How much damage can you really do to a Church in 2000 years of disrepair? Eventually you gotta tear the thing down and start rebuilding.

With any luck they will manage to totally destroy Christianity to the point it will never recover and finally become a thing of the past.

When will people stop being stupid sheep? Probably never.

Months ago, I told my extremely conservative Mormon nephew that the Mormon Church will accept gays and gay marriage when it starts to cut into their membership. I didn't think it would happen in his lifetime -- he is 33 -- but I am now thinking it just might. The tide is turning and it is turning fast.

With the President on board, we have hit a major turning point. I'm really excited to see the progress we're going to make in the next few years.

I've been considering the last decade or so as the reaction of something that knows it's in its death throes. I know there are still millions in this country that are Christian, but the movement away from religion is getting more and more public and acceptable.

God damn, this is good news.

Either they will change for the better or the churches will die off. Either result is fine by me so long as it marks the end of the status quo. If they die it won't be because they had to, but because the refused the alternative of their own accord.

I agree, but let's remember gays are only maybe 3-4% of the population tops. We will need to always be very aware and careful of any sort of scapegoating or backlash. Jews in Germany certainly thought they had it better in the 1930s than 50 years earlier....it's tempting to think things can only go in one direction but it's not true. Ask any blacks who voted during Reconstruction.

They'll change. They always change. They'll have other things to be uptight about, and they'll always be there for people because people want religion.

Oh, I'm pretty sure they will change. What I look forward to is seeing them pretend after the fact that they didn't, in fact, change and that this is how it always was. Because to change to survive is one thing, but to admit to having changed is to admit to having been wrong, and we all know religions will do anything to avoid admitting they were wrong.

From my vantage point here in conservative southwestern Ohio, christianity, closed-mindedness and bigotry aren't going anywhere any time soon.

UnChristian was a pretty fascinating read. I saw a lot of reflection with my own experience leaving the church because of its pervasive anti-gay, anti-science, extreme right-wing ideology. Frankly I was surprised that a Christian research organization was able to achieve that level of self-criticism, but the numbers don't lie!

Factoid check: "Antihomosexual" was not the first word young non-Christians thought of when asked about the faith, ... and it's not news. I'd be surprised if the word was top-of-mind for any of the 440 young non-Christian respondents in the poll, circa 2007. "Antigay", "homophobic", maybe, but "antihomosexual"?

The poll presented 20 labels (10 favorable and 10 unfavorable), and asked respondents to agree or disagree. 91% agreed (including those who thought that's a good thing). 87% agreed with the label "judgmental". (If you believe in statistical ties, that's a "statistical tie", BTW.
also, can't vouch for poll validity in this case for lack of published info.)

A factoid that fits the preferred narrative a little too well deserves a closer look.

I'm inclined to think it will evolve. I still think the main purpose will be about reaffirming their own perspective and to rationalize their own sense of marginality. The premium will remain upon the church's exsistence for its own sake and not about fighting injustice and caring for the poor. The sayings of Jesus will continue to remain as a tool to stand off from the world and criticize it for many. Which A) saddens me as to who the next "outsiders" will be, and B) means I will continue to go my own way.

My husband and I belong to a Lutheran (ELCA) church with two gay ministers. We have quite a few gay parishoners, and many young heterosexual couples with little kids. Not all churches preach homophobia. It's unfortunate that the ones that do are so vocal, and are cast as representative of all Christians by the media.

Why do you have Christians in scare quotes? Is it because No True Christians™ do bad things or believe stupid stuff?

The stat is slightly out, I think - it didn't sound convincing so I went hunting (really, for 9/10 people the *first word* they come up with is "antihomosexual"? I'm not even sure that's a word.)

From a review on the Amazon page:

"According to Kinnaman's Barna study, here are the percentages of people outside the church who think that the following words describe present-day Christianity:

* antihomosexual 91%
* judgmental 87%
* hypocritical 85%
* old-fashioned 78%
* too political 75%
* out of touch with reality 72%
* insensitive to others 70%
* boring 68%"

That sounds more convincing, and nearly as scary - 91% is the percentage of non-churchgoing people who say that "antihomosexual" describes the church, not the percentage for whom it is the first word they come up with.

My claim of belief/faith/relationship with Christ is separate from a particular church...and think that is true for at least some of us (particularily us gay ones). But I will be glad to see them be forced to change.

It's already happening with the Anglican church..most of the focus in my last church (an congregation going back 150 years) was about evolving and looking at what they were doing wrong....closing smaller churches and combining them with larger ones.

My viewpoint? If you're not helping the world (loving, serving, giving) get out of it! Stop being the social moral police and do something useful.

"Forcing" implies some way of ENforcing their claims. Being a dick about someone's decision (to continue contact with gay friends and relatives) isn't the same as forcing them to change.

As for the study in question, did people volunteer the word "antihomosexual" or did they pick it from a list of A) forgiving B) harmless C) purple or D) antihomosexual?

People should do what I do: Think of the Church as an older relative. Just because she's got some very outdated and a few flat-out-wrong ideas doesn't mean we lock her in the attic and refuse to listen to ANYTHING she says. Most of it's good.

@17 No, that's very true.

In previous generations, young adults who left the church often started coming back once they started having kids. We can expect that some of young adults in this generation will eventually go back to the church, but which churches will they go to? I think denominations like the ELCA will be much more appealing.

@19 Oh, so people were given a list of words and asked to give yes/no answers? That's not the same as volunteering the word "antihomosexual." Saying "that's the number one word that springs to mind" suggests that people thought of "antihomosexual" independently when they were given the word "Christianity." It's misleading.

Skull-fuck the Pope: demand the Pope acquiesce authority of the church to the Emperor of Rome, a title arguably not held either until the dissolution of the HRE, and the formation of the modern German state, or the death of the last claimant to the Byzantine throne.

Also, we haven't had a good Antipope in a while. We could get one, and then the two popes could promptly excommunicate each other. Incidentally, we could even get a bunch. This is nothing new to the history of the Roman Church; in fact, far more egregious examples can be found. How this institution commands any respect, to this day, is utterly beyond me.

@4:
When will the LDS change?

Thomas Monson dreams
After viewing "Glee" one eve
Svaha! Revel-gay-tion!!!

@24:
Sedevacantists say that there already is no Pope; there are others who have their own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#Mo…

Generally:
Spontaneous recall is very different from directed recognition---I first learnt this principle when I asked why there's a pre-written group confession for Yom Kippur.

I'm not as impressed by the findings because religion tends to be quite polarizing. Those who live outside of the church likely have strong negative feelings about religion - that's why they live outside of the church - so of course they'll say that Christianity is anithomosexual, close-minded, etc. You're just confirming the reasons why they are not religious.

Marriage equality for gays and lesbians seems well on its way to becoming a national reality, thanks in large part to the prominence of homosexuals in popular culture. However, religion ain't going away, at all, ever, until the last man on Earth passes away. As long as people feel a need to have some control over uncontrollable life events, as long as they realize their dependence on Mother Nature, as long they long for the comfort that death is not the end of life, that their good deeds are noted and will be rewarded, that their enemies will be punished, there will be religion. Science and rational thought will suffer a millions deaths before religion is abandoned. Like the cockroaches, religion will survive the apocalypse. Science and reason may not.

Also, societies need not only become increasingly conservative or liberal. It goes either way. What never seems to change is that the wealthiest yield the power, and religious institutions tend to become part of the plutocracy. So, again, religion is well insured against change.

@19 Scary to whom? That's sweet music to me, although I can't fathom why "boring" isn't also polling in the high 80s.

@21 No, most of it is either horrible and/or stupid, or the sort of common-sense rules all societies come up with regardless of their religious traditions: Don't murder; don't steal; don't rape; don't construct an entire economy based on the sale of derivative financial instruments.

You can figure this shit out on humanistic principles. No bullshit "spirituality" required.

@26- "that their enemies will be punished". This is probably the biggest reason religions run off the tracks- the notion that 'my god is bigger than your god, and will punish you and your wrong- god', even if those gods happen to be the same (ie: Jewish, Christian and Islamic and their countless sects).
Always comes back to My Imaginary Friend can beat up Your Imaginary Friend. Such nonsensical thinking can't die out fast enough. But it won't, because the powerless will always want the omnipotent to beat up their oppressors.

Pro family is code words for ant-gay as well.

@28, I didn't say that secular morality didn't exist. I said that most of what Christianity teaches is good. Why shouldn't "don't steal" and "don't rape" count? "Take care of the poor" is another one. "Do good stuff even if no one sees you" and "do good stuff even if you don't expect a reward" are in there too. Many secular moral systems say so too, but guess where they got the idea?

There's a study that examined which Americans give the most to charity, and it showed that people who self-identified as religious gave more than those who did not. (In order, the four groups were non-religious conservatives, non-religious liberals, religious conservatives and religious liberals, from least to most.)

@30 (sigh) True. It sucks that words like "life" and "family" have to get co-opted (though liberals do the same thing). There was some kind of charity event. It was called "run for life" or something. I avoided it because I thought it was anti-abortion but it was really about raising