie went on to explain that he had heard through a senator that Washington had discussed the reprimand with others and had told them that "as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station" (Ibid.). Abercrombie then said that Washington "never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday" (Ibid.).

Here is firsthand testimony from the rectors of the church that Washington attended with his wife, and they both claimed that he never participated in the communion service. Writing in the Episcopal Recorder, the Reverend E. D. Neill said that Washington "was not a communicant, notwithstanding all the pretty stories to the contrary, and after the close of the sermon on sacramental Sundays, [he] had fallen into the habit of retiring from the church while his wife remained and communed" (Remsberg, p. 107). In this article, Neill also made reference to Abercrombie's reprimand of Washington from the pulpit, so those who knew Washington personally or who knew those who had known him all seem to agree that Washington was never a "communicant." Remsberg continued at length in his chapter on Washington to quote the memoirs and letters of Washington's associates, who all agreed that the president had never once been known to participate in the communion service, a fact that weakens the claim that he was a Christian. Would preachers today consider someone a devout Christian if he just attended services with his wife but never took the communion?

As for Washington's membership in the vestry, for several years he did actively serve as one of the twelve vestrymen of Truro parish, Virginia, as had also his father. This, however, cannot be construed as proof that he was a Christian believer. The vestry at that time was also the county court, so in order to have certain political powers, it was necessary for one to be a vestryman. On this matter, Paul F. Boller made this observation

Actually, under the Anglican establishment in Virginia before the Revolution, the duties of a parish vestry were as much civil as religious in nature and it is not possible to deduce any exceptional religious zeal from the mere fact of membership.* Even Thomas Jefferson was a vestryman for a while. Consisting of the leading gentlemen of the parish in position and influence (many of whom, like Washington, were also at one time or other members of the County Court and of the House of Burgeses), the parish vestry, among other things, levied the parish taxes, handled poor relief, fixed land boundaries in the parish, supervised the construction, furnishing, and repairs of churches, and hired ministers and paid their salaries (George Washington & Religion, Dallas Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 26).

A footnote where the asterisk appears cited Meade as proof that avowed unbelievers sometimes served as vestrymen "As Bishop William Meade put it, somewhat nastily, in 1857, `Even Mr. Jefferson and [George] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence'" (William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1857, I, p. 191).

Clearly, then, one cannot assume from Washington's presence at church services and his membership in the Truro parish vestry that he was a Christian believer. Is there any other evidence to suggest that he was a Christian? The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, preached a sermon in October 1831 in which he stated that "among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism" (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, pp. 14-15). He went on to describe Washington as a "great and good man" but "not a professor of religion." Wilson said that he was "really a typical eighteenth century Deist, not a Christian, in his religious outlook" (Ibid.). Wilson wasn't just speaking about matters that he had not researched, because he had carefully investigated his subject before he preached this sermon. Among others, Wilson had inquired of the Reverend Abercrombie [identified earlier as the rector of the church Washington had attended] concerning Washing ton's religious views. Abercrombie's response was brief and to the point "Sir, Washington was a Deist" (Remsberg, p. 110). Those, then, who were best positioned to know Washington's private religious beliefs did not consider him a Christian, and the Reverend Abercrombie, who knew him personally and pastored the church he attended with his wife flatly said that Washington was a Deist.

The Reverend Bird Wilson, who was just a few years removed from being a contemporary of the so-called founding fathers, said further in the above-mentioned sermon that "the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson] _not a one had professed a belief in Christianity_" (Remsberg, p. 120, emphasis added).

Dr. Wilson's sermon, which was published in the Albany Daily Advertiser the month it was delivered also made an interesting observation that flatly contradicts the frantic efforts of present-day fundamentalists to make the "founding fathers" orthodox Christians

When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution. The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it.... There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory. Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity.... Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was not a professing Christian (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 120-121, emphasis added).

The publication of Wilson's sermon in the Daily Advertiser attracted the attention of Robert Owen, who then personally visited Wilson to discuss the matter of Washington's religious views. Owen summarized the results of that visit in a letter to Amos Gilbert dated November 13, 1831

I called last evening on Dr. Wilson, as I told you I should, and I have seldom derived more pleasure from a short interview with anyone. Unless my discernment of character has been grievously at fault, I met an honest man and sincere Christian. But you shall have the particulars. A gentleman of this city accompanied me to the Doctor's residence. We were very courteously received. I found him a tall, commanding figure, with a countenance of much benevolence, and a brow indicative of deep thought, apparently approaching fifty years of age. I opened the interview by stating that though personally a stranger to him, I had taken the liberty of calling in consequence of having perused an interesting sermon of his, which had been reported in the Daily Advertiser of this city, and regarding which, as he probably knew, a variety of opinions prevailed. In a discussion, in which I had taken a part, some of the facts as there reported had been questioned; and I wished to know from him whether the reporter had fairly given his words or not.... I then read to him from a copy of the Daily Advertiser the paragraph which regards Washington, beginning, "Washington was a man," etc. and ending, "absented himself altogether from the church." "I endorse," said Dr. Wilson, with emphasis, "every word of that. Nay, I do not wish to conceal from you any part of the truth, even what I have not given to the public. Dr. Abercrombie said more than I have repeated. At the close of our conversation on the subject his emphatic expression was--for I well remember the very words--`Sir, Washington was a Deist.'"

In concluding the interview, Dr. Wilson said "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges him self as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more" (Remsberg, pp. 121-122, emphasis added).

In February 1800, after Washington's death, Thomas Jefferson wrote this statement in his personal journal

Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice....

I know that Gouverneur Morris [principal drafter of the constitution], who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed him self to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did" (quoted in Remsberg, p. 123 from Jefferson's Works, Vol. 4, p. 572, emphasis added).

The "Asa" Green referred to by Jefferson was probably the Reverend Ashbel Green, who was chaplain to congress during Washington's administration. If so, he was certainly in a position to know the information that "Asa" Green had passed along to Jefferson. Reverend Ashbel Green became the president of Princeton College after serving eight years as the congressional chaplain. He was also a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a prominent figure in the colonial Presbyterian Church (Remsberg, p. 124). His testimony has to be given more weight than what modern day clerics may think about Washington's religious beliefs.

Dr. Moncure D. Conway, who was once employed to edit a volume of Washington's letters, wrote an article entitled "The Religion of Washington," from which Remsberg quoted the following

In editing a volume of Washington's private letters for the Long Island Historical Society, I have been much impressed by indications that this great historic personality represented the Liberal religious tendency of his time. That tendency was to respect religious organizations as part of the social order, which required some minister to visit the sick, bury the dead, and perform marriages. It was considered in nowise inconsistent with disbelief of the clergyman's doctrines to contribute to his support, or even to be a vestryman in his church.

In his many letters to his adopted nephew and younger relatives, he admonishes them about their manners and morals, but in no case have I been able to discover any suggestion that they should read the Bible, keep the Sabbath, go to church, or any warning against Infidelity.

Washington had in his library the writings of Paine, Priestley, Voltaire, Frederick the Great, and other heretical works (pp. 128-129, emphasis added).

In a separate submission to the New York Times, Conway said that "Washington, like most scholarly Virginians of his time, was a Deist.... Contemporary evidence shows that in mature life Washington was a Deist, and did not commune, which is quite consistent with his being a vestryman. In England, where vestries have secular functions, it is not unusual for Unitarians to vestrymen, there being no doctrinal subscription required for that office. Washington's letters during the Revolution occasionally indicate his recognition of the hand of Providence in notable public events, but in the thousands of his letters I have never been able to find the name of or any reference to him" (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 129-130, emphasis added).

The absence of Christian references in Washington's personal papers and conversation was noted by historian Clinton Rossiter

The last and least skeptical of these rationalists [Washington] loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the "Great Author," "Almighty Being," "invisible hand," and "benign parent of the human race," but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word "God" ("The United States in 1787," 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W, W, Norton & Co., 1987, p. 36).

These terms by which Washington referred to "God" in his inaugural address are dead giveaways that he was Deistic in his views. The uninformed see the expression "nature's God" in documents like the Declaration of Independence and wrongly interpret it as evidence of Christian belief in those who wrote and signed it, but in reality it is a sure indication that the document was Deistic in origin. Deists preferred not to use the unqualified term "God" in their conversation and writings because of its Christian connotations. Accordingly, they substituted expressions like those that Washington used in his inaugural address or else they referred to their creator as "nature's God," the deity who had created the world and then left it to operate by natural law.

Moncure Conway also stated that "(t)here is no evidence to show that Washington, even in early life, was a believer in Christianity" (Ibid.). Remsberg also noted that Conway stated that Washington's father had been a Deist and that his mother "was not excessively religious" (Ibid.).

Christians have often claimed that most non-Christians make death-bed professions of faith when they realize that they are dying. These claims almost always turn out to be unverifiable assertions, but Conway made it very clear that Washington, even on his death bed, made no profession of faith

When the end was near, Washington said to a physician present--an ancestor of the writer of these notes--"I am not afraid to go." With his right fingers on his left wrist he counted his own pulses, which beat his funeral march to the grave. "He bore his distress," so next day wrote one present, "with astonishing fortitude, and conscious, as he declared, several hours before his death, of his approaching dissolution, he resigned his breath with the greatest composure, having the full possession of his reason to the last moment." Mrs. Washington knelt beside his bed, but no word passed on religious matters. With the sublime taciturnity which had marked his life he passed out of existence, leaving no act or word which can be turned to the service of superstition, cant, or bigotry" (quoted by Remsberg, pp. 132-133, emphasis added).

Some Christians were of course involved in the shaping of our nation, but their influence was minor compared to the ideological contributions of the Deists who pressed for the formation of a secular nation. In describing the composition of the delegations to the constitutional convention, the historian Clinton Rossiter said this about their religious views

Whatever else it might turn out to be, the Convention would not be a `Barebone's Parliament.' Although it had its share of strenuous Christians like Strong and Bassett, ex-preachers like Baldwin and Williamson, and theologians like Johnson and Ellsworth, the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country--the New Englanders Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, the Southerners Episcopalians, and the men of the Middle States everything from backsliding Quakers to stubborn Catholics--and most were men who could take their religion or leave it along. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim that his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit" ("The Men of Philadelphia," 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W. W. Norton & Company, 1987, pp. 147-148, emphasis added).

Needless to say, this view of the religious beliefs of the constitutional delegates differs radically from the picture that is often painted by modern fundamentalist leaders.

At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a Maryland representative urged the inclusion of some kind of recognition of Christianity in the constitution on the grounds that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." How ever, the delegates to the convention rejected this proposal and, as the Reverend Bird Wilson stated in his sermon quoted above, drafted the constitution as a secular document. God was nowhere mentioned in it.

As a matter of fact, the document that was finally approved at the constitutional convention mentioned religion only once, and that was in Article VI, Section 3, which stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Now if the delegates at the convention had truly intended to establish a "Christian nation," why would they have put a statement like this in the constitution and nowhere else even refer to religion? Common sense is enough to convince any reasonable person that if the intention of these men had really been the formation of a "Christian nation," the constitution they wrote would have surely made several references to God, the Bible, , and other accouterments of the Christian religion, and rather than expressly forbidding ANY religious test as a condition for holding public office in the new nation, it would have stipulated that allegiance to Christianity was a requirement for public office. After all, when someone today finds a tract left at the front door of his house or on the windshield of his car, he doesn't have to read very far to determine that its obvious intention is to further the Christian religion. Are we to assume, then, that the founding fathers wanted to establish a Christian nation but were so stupid that they couldn't write a constitution that would make their purpose clear to those who read it?

Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365). This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."

Confronted with evidence like the foregoing, diehard fundamentalists will argue that even if the so-called founding fathers did not purposefully establish a Christian nation our country was founded by people looking for religious liberty, and our population has always been overwhelmingly Christian, but even these points are more dubious than most Christian-nation advocates dare suspect. Admittedly, some colonists did come to America in search of religious freedom, but the majority were driven by monetary motives. They simply wanted to improve their economic status. In New England, where the quest for religious freedom had been a strong motive for leaving the Old World, the colonists quickly established governments that were just as intolerant, if not more so, of religious dissent than what they had fled from in Europe. Quakers were exiled and then executed if they returned, and "witches," condemned on flimsy spectral evidence, were hanged. This is hardly a part of our past that modern fundamentalists can point to as a model to be emulated, although their rhetoric often gives cause to wonder if this isn't exactly what they want today.

As for the religious beliefs of the general population in pre and post revolutionary times, it wasn't nearly as Christian as most people think. Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) has admitted that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian. "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81). Historian Richard Hofstadter says that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89). Historian James MacGregor Burns agrees with these figures, noting that "(t)here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution" (The American Experiment Vineyard of Liberty, New York Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493). He adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."

Historians, who deal with facts rather than wishes, paint an entirely different picture of the religious composition of America during its formative years than the image of a nation founded on "biblical principles" that modern Bible fundamentalists are trying to foist upon us. Our founding fathers established a religiously neutral nation, and a tragedy of our time is that so many people are striving to undo all that was accomplished by the wisdom of the founding fathers who framed for us a constitution that would protect the religious freedom of everyone regardless of personal creed. An even greater tragedy is that they many times hoodwink the public into believing that they are only trying to make our nation what the founding fathers would want it to be. Separation of church and state is what the founding fathers wanted for the nation, and we must never allow anyone to distort history to make it appear otherwise.

[ScipioCowboy]

nobody seems to be taking up the mantle on that one.

wonder why that is?

Because there's no answer simple or succint enough to lend itself to the message board medium. Many of you thrive on sound bytes and political talking points, but this is a complex political and social issue with which societies have been grappling for centuries.

Any google search would produce a myriad of psychologists and other educated persons who believe homosexuality is a harmful practice to the individual.

Your question depends entirely upon one's own definition of "hurting society."

For instance, our society frowns upon polygamy and pedophilia. Yet, historically, many societies have embraced practices that we would consider pedophilic or polygamistic, and their citizens were no more or less maladjusted than ours.

Ultimately, it all comes down to your own personal definition of morality, and I believe homosexuality is immoral. And although I respect a person's right to have a homosexual relationship, I don't believe the government should recognize it.

Let the name calling commence.:D

[theogt]

Because there's no answer simple or succint enough to lend itself to the message board medium. Many of you thrive on sound bytes and political talking points, but this is a complex political and social issue with which societies have been grappling for centuries.

Any google search would produce a myriad of psychologists and other educated persons who believe homosexuality is a harmful practice to the individual.

Your question depends entirely upon one's own definition of "hurting society."

For instance, our society frowns upon polygamy and pedophilia. Yet, historically, many societies have embraced practices that we would consider pedophilic or polygamistic, and their citizens were no more or less maladjusted than ours.

Ultimately, it all comes down to your own personal definition of morality, and I believe homosexuality is immoral. And although I respect a person's right to have a homosexual relationship, I don't believe the government should recognize it.

Let the name calling commence.:DSo let me get this straight. You think it hurts society because it's immoral?

[ScipioCowboy]

So let me get this straight. You think it hurts society because it's immoral?

I believe immoral behavior does have a negative impact on society.

That's not to say, however, that I believe any immoral behavior is necessarily fatal to society.

Now, let me ask you a question: Do you think the government should condone "immoral" behavior?

[Sasquatch]

Ultimately, it all comes down to your own personal definition of morality, and I believe homosexuality is immoral. And although I respect a person's right to have a homosexual relationship, I don't believe the government should recognize it.

After all that, it boils down to denying homosexuals access to marriage and its attendant legal benefits because you find it distasteful and morally objectionable. And on that highly subjective basis, you're willing to deny them access to certain legal rights, relegating them to second class status even while many heterosexuals to whom you're willing to grant these rights are adulterers, abusive, and otherwise immoral. Your position is totally arbitrary and not particularlly compelling.

BPs post a while back was spot on despite all the subsequent verbosity.

[AbeBeta]

Ultimately, it all comes down to your own personal definition of morality, and I believe homosexuality is immoral. And although I respect a person's right to have a homosexual relationship, I don't believe the government should recognize it.

Let the name calling commence.:D

So your "personal" definition should reflect what the government does?

Gee, I thought this was some deep issue with you about equal protection.

You prove the point suggested over and over in this thread. Rhetorical gymnastics made necessary to protect your personal - and in my opinion arcane -- beliefs about homosexuality and those who practice it.

[ScipioCowboy]

After all that, it boils down to denying homosexuals access to marriage and its attendant legal benefits because you find it distasteful and morally objectionable. And on that highly subjective basis, you're willing to deny them access to certain legal rights, relegating them to second class status even while many heterosexuals to whom you're willing to grant these rights are adulterers, abusive, and otherwise immoral. Your position is totally arbitrary and not particularlly compelling.


Incorrect.

If someone commits adultry, I believe his or her marriage benefits should be revoked.

And your hyperbole simply doesn't stand up. I don't know a single homosexual who's a second class citizen or who feels like a second class citizen, and I know quite a few.

[ScipioCowboy]

So your "personal" definition should reflect what the government does?

Many laws come down to a personal view of right and wrong--bigamy laws, anti-drug laws, suicide laws.

This is certainly nothing specific to me.;)

Gee, I thought this was some deep issue with you about equal protection.

No. The equal protection issue related to an entirely different point. Go back and read my initial entry on this thread. You'll see.

[Sasquatch]

Incorrect.

If someone commits adultry, I believe his or her marriage benefits should be revoked.

And your hyperbole simply doesn't stand up. I don't know a single homosexual who's a second class citizen or who feels like a second class citizen, and I know quite a few.

Are you associated with a poster named Aikbach by any chance? You two have a lot in common both in terms of your style and ideology.

I stand corrected. What is it that you're after, then, a Puritan republic? There have been those in the past. They tend not to stand the test of the time because people weary of the sanctimonious intolerance masquerading as moral uprightness.

I suppose since you know a few homosexuals that are perfectly content not having the same legal rights as heterosexuals ...

[Vintage]

Incorrect.

If someone commits adultry, I believe his or her marriage benefits should be revoked.

And your hyperbole simply doesn't stand up. I don't know a single homosexual who's a second class citizen or who feels like a second class citizen, and I know quite a few.

Do you tell them they are immoral?

Just curious...

[ScipioCowboy]

Are you associated with a poster named Aikbach by any chance? You two have a lot in common both in terms of your style and ideology.

I stand corrected. What is it that you're after, then,

Intellectual honesty.

a Puritan republic? There have been those in the past. They tend not to stand the test of the time because people weary of the sanctimonious intolerance masquerading as moral uprightness.

Similarly, I'm sickened by smug elitism, empty narratives, and facile attempts to monopolize rational thought veiled behind secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism.

So, if you really think about it, we do have something in common.:D

I suppose since you know a few homosexuals that are perfectly content not having the same legal rights as heterosexuals ...

Once again, this goes right back to the equal protection issue we threw around last night.

[ScipioCowboy]

Do you tell them they are immoral?

Just curious...

I'm completely forthright about my beliefs, but I also explain that we're all sinners; we all commit immoral acts.

[Vintage]

I'm completely forthright about my beliefs, but I also explain that we're all sinners; we all commit immoral acts.

You ever ask someone who is homosexual if its a choice?

And if so, how do they respond?

I expect a lie. Its ok.


edit: Or I suspect you'll say they are lying.

[Sasquatch]

Similarly, I'm sickened by smug elitism, empty narratives, and facile attempts to monopolize rational thought veiled behind secular humanism and metaphysical naturalism.

No one here is monopolizing rational thought. You are choosing to eschew reason and base your position on prejudice instead. All your rhetoric can't conceal that essential fact.

[ScipioCowboy]

You ever ask someone who is homosexual if its a choice?

And if so, how do they respond?

I expect a lie. Its ok.


edit: Or I suspect you'll say they are lying.

Many people are predisposed to certain activities--pedophilia, murder, alcholism, drug abuse, etc--that are either illegal or ultimately self-destructive.

The prevailing opinion on homosexuality is that it's brought about by a myriad of factors.

[ScipioCowboy]

No one here is monopolizing rational thought. You are choosing to eschew reason and base your position on prejudice instead. All your rhetoric can't conceal that essential fact.

I don't eschew reason; I merely reject the rational world narrative, which does represent an attempt to monopolize because it rejects teleological positions.

May recommend a book? Rhetoric of Science, by Alan Gross. Fascinating read.

[Sasquatch]

I don't eschew reason; I merely reject the rational world narrative, which does represent an attempt to monopolize because it rejects teleological positions.

May recommend a book? Rhetoric of Science, by Alan Gross. Fascinating read.

I'll put it on the list.

My I recommend one? The Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche. :D

[Vintage]

There is a South Park episode where Butters proclaims

"My name is Butters, I'm eight years old, I'm blood type O, and I'm bicurious. And that's OK, because if I'm somehow made from God, then I figure that God must be at least a little bicurious himself."

[heavyg]

Again I have had this same conversation over and over on internet forums. There is no way for one side to change the other sides opinion of it. It does however make time pass by awefull fast.....lol........But in the end we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

But as I said in an earlier post I think the argument could be ended once and for all by just allowing the country vote on it and be done. I do not think it should be left up to some court to decide. Let the people decide.

[theogt]

I believe immoral behavior does have a negative impact on society.

That's not to say, however, that I believe any immoral behavior is necessarily fatal to society.

Now, let me ask you a question: Do you think the government should condone "immoral" behavior?I don't think any legislation should be based on morality alone, no.

[Sasquatch]

Iit rejects teleological positions.

And what teleological narrative are you basing your position upon exactly? Tell us this intellectually compelling story that is the equal of secular humanism and naturalistic science.

Morality, as you've so eloquently established, is conventional, historically situated, relative, and oftentimes personal. So on what grounds do you condone granting government the right to impose a particularistic moral code on a society containing a significant population that believes otherwise?

Sounds to me that you envision government as an instrument to fashion a people according to certain preconceived notions rather than as an expression of that people as it actually is. That works both ways, you know.

[ScipioCowboy]

I'll put it on the list.

My I recommend one? The Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche. :D

I've read it. I took existentialist philosophy. I took quite a bit from Nietzsche...though likely not what he expected me to take.;)

I much preferred Kierkegaard.

[ScipioCowboy]

And what teleological narrative are you basing your position upon exactly? Tell us this intellectually compelling story that is the equal of secular humanism and naturalistic science.

The narrative is only in scientific naturalism's inability to address and subsequent rejection of teleological issues, such as the meaning of being, higher purpose, and righteous (though not necessarily Christian) living.

Virtually every human grapples with these questions.

Secular humanism would posit that such questions should be addressed personally, but then hypocritically rejects any answers that might pose a threat to science's monopoly on reason.

As postmodernism has argued with some level of success, science is just another "way of knowing," and there are other equally valid ways of knowing.

You should understand that I'm not anti-science by any stretch of the imagination. I love astronomy, and had the necessary hours for an astronomy minor. I merely acknowledge that science has some rather prominent limitations and its own set of dogma. Scientific knowledge relies far more on rhetoric and consensus of opinion than our society is willing to acknowledge.

Morality, as you've so eloquently established, is conventional, historically situated, relative, and oftentimes personal.

Man's morality is transient. God's morality is not.

Ironically, however, a person's behavior is almost always motivated by some absolute sense of right and wrong. Therefore, although our moralities may differ, we all acknowledge (either consciously or subconsciously) that absolute right and wrong are very real and unavoidable concepts.

So on what grounds do you condone granting government the right to impose a particularistic moral code on a society containing a significant population that believes otherwise?

Governments by nature impose moral codes, and truthfully, refusing legal recognition to gay unions is no more particularistic than outlawing marijuana usage or polygamy.

Sounds to me that you envision government as an instrument to fashion a people according to certain preconceived notions rather than as an expression of that people as it actually is.

This is what all governments do. Laws are about coercing people to act in a certain way.

[Sasquatch]

The narrative is only in scientific naturalism's inability to address and subsequent rejection of teleological issues, such as the meaning of being, higher purpose, and righteous (though not necessarily Christian) living.

Virtually every human grapples with these questions.

Secular humanism would posit that such questions should be addressed personally, but then hypocritically rejects any answers that might pose a threat to science's monopoly on reason.

As postmodernism has argued with some level of success, science is just another "way of knowing," and there are other equally valid ways of knowing.

You should understand that I'm not anti-science by any stretch of the imagination. I love astronomy, and had the necessary hours for an astronomy minor. I merely acknowledge that science has some rather prominent limitations and its own set of dogma. Scientific knowledge relies far more on rhetoric and consensus of opinion than our society is willing to acknowledge.



Man's morality is transient. God's morality is not.

Ironically, however, a person's behavior is almost always motivated by some absolute sense of right and wrong. Therefore, although our moralities may differ, we all acknowledge (either consciously or subconsciously) that absolute right and wrong are very real and unavoidable concepts.



Governments by nature impose moral codes, and truthfully, refusing legal recognition to gay unions is no more particularistic than outlawing marijuana usage or polygamy.



This is what all governments do. Laws are about coercing people to act in a certain way.

Still waiting for your meta-narrative. You hint at it, lump it in together with teleology in general, but never quite come out and state explicitly its general contours. It's a simple question, really. Please share with us the story that informs your views on homosexuality, unencumbered by academic jargon. The abridged version will suffice.

[heavyg]

Still waiting for your meta-narrative. You hint at it, lump it in together with teleology in general, but never quite come out and state explicitly its general contours. It's a simple question, really. Please share with us the story that informs your views on homosexuality, unencumbered by academic jargon. The abridged version will suffice.

I know your question was not directed at me. But what exactly are you asking him to do or explain? Excuse my ignorance but I have no idea what your talking about :-D

[ScipioCowboy]

Still waiting for your meta-narrative. You hint at it, lump it in together with teleology in general, but never quite come out and state explicitly its general contours. It's a simple question, really. Please share with us the story that informs your views on homosexuality, unencumbered by academic jargon. The abridged version will suffice.

I gave you the abridged version eariler in a highly succinct two words: intellectual honesty.

[Sasquatch]

I know your question was not directed at me. But what exactly are you asking him to do or explain? Excuse my ignorance but I have no idea what your talking about :-D

I'm in a hurry but I'll try to explain my understanding of the term metanarrative and how it applies to this discussion. Mind you, this is taking me way back, so I could be wrong.

Metanarrative or "grand narrative" merely means the overarching story or frame of reference that informs the way your perceive reality and knowledge.

The grand narrative of classical science is that reality can be perceived and comprehended with our knowledge steadily approaching truth over time in an asymptotic line with human beings becoming freer, more prosperous, and happier as a result of scientific advancements. Point A leads to point B lead to point C which more closely approximates realty/truth than point A.

That particular notion of science has been effectively problematized by philosophers, historians of science, and scientists themselves.

I'm just wondering what his grand narrative is.

[Sasquatch]

I gave you the abridged version eariler in a highly succinct two words: intellectual honesty.

Intellectual honesty isn't a narrative and your trying to pass it off as such suggests that you don't value it as much as you claim.

A teleological narrative, if we strip away all the jargon and digressions, is quite simply a story with a discernible beginning, end, and plot.

[Cajuncowboy]

Ok then, how does it hurt someone?

An employer is hurt by it. If someone is in a same sex union and they are by law forced to pay for their insurance under their benefits package, the insurance for that "couple" is higher. That's one way it hurts.

[ScipioCowboy]

I'm in a hurry but I'll try to explain my understanding of the term metanarrative and how it applies to this discussion. Mind you, this is taking me way back, so I could be wrong.

Metanarrative or "grand narrative" merely means the overarching story or frame of reference that informs the way your perceive reality and knowledge.

The grand narrative of classical science is that reality can be perceived and comprehended with our knowledge steadily approaching truth over time in an asymptotic line with human beings becoming freer, more prosperous, and happier as a result of scientific advancements. Point A leads to point B lead to point C which more closely approximates realty/truth than point A.

That particular notion of science has been effectively problematized by philosophers, historians of science, and scientists themselves.


This is absolutely correct.

Obviously, one problem of the rational world metanarrative lies in the definitions of freedom, prosperous, and happiness. They aren't consistent from culture to culture.

Also, some versions of this narrative hold that these advances should be attributed almost exclusively to science when, in reality, it's a combination of factors, some of which are not scientific at all, such as purely social pressures.

[ScipioCowboy]

Intellectual honesty isn't a narrative and your trying to pass it off as such suggests that you don't value it as much as you claim.

A teleological narrative, if we strip away all the jargon and digressions, is quite simply a story with a discernible beginning, end, and plot.

In postmodernism, narritive forms are innate to everything. I simply mean a society in which we're all forthright about our ultimate intentions. That's a start.

[zrinkill]

In postmodernism, narritive forms are innate to everything. I simply mean a society in which we're all forthright about our ultimate intentions. That's a start.

barking up the wrong tree asking that from Sassy.

[Sasquatch]

In postmodernism, narritive forms are innate to everything. I simply mean a society in which we're all forthright about our ultimate intentions. That's a start.

Yes, but we're talking about a specific type of narrative. Teleology presupposes a purposeful linear progression from beginning to end, e.g. history has an ultimate purpose to which it inexorably leads.

Intellectual honesty. Forthrightness. Very high-minded, yet here I am asking you again to disclose in direct and accessible terms the story that informs your views on homosexuality.

[windward]

An employer is hurt by it. If someone is in a same sex union and they are by law forced to pay for their insurance under their benefits package, the insurance for that "couple" is higher. That's one way it hurts.
so, same-sex marriage or reciprocal benefits would hurt an employer just as much as a regular marriage? Sorry, but this argument won't wash with me.
In this scenario, heterosexual marriage has just as much of an economic cost per couple as a same-sex couple.

[heavyg]

What is so wrong with putting this issue on a ballot and letting the American people vote on it once and for all. Instead of letting some activist judge make the decision?

[zrinkill]

so, same-sex marriage or reciprocal benefits would hurt an employer just as much as a regular marriage? Sorry, but this argument won't wash with me.
In this scenario, heterosexual marriage has just as much of an economic cost per couple as a same-sex couple.

How much does Aids treatment cost? .....


Oh crap! Went to far!!!!!

:eek:

:p:

[ScipioCowboy]

Yes, but we're talking about a specific type of narrative. Teleology presupposes a purposeful linear progression from beginning to end, e.g. history has an ultimate purpose to which it inexorably leads.

And as you so eloquently put forth, scientific naturalism has precisely the same narrative of "puposeful linear progression"...even if the end involves the eventual burn out of the universe.

Scientific findings would seem to point to a linear progression of events: Our universe had a definite beginning (a notion that most atheists rejected until the last century) in the Big Bang, and our universe will have a definite end--a great crunch or a great burnout.

Intellectual honesty. Forthrightness. Very high-minded, yet here I am asking you again to disclose in direct and accessible terms the story that informs your views on homosexuality.

I've explained my stance on homosexuality in very accessible terms.

[Sasquatch]

And as you so eloquently put forth, scientific naturalism has precisely the same narrative of "puposeful linear progression"...even if the end involves the eventual burn out of the universe.

Scientific findings would seem to point to a linear progression of events: Our universe had a definite beginning (a notion that most atheists rejected until the last century) in the Big Bang, and our universe will have a definite end--a great crunch or a great burnout.



I've explained my stance on homosexuality in very accessible terms.

Classical science. Contemporary science and humanistic philosophy are a little more sophisticated. I mean, your critique of the naturalistic narrative of science had to come from somewhere.

Interesting that you refuse to share this narrative that supposedly rivals humanism. I suppose it will have to remain a ... mystery. ;)

[ScipioCowboy]

Classical science. Contemporary science and humanistic philosophy are a little more sophisticated. I mean, your critique of the naturalistic narrative of science had to come from somewhere.

There's simply a level of detail into which I can't delve due to the restictions of the message board medium.

Interesting that you refuse to share this narrative that supposedly rivals humanism. I suppose it will have to remain a ... mystery. ;)

It's apparent that your perception of a narrative is different from (not inferior to) mine.

How would you like me to explain it to you?

Shall I start with man's fall from Grace?:p:

[Sasquatch]

You will get every other argument under the sun from them, but it boils down to religious belief.

:hammer:

[heavyg]

:hammer:

My argument has always been based on my religious beliefs

[ConcordCowboy]

An employer is hurt by it. If someone is in a same sex union and they are by law forced to pay for their insurance under their benefits package, the insurance for that "couple" is higher. That's one way it hurts.

It would be no different than a man getting married and adding on his wife to his insurance.

Will the insurance cost more...yes...but it would irregardless of whether the partner is homo or hetero.

[rbr651]

Most will quote their religion as a reason they are agains it however I don't. Try this one on for size and see if you agree, 2 consenting adults right????

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/witaly107.xml

[zrinkill]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/witaly107.xml

WOW :eek:

I cannot believe William Shatner never watched Star Trek.

[vta]

:hammer:

Well allow me to contradict this. My religious beliefs do not inform me of how I percieve others, because I know they hold different beliefs and I won't hold mine in a position of inferior or superior.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty of this:
For the most part, homosexuality=anal sex.

Religious considerations aside, the very act is exceedingly repulsive. I, a man, have no desire to do it with a woman. I have the classical option of the vagina, homosexual men do not. You can go on about oral, but let's not be naive.

Partaking in a very filthy act. I don't judge people who do, in fact I'm related to, work with and love some people who do in fact live this lifestyle.

It doesn't always boil down to religion, anymore than my dissapointment for the fool who throws his life away for something as stupid as excessive drug use.

There has to be a fundamnetal flaw in a human that believes, the part of the body dealing primarily with the worst of human waste and has no errogenous zones is the place to be for sexual pleasure. Does their habit harm others? I don't know. Is it filthy? Yes indeed.

Along with that, but aside from the want to enjoy marital benefits, the need to have oneself defined by something as trivial as what they do in bed is shallow indeed.

The first step to equality is to allow yourself to be characterized by something better than simply how you behave in the very few instances of your life, when engaged in sex. Let's face it, unless it's our job, most of us spend a lot less time having sex than we do working, playing at other things, etc,
and that act alone is what separates us. Not how we love or how we treat others or how we work.

[zrinkill]

Well allow me to contradict this. My religious beliefs do not inform me of how I percieve others, because I know they hold different beliefs and I won't hold mine in a position of inferior or superior.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty of this:
For the most part, homosexuality=anal sex.

Religious considerations aside, the very act is exceedingly repulsive. I, a man, have no desire to do it with a woman. I have the classical option of the vagina, homosexual men do not. You can go on about oral, but let's not be naive.

Partaking in a very filthy act. I don't judge people who do, in fact I'm related to, work with and love some people who do in fact live this lifestyle.

It doesn't always boil down to religion, anymore than my dissapointment for the fool who throws his life away for something as stupid as excessive drug use.

There has to be a fundamnetal flaw in a human that believes, the part of the body dealing primarily with the worst of human waste and has no errogenous zones is the place to be for sexual pleasure. Does their habit harm others? I don't know. Is it filthy? Yes indeed.

Along with that, but aside from the want to enjoy marital benefits, the need to have oneself defined by something as trivial as what they do in bed is shallow indeed.

The first step to equality is to allow yourself to be characterized by something better than simply how you behave in the very few instances of your life, when engaged in sex. Let's face it, unless it's our job, most of us spend a lot less time having sex than we do working, playing at other things, etc,
and that act alone is what separates us. Not how we love or how we treat others or how we work.

:hammer:

[ScipioCowboy]

Brainpaint

No one has ever denied that, and I've said it several times myself.

My argument is that all laws represent the imposition of beliefs, and beliefs imposed on purely personal or secular grounds are no less or more valid than beliefs imposed on religious grounds.

Laws are inherently tools of conformance, regardless of their basis. I explained that to Brainpaint days ago, and he accused me of simply agreeing with him.;)

[Sasquatch]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty of this:
For the most part, homosexuality=anal sex.

There is an island called Lesbos where it is reputed that women ... ;)

[zrinkill]

There is an island called Lesbos where it is reputed that women ... ;)

Oh!! Scissor me timbers!

[vta]

There is an island called Lesbos where it is reputed that women ... ;)

:lmao2:

I know that, but homsexual encompasses all... unfortunately.

[vta]

Scissor me timbers!

:lmao: :lmao:

[Sasquatch]

My argument is that all laws represent the imposition of beliefs, and beliefs imposed on purely personal or secular grounds are no less or more valid than beliefs imposed on religious grounds.

When you put it like that it all sounds perfectly rational as if the two are in fact equally valid.

But what it really amounts to is relegating a certain group of people to second-class status (that's right, I said it again despite your friends' evident contentment with not having access to legal rights attending marriage) for no other reason than an omnipotent being living in the clouds that threatens you with eternal damnation if you don't abide by his rules told you so.

Forgive me if I don't find that a particularly compelling reason to marginalize these people legally.

[AbeBeta]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty of this:
For the most part, homosexuality=anal sex.


Funny, at least half of homosexuals are lesbians.

Yet you paint them with the same brush? So because gay men have anal sex, you want to deny rights to lesbians. Many heterosexuals engage in this practice as well.


There has to be a fundamnetal flaw in a human that believes, the part of the body dealing primarily with the worst of human waste and has no errogenous zones is the place to be for sexual pleasure.

That's incorrect -- the anus has a high number of nerve endings and is considered by most scientists to be an erogenous zone. And buddy, in case you don't know what goes on down there, the "lady business" deals with some nasty waste products as well

[Sasquatch]

Funny, at least half of homosexuals are lesbians.

Yet you paint them with the same brush? So because gay men have anal sex, you want to deny rights to lesbians. Many heterosexuals engage in this practice as well.




That's incorrect -- the anus has a high number of nerve endings and is considered by most scientists to be an erogenous zone. And buddy, in case you don't know what goes on down there, the "lady business" deals with some nasty waste products as well

Someone has never had his prostate stimulated. We mock what we don't understand. ;)

[zrinkill]

Someone has never had his prostate stimulated. We mock what we don't understand. ;)


This thread is getting weirder and weirder.

[ScipioCowboy]

When you put it like that it all sounds perfectly rational as if the two are in fact equally valid.

But what it really amounts to is relegating a certain group of people to second-class status (that's right, I said it again despite your friends' evident contentment with not having access to legal rights attending marriage) for no other reason than an omnipotent being living in the clouds that threatens you with eternal damnation if you don't abide by his rules told you so.

Similarly, I find it ridiculous when secular humanists and scientific naturalists outright reject any teleological research--a methodology that has proven its intellectual worth time and time again--that might threaten their imagined monopoly on reason. Secular humanism and the rational world narrative are just as exclusive as anything religion ever devised.

I also have severe issues with those who would argue that a person has the right to marry whomever and however he or she sees fit, and then deny those rights to polygamists and other unions that exceed two people. This hearkens back to my intellectual honesty point.

And I've made absolutely no reference to eternal damnation. I won't speak to anyone's fate in the afterlife because it's not my judgement to make.

[zrinkill]

So let me sum up this thread

Vintage things God is a little bi-curious

Scipio does not like teleological positions

Sassy finds him very intellectually compelling

heavyg has no idea what your talking about but wants to vote on it

Cajun thinks same sex hurts the employer

Windward thinks same sex couples cost to much

Scipio's homosexual stance is very accessible

zrinkill cannot believe William shatner never watches star trek

Sassy dreams of an island of Lesbo's

zrinkill wants his scissors timbered

VTA thinks homosexuality encompasses all

Abersonc thinks half the homosexuals are funny lesbians

Sassy like his prostate stimulated


Is that it?

Wow ..... this thread is gay ..... (whoops) :cool:

[Cajuncowboy]

so, same-sex marriage or reciprocal benefits would hurt an employer just as much as a regular marriage? Sorry, but this argument won't wash with me.
In this scenario, heterosexual marriage has just as much of an economic cost per couple as a same-sex couple.

Whatever but it's true. Ask anyone who employs an openly gay person who has a "domestic partner".

[Sasquatch]

Similarly, I find it ridiculous when secular humanists and scientific naturalists outright reject any teleological research--a methodology that has proven its intellectual worth time and time again--that might threaten their imagined monopoly on reason. Secular humanism and the rational world narrative are just as exclusive as anything religion ever devised.

I also have severe issues with those who would argue that a person has the right to marry whomever and however he or she sees fit, and then deny those rights to polygamists and other unions that exceed two people. This hearkens back to my intellectual honesty point.

And I've made absolutely no reference to eternal damnation. I won't speak to anyone's fate in the afterlife because it's not my judgement to make.

You mentioned "fall from grace." That implies a whole theology that entails salvation and damnation. Feel free to correct me. I readily admit that I was making an inference. But you refused on several occasions to state the basis for your position clearly.

Among all the posters on this issue, you have been the most intellectually dishonest, as you've tried to cloak your religious bias in legalese and the language of post-modern literary criticism when your position ultimately boils down to a religious text telling you that homosexuality is bad and sinful. Does the Bible further stipulate that sinful individuals should be denied worldly political rights?

You're entitled to your religious views although I personally do not believe them to be a particularly compelling basis for making public policy in this day and age. And it certainly isn't the rational equivalent of arguments in favor of equality, the social stability provided by a familial structure, possibility of reducing the incidence of stds, etc.

By the way, Kierkegaard also thinks that secular politics and religion should be separate. It diminishes the spiritual content of religion to involve itself in such worldly affairs. Looks like Nietzsche is not the only one who failed to get through to you. :D

[Sasquatch]

So let me sum up this thread

Vintage things God is a little bi-curious

Scipio does not like teleological positions

Sassy finds him very intellectually compelling

heavyg has no idea what your talking about but wants to vote on it

Cajun thinks same sex hurts the employer

Windward thinks same sex couples cost to much

Scipio's homosexual stance is very accessible

zrinkill cannot believe William shatner never watches star trek

Sassy dreams of an island of Lesbo's

zrinkill wants his scissors timbered

VTA thinks homosexuality encompasses all

Abersonc thinks half the homosexuals are funny lesbians

Sassy like his prostate stimulated


Is that it?

Wow ..... this thread is gay ..... (whoops) :cool:

We've had our disagreements and will no doubt continue to butt heads but I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that you have been very, very funny lately. Murdoch, Shatner, and now this. Excellent synopsis.

[vta]

Funny, at least half of homosexuals are lesbians.

Yet you paint them with the same brush? So because gay men have anal sex, you want to deny rights to lesbians. Many heterosexuals engage in this practice as well.

The sooner you stop putting words in my mouth the better. I kept away from the marital rights aspect in that particular instance and even mentioned earlier that our is a society that is evolving and is open to change.

Have any hard data on the lesbo, gay man ratio?

That's incorrect -- the anus has a high number of nerve endings and is considered by most scientists to be an erogenous zone. And buddy, in case you don't know what goes on down there, the "lady business" deals with some nasty waste products as well

Speaking of broad brushes... [i]some[/] scientists'?
And unlike the furry ones assertion, I have had a DRE and nearly hit the roof.

[AbeBeta]

Have any hard data on the lesbo, gay man ratio?


From the National Survey of Family Growth (2002)

"In response to a question that asked, “Do you think of yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or something else?” 90 percent of men 18-44 years of age responded that they think of themselves as heterosexual, 2.3 percent of men answered homosexual, 1.8 percent bisexual, 3.9 percent “something else,” and 1.8 percent did not answer the question (figure 8). Percents for women were similar."


Speaking of broad brushes... [i]some[/] scientists'?
And unlike the furry ones assertion, I have had a DRE and nearly hit the roof.

From the very middle of the road discovery health page:
http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/erogenous.html

"The anus, rectum and buttocks are also potentially erogenous zones. The anus is highly sensitive to touch and the insertion of a finger, object or penis in the anus and rectum is part of some people's sexual activity."

[Mavs Man]

So let me sum up this thread

<snip>

Is that it?

Wow ..... this thread is gay ..... (whoops) :cool:

:laugh2:

Now that was funny.

[iceberg]

So let me sum up this thread

...

Sassy dreams of an island of Lesbo's
...


really? holy hell, now i have to re-evaluate my entire reality...

[vta]

From the National Survey of Family Growth (2002)

"In response to a question that asked, “Do you think of yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or something else?” 90 percent of men 18-44 years of age responded that they think of themselves as heterosexual, 2.3 percent of men answered homosexual, 1.8 percent bisexual, 3.9 percent “something else,” and 1.8 percent did not answer the question (figure 8). Percents for women were similar."



From the very middle of the road discovery health page:
http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/erogenous.html

"The anus, rectum and buttocks are also potentially erogenous zones. The anus is highly sensitive to touch and the insertion of a finger, object or penis in the anus and rectum is part of some people's sexual activity."

I'll check out this link and do some of my own homework, when I'm not at work and get back to this.

[zrinkill]

From the very middle of the road discovery health page:
http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/erogenous.html

"The anus, rectum and buttocks are also potentially erogenous zones. The anus is highly sensitive to touch and the insertion of a finger, object or penis in the anus and rectum is part of some people's sexual activity."

Wow you really make a great case for the rump sex ......


Ewwwwww

:eek:

[REDVOLUTION]

No matter who wins.... we lose....

[ScipioCowboy]

You mentioned "fall from grace." That implies a whole theology that entails salvation and damnation. Feel free to correct me. I readily admit that I was making an inference. But you refused on several occasions to state the basis for your position clearly.

My usage of the phrase "fall from grace" simply denotes that we no longer walk in a state of perfection with God. I never broached the issue of eternal damnation.

Among all the posters on this issue, you have been the most intellectually dishonest

Quite the contrary, actually.

I've answered every question directed to me. You, on the other hand, have ignored those answers, and changed and altered your question several times already.

First, you wanted to know about my "grand meta-narrative." Then, you stated that you really wanted to about my stance on homosexuality (which I've already explained more than once). Now, you want to talk about eternal damnation.

It seems to me as if you're fishing...waiting for me to make a comment from which you can simply walk away content in your intellectual and moral superiority.

as you've tried to cloak your religious bias in legalese and the language of post-modern literary criticism when your position ultimately boils down to a religious text telling you that homosexuality is bad and sinful.

Here is where you've erred.

You erroneously presuppose that I must cling to all tenants of postmodernism (which, by the way, is far more than a system of literary criticism) simply because I find some truth in postmodernism when dealing with positions or opinions that claim to be purely secular or humanistic. I also find a great deal of validity in the concept of meta-narrative.

However, this does not mean that I purport every aspect and implication of postmodernism.

My beliefs and worldview are the product of a variety of philosophical and intellectual models--religion, postmodernism, teleology, scientific naturalism, etc.

Does the Bible further stipulate that sinful individuals should be denied worldly political rights?

In some cases, much like our own law system.

By the way, Kierkegaard also thinks that secular politics and religion should be separate. It diminishes the spiritual content of religion to involve itself in such worldly affairs. Looks like Nietzsche is not the only one who failed to get through to you. :D

I extract knowledge from philosophers. I'm not beholden to their entire ideology simply because I find some truth in it.

Extracting truth and building upon it in your own life is really the enire point of philosophy, not letting some philosopher "get through to you.";)

[Sasquatch]

My usage of the phrase "fall from grace" simply denotes that we no longer walk in a state of perfection with God. I never broached the issue of eternal damnation.

I stand by my prior assertion that the phrase carries with it certain theological implications. I find this response to be very disingenuous from one who has lamented the demise of intellectual honesty and forthrightness more than once.


I've answered every question directed to me. You, on the other hand, have ignored those answers, and changed and altered your question several times already.

I asked you a single question repeatedly: from what metanarrative do you derive your bias against humanistic reason and homosexuality? You chose to demur.

But you no longer need to respond since its apparent to anyone who has had the patience to sift through your meandering posts that it is some religious dogma or other.


It seems to me as if you're fishing...waiting for me to make a comment from which you can simply walk away content in your intellectual and moral superiority.

Maybe, given your penchant for deflection and misdirection, I'm simply trying to get to the crux of the matter and have you own up to the religious basis of your views on homosexuality like some of the other posters have done?


Here is where you've erred.

You erroneously presuppose that I must cling to all tenants of postmodernism (which, by the way, is far more than a system of literary criticism) simply because I find some truth in postmodernism when dealing with positions or opinions that claim to be purely secular or humanistic. I also find a great deal of validity in the concept of meta-narrative.

Incorrect. I simply and correctly stated that your critique of humanistic science was based on post-modern literary criticism. I said nothing about you subscribing to it wholly, partly, or otherwise nor did I assert that post-modernism excluded philosophy, architecture, or other disciplines.


My beliefs and worldview are the product of a variety of philosophical and intellectual models--religion, postmodernism, teleology, scientific naturalism, etc.

Religion is neither philosophical nor intellectual since it comes down to faith and not arriving at its conclusions through rational thought. Faith would lose its saving grace if it were simply a matter of reason. Saint Augustine was another clever rhetorician who tried to reason his way to God before finally realizing that a leap of faith was necessary to reach his destination. He was more intelligent than both of us combined.


Extracting truth and building upon it in your own life is really the enire point of philosophy, not letting some philosopher "get through to you.";)

The only valid point you've made so far.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well allow me to contradict this. My religious beliefs do not inform me of how I percieve others, because I know they hold different beliefs and I won't hold mine in a position of inferior or superior.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty of this:
For the most part, homosexuality=anal sex.

Religious considerations aside, the very act is exceedingly repulsive. I, a man, have no desire to do it with a woman. I have the classical option of the vagina, homosexual men do not. You can go on about oral, but let's not be naive.

Partaking in a very filthy act. I don't judge people who do, in fact I'm related to, work with and love some people who do in fact live this lifestyle.

It doesn't always boil down to religion, anymore than my dissapointment for the fool who throws his life away for something as stupid as excessive drug use.

There has to be a fundamnetal flaw in a human that believes, the part of the body dealing primarily with the worst of human waste and has no errogenous zones is the place to be for sexual pleasure. Does their habit harm others? I don't know. Is it filthy? Yes indeed.

Along with that, but aside from the want to enjoy marital benefits, the need to have oneself defined by something as trivial as what they do in bed is shallow indeed.

The first step to equality is to allow yourself to be characterized by something better than simply how you behave in the very few instances of your life, when engaged in sex. Let's face it, unless it's our job, most of us spend a lot less time having sex than we do working, playing at other things, etc,
and that act alone is what separates us. Not how we love or how we treat others or how we work.

It would seem you have been shown or presented with data that refutes some of your statements.

Not all gay people have anal sex...as there are gay women.

Not all hetero's refuse to have anal sex.

The back side does have erogenous zones.

So if you find it repulsive...that is your opinion.

Now I don't see you speak of the marriage issue with gays so I don't know if you are or are not for it. However it does seem to be a logical conclusion that you are not for it because that is the crux of the topic this thread was going.

Now to touch on something "possibly" related to your argument and another argument that has been presented within the thread.

What if we don't like something and find it repulsive, yet others may find enjoyable. Should we take steps to prevent those from getting married?

So let's say we find smokers repulsive. It stinks and it is not healthy for the individuals smoking. So insurance would be higher for them.

Should we take steps to prevent them from getting married?

What about couples that are obese. Some may find it repulsive and with obesity comes many health issues. Should we prevent them from being married?

[Vintage]

So are Europeans God-less sinners or immoral for allowing gays the right to marry?

More curiosity....

[rbr651]

no one is taking steps to prevent gay marriage, it's not recognized by the law, therefore there is nothing to prevent because gay marriage doesn't exist. My initial arguement and many others were, if the majority want it then fine, but I'm not going to push my Congressman to vote on the issue because it's not that big of an issue for me. If there was such an outcry for it, just as everything else eventually there would be a law passed that's not overturned by the Supreme Court. So if there are so many people as the majority of the people on this board claim that want gay marriage then call your Senator or whatever and let them know. If not do not vote them back in office. That's how this country works......

[BrAinPaiNt]

no one is taking steps to prevent gay marriage, it's not recognized by the law, therefore there is nothing to prevent because gay marriage doesn't exist. My initial arguement and many others were, if the majority want it then fine, but I'm not going to push my Congressman to vote on the issue because it's not that big of an issue for me. If there was such an outcry for it, just as everything else eventually there would be a law passed that's not overturned by the Supreme Court. So if there are so many people as the majority of the people on this board claim that want gay marriage then call your Senator or whatever and let them know. If not do not vote them back in office. That's how this country works......

Well it is the idea that people are pushing to have gay marriages banned by having amendments to the constitution (whether that be the US or individual state constitutions).

Now will this ever happen...I think it is believable at the state level.

Far as the federal level for the US constitution...probably nothing more than a political talking point to help rally the bases.

[rbr651]

Well it was legal at the state level, I know New Mexico and I want to say a state in the NE, but when the Supreme Court caught wind of it they shut it down. I think it was like 2 years ago

[vta]

It would seem you have been shown or presented with data that refutes some of your statements.

Perhaps in the population portion (I haven't thoroughly checked), but not in the point of the anus being an erogenous zone.

The afforded link speculates that the anus is potentially an erogenous zone. What is the potential weighed upon? It's physiology? It's physiology is far different from what is referred to as specific erogenous zones: the penis, the vagina and the nipples.

The perianal region is non-specific and while the standard definition for "erogenous zone" is "sensitive to sexual stimulation", at it's core, what makes an erogenous zone an erogenous zone is it's physiological make up: the texture and thickness of the skin, the placement and frequency of the nerves in conjunction with the skin. Your elbow is not an erogenous zone, by virtue of it's anatomical build.

The anus, ringed by the sphincter is closest in anatomical structure to the muscles surrounding the eye socket, than it is to the structure of the penis, vagina or nipples.

The most that has truly been discerned for pleasure through the anus for a man is the prostate being stimulated in the process.

INot all gay people have anal sex...as there are gay women.

Do I really need to state the obvious? To put it succinctly, my aunt is gay. I grew up knowing she is a lesbian. I was for the most part referring to a specific aspect of homosexuality. Yes, I know who imbibes in anal sex; men, women, straight and gay. And it's disgusting overall. In all honesty, the lesbian aspect to most, including a lot of women, is much less repulsive than the male aspect.

So if you find it repulsive...that is your opinion.

Then perhaps you should retract your sentiment that the problem is religion at it's core, in regard to the distaste some might feel about it.

Now I don't see you speak of the marriage issue with gays so I don't know if you are or are not for it. However it does seem to be a logical conclusion that you are not for it because that is the crux of the topic this thread was going.

The crux of this thread was a presidential prediction, after which it has been thoroughly hijacked. ;)

Now to touch on something "possibly" related to your argument and another argument that has been presented within the thread.

What if we don't like something and find it repulsive, yet others may find enjoyable. Should we take steps to prevent those from getting married?

So let's say we find smokers repulsive. It stinks and it is not healthy for the individuals smoking. So insurance would be higher for them.

Should we take steps to prevent them from getting married?

What about couples that are obese. Some may find it repulsive and with obesity comes many health issues. Should we prevent them from being married?

Read above about why I responded, in regard to the motive behind my dislike of it. The most common and far too easy excuse for someone else's distaste of a thing is blind faith in religion or just plain prejudice. There do exist some of us who are capable of deepr thought and reflection, after which pragmatic understanding and opinions are formed.

As I've noted, some of my loved ones live that life. I don't find it reprehensible for religious reasons; that's between God and the individual.

I also noticed, no one touched on the filthiness of playing with the waste hole and the shallowness of wanting to be characterized by some thing as trivial as sex.

[Dallas]

How in the world did the topic go from Presidential prediction to flipping Anal Sex?

Not only is this totally off-topic and against what I thought were site rules, but we have a MODERATOR participating in all of it.

Can someone splain that to me?

Cuz if we are going to begin the anal sex topics. I have some other sexual topics I would like to discuss. I mean, since we are all about anal sex atm.

The SMUT culture sex thread and it's impact on Presidential nominees in the past and present will begin in .....3....2....1 :D

[Cajuncowboy]

Can someone splain that to me?


Look Ricky, Obviously, the whole anal thingy is near and dear to said moderators heart. Give him a break. :D

[rbr651]

So what I got from previous posts is that the subject should now revert to the White House, former presidents and cigars?:confused:

[Dallas]

So what I got from previous posts is that the subject should now revert to the White House, former presidents and cigars?:confused:


Cigars used as anal sex devices. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC !!!


I have never typed ANAL SEX so much in my entire Interweb life.

[vta]

How in the world did the topic go from Presidential prediction to flipping Anal Sex?

Not only is this totally off-topic and against what I thought were site rules, but we have a MODERATOR participating in all of it.

Can someone splain that to me?

Cuz if we are going to begin the anal sex topics. I have some other sexual topics I would like to discuss. I mean, since we are all about anal sex atm.

The SMUT culture sex thread and it's impact on Presidential nominees in the past and present will begin in .....3....2....1 :D

See that? Let a bunch of men go unchecked for too long and next thing you know, it's anal sex. I guess those are right: we are all gay. :eek:

[Dallas]

See that? Let a bunch of men go unchecked for too long and next thing you know, it's anal sex. I guess those are right: we are all gay. :eek:


Im just glad the banjo music hasn't started up yet. It's still early.


BTW: BP said you had a pretty mouth.



Just sayin. :rolleyes:

[vta]

Im just glad the banjo music hasn't started up yet. It's still early.


BTW: BP said you had a pretty mouth.



Just sayin. :rolleyes:

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w285/twistedsiblings/layouts2/animations/deliverance.gif

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm really starting to regret starting this thread.

[vta]

I'm really starting to regret starting this thread.

Don't feel bad, it could have happened to anyone. :D
The course is almost always strayed from, so your original point could have been about Oreo's and the nature for us to disagree would have taken it here any way.

:lmao2:

[rbr651]

Don't feel bad, it could have happened to anyone. :D
The course is almost always strayed from, so your original point could have been about Oreo's and the nature for us to disagree would have taken it here any way.

:lmao2:

I like oreo's....

anal sex(had to do it)

[zrinkill]

Hey I tried hijacking it ..... but it kept getting worse and worse.

[vta]

I like oreo's....

anal sex(had to do it)

See Cajun, it's inevitable...

[vta]

Hey I tried hijacking it ..... but it kept getting worse and worse.

You can not stand against the butt sex.
It will not be ignored.

[windward]

Windward thinks same sex couples cost to much

I actually think the cost is irrelevant to the issue.

[Cajuncowboy]

Hey I tried hijacking it ..... but it kept getting worse and worse.

Is it possible to reverse hijack a thread????

[Cajuncowboy]

Don't feel bad, it could have happened to anyone. :D
The course is almost always strayed from, so your original point could have been about Oreo's and the nature for us to disagree would have taken it here any way.

:lmao2:

You mean there are people that don't like Oreos???


Commie, liberal, pinkos! :D

[big dog cowboy]

Wow.

Just wow.

[Cajuncowboy]

Wow.

Just wow.

Pretty amazing huh, BDC?

[AbeBeta]

I'm really starting to regret starting this thread.

Really, I couldn't tell after you ran from the thread like a wounded puppy after being so wrong about animal behavior.

Oh yeah, I forgot. I never back anything up.

[ScipioCowboy]

I stand by my prior assertion that the phrase carries with it certain theological implications. I find this response to be very disingenuous from one who has lamented the demise of intellectual honesty and forthrightness more than once.

You're being excessively myopic in your interpretation, and clearly trying to manufacture a point where there isn't one.

I explained my usage of term and the intent behind it. If you reject my usage, so be it, but it certainly doesn't mean I'm being disingenuous.

However, if you insist on belaboring the point, the Fall from Grace has many, many theological implications; therefore, I can discuss it without even broaching the topic of eternal damnation.


I asked you a single question repeatedly:

And I've answered it repeatedly. My morality is rooted in the Bible...a clear narrative structure.

And before you even ask, the answer is 'no.' I don't believe homosexuals are necessarily headed for eternal damnation.

We're all sinners, and forgiveness is for everyone.

from what metanarrative do you derive your bias against humanistic reason and homosexuality?

Already answered, repeatedly.;)

You chose to demur.

Your meaning of demure must differ from mine.

But you no longer need to respond

Really?!

Thanks. I was anxiously awaiting your permission.:D

since its apparent to anyone who has had the patience to sift through your meandering posts that it is some religious dogma or other.

...as opposed to the dogma of scientific naturalism that excludes teleological narratives.

Maybe, given your penchant for deflection and misdirection, I'm simply trying to get to the crux of the matter and have you own up to the religious basis of your views on homosexuality like some of the other posters have done?

I've been completely forthright concerning my Christian beliefs and my belief in the immorality of homosexuality this entire time; in fact, I've discussed my religious beliefs on multiple threads.

Incorrect. I simply and correctly stated that your critique of humanistic science was based on post-modern literary criticism.

And you would be wrong.

Among other things, my critique of humanistic science is based on the concept of meta-narrative, which has many applications other than literary.

I said nothing about you subscribing to it wholly, partly, or otherwise nor did I assert that post-modernism excluded philosophy, architecture, or other disciplines.

Religion is neither philosophical nor intellectual since it comes down to faith and not arriving at its conclusions through rational thought.

Once again, my exact statement was, "my beliefs and worldview are the product of a variety of philosophical and intellectual models--religion, postmodernism, teleology, scientific naturalism, etc."

There are numerous philosophers and philosophical schools that discuss and attempt to substantiate religious beliefs--Descartes, Berkeley, Kierkegard, etc, etc.

[Cajuncowboy]

Really, I couldn't tell after you ran from the thread like a wounded puppy after being so wrong about animal behavior.

Oh yeah, I forgot. I never back anything up.

Really?

I didn't run from anything and you are right. You don't back anything up.

I one the other hand have a business to run. I don't spend my whole life in a virtual world which obviously you do.

You still don't answer the hard questions, just repeat the pablum you hear from your hero Keith Olberman.

[Vintage]

I don't spend my whole life in a virtual world which obviously you do.


Since I am not allowed to say what I want to say.....I just want to emphasize this comment.

[Cajuncowboy]

Since I am not allowed to say what I want to say.....I just want to emphasize this comment.


I'll admit, I have no idea what that means. :confused:

Unless it's an attack on my religion. Then I guess I get it but it's a stupid comment in that case.

[AbeBeta]

Really?

I didn't run from anything and you are right. You don't back anything up.

I one the other hand have a business to run. I don't spend my whole life in a virtual world which obviously you do.

You still don't answer the hard questions, just repeat the pablum you hear from your hero Keith Olberman.

44 references to gay sex among animals - that's back up. You just don't understand what evidence is. You refute what is found in each of those references and get back to me.

The last I've of Olberman was on SportCenter back in the day.

Yeah, I spend my entire life in a virtual world. You really know me. I'm just some bum who spends all day on the internet and is otherwise unproductive - yeah, you keep that fantasy alive.

[AbeBeta]

I'll admit, I have no idea what that means. :confused:

Unless it's an attack on my religion. Then I guess I get it but it's a stupid comment in that case.

I think he means "Let he who is without 11,000 posts on an Internet discussion board cast the first stone"

[Vintage]

I think he means "Let he who is without 11,000 posts on an Internet discussion board cast the first stone"

You put it in a much kinder way than I would have.

[ConcordCowboy]

Whatever but it's true. Ask anyone who employs an openly gay person who has a "domestic partner".

You are right that as of now because gay marriage is not legal a person can add on their Domestic partner(as in they are not recognized as their spouse...it would be like adding on a sister or a mother or brother to the policy) and it COULD cost more because they are NOT your spouse...depends on the insurer.

BUT if gay marriage was made LEGAL then the insurers would be legally forced to recognize their domestic partner now as their SPOUSE and they could not legally charge more than they would for a Hetero couple.

This is one of the many reasons WHY gays want their marriages legal.

Just like getting their pensions if one dies...as of now they couldn't because they aren't their spouse. Or get their Social Security checks if one dies.

Another words the want the same benefits as you and your wife have without being discriminated against.

[iceberg]

i just watched ants make out in HD on the discovery channel. while i'm not sure, i think he snuck in some gay butt sex...

[Vintage]

i just watched ants make out in HD on the discovery channel. while i'm not sure, i think he snuck in some gay butt sex...

How do you if they were gay? Can you tell the sex of ants? Maybe it was a male and a female and they just wanted butt sex...

Also, since sex is for procreation, does a female ant who is barren or a male ant who is barren ... have any need for sex? Is it immoral for the ant to do so?

[iceberg]

How do you if they were gay? Can you tell the sex of ants? Maybe it was a male and a female and they just wanted butt sex...

Also, since sex is for procreation, does a female ant who is barren or a male ant who is barren ... have any need for sex? Is it immoral for the ant to do so?

well they did say the queen was pretty promiscious...that turned me on in an odd sort of brittish way.

britts are gay i hear...

[Vintage]

well they did say the queen was pretty promiscious...that turned me on in an odd sort of brittish way.

britts are gay i hear...

I hear that in Britain there is a rise in butt sex.

Troubling times ahead for them.

[iceberg]

I hear that in Britain there is a rise in butt sex.

Troubling times ahead for them.

i'm pretty sure it's a party foul somewhere to say "rise" and "butt sex" in the same sentence.

but not in brittian.

[ScipioCowboy]

I think he means "Let he who is without 11,000 posts on an Internet discussion board cast the first stone"

As Crazy Cowboy proves on a daily basis, post count isn't necessarily indicative of time spent responding.;)

[iceberg]

As Crazy Cowboy proves on a daily basis, post count isn't necessarily indicative of time spent responding.;)

nice read.

[ScipioCowboy]

nice read.

:lmao:

[windward]

As Crazy Cowboy proves on a daily basis, post count isn't necessarily indicative of time spent responding.;)
Thanks for posting!

[Mavs Man]

Go Cowboys!

[Cajuncowboy]

I think he means "Let he who is without 11,000 posts on an Internet discussion board cast the first stone"

Said the man with 12,000. :lmao:

[Cajuncowboy]

44 references to gay sex among animals - that's back up. You just don't understand what evidence is. You refute what is found in each of those references and get back to me.

The last I've of Olberman was on SportCenter back in the day.

Yeah, I spend my entire life in a virtual world. You really know me. I'm just some bum who spends all day on the internet and is otherwise unproductive - yeah, you keep that fantasy alive.

Oh, trust me. I have no fantasy about you. But I noticed you did come to the whole gay thing real quick.

Probably the only human alive with 44 gay animal references right off the cuff.

Maybe you are the one with the fantasy.

[windward]

Oh, trust me. I have no fantasy about you. But I noticed you did come to the whole gay thing real quick.

Probably the only human alive with 44 gay animal references right off the cuff.

Maybe you are the one with the fantasy.
Or someone who has figured out the intricate nature of a Google search.

[Cajuncowboy]

Or someone who has figured out the intricate nature of a Google search.

Probably, but I'm sure he knew where to look.

Either way, it's not normal.

[AbeBeta]

Oh, trust me. I have no fantasy about you. But I noticed you did come to the whole gay thing real quick.

Probably the only human alive with 44 gay animal references right off the cuff.

Maybe you are the one with the fantasy.

Cajun, if you've got an "insult" to throw my way, let loose. Frankly, as I read this you are implying that I'm gay and your tone suggests you think of that as some form of insult.

WWJD? He wouldn't throw out insults like that.

But hey, at least who you are is becoming a bit more clear.

[AbeBeta]

Probably, but I'm sure he knew where to look.

Either way, it's not normal.

It isn't normal to want to actually research an issue before spouting off? Again, evidence that our educational system is crumbling.

[Cajuncowboy]

Cajun, if you've got an "insult" to throw my way, let loose. Frankly, as I read this you are implying that I'm gay and your tone suggests you think of that as some form of insult.

WWJD? He wouldn't throw out insults like that.

But hey, at least who you are is becoming a bit more clear.

WWJD?

I'm not implying anything. You are the one who brought up fantasies. And since most of your posts and logic are fantasies, I just figured that's what you are about.

BTW, where did I insult you? I've said you are a liar and since you have been unable to present a single bit of evidence that backed up anything you said about Bush being a liar going into Iraq, that right there tells me you are lying. That's not an insult. That's a fact.

The one hurling insults is the one who started blasting Christians. That was an insult.

Ans as for the educational system crumbling...It probably becomes more apparent to you every time you look in the mirror.

[Cajuncowboy]

It isn't normal to want to actually research an issue before spouting off? Again, evidence that our educational system is crumbling.

:lmao2:

Wow! That's funny coming from you.

[Vintage]

Oh, trust me. I have no fantasy about you. But I noticed you did come to the whole gay thing real quick.

Probably the only human alive with 44 gay animal references right off the cuff.

Maybe you are the one with the fantasy.


Nah.

He's not a priest.

[Cajuncowboy]

Nah.

He's not a priest.

That's ignorant.

Funny...but ignorant.

:muttley:

[AbeBeta]

The one hurling insults is the one who started blasting Christians. That was an insult.


There is a big difference between blasting a specific Christian who holds some outdated, ignorant, and incorrect beliefs, and blasting the entire religion. I never once blasted the religion. I've blasted the religious right and I've blasted you. There is a difference. I have no beef with Christianity. I do have a beef with people who use Christianity to justify their own prejudices.

[Cajuncowboy]

There is a big difference between blasting a specific Christian who holds some outdated, ignorant, and incorrect beliefs, and blasting the entire religion. I never once blasted the religion. I've blasted the religious right and I've blasted you. There is a difference. I have no beef with Christianity. I do have a beef with people who use Christianity to justify their own prejudices.

What prejudice? I have not said I am prejudice against anyone.

You have never posted anything where I said anything that was anti anyone. Why is that? Because you want to rip Christianity in the name of whatever liberal agenda you have.

The problem you have with me is that I don't just sit back and let you people spout off without challenging you. And from the replies you've had, I can see why you hate it. You cannot defend yourself.

Just more pablum.

You've been sufficiently exposed.

[heavyg]

There is a big difference between blasting a specific Christian who holds some outdated, ignorant, and incorrect beliefs, and blasting the entire religion. I never once blasted the religion. I've blasted the religious right and I've blasted you. There is a difference. I have no beef with Christianity. I do have a beef with people who use Christianity to justify their own prejudices.

Blasting the religious right as you call it. Is blasting the bible. The bible is black and white when it comes to homosexuality. That can not be denied. Unless your one of those who pick and chose which scripture in the bible you believe or do not believe.

[AbeBeta]

What prejudice? I have not said I am prejudice against anyone.

You have never posted anything where I said anything that was anti anyone. Why is that? Because you want to rip Christianity in the name of whatever liberal agenda you have.

The problem you have with me is that I don't just sit back and let you people spout off without challenging you. And from the replies you've had, I can see why you hate it. You cannot defend yourself.

Just more pablum.

You've been sufficiently exposed.

I've defended my views over and over -- you reject science so you simply fail to grasp how completely your arguments have been defeated.

Here's a nice riddle for you. If the president never lies and even he says there is a link between oil and climate change, then which one of your arguments do you now believe is wrong?

GW Bush, State of the Union 2007 "America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. "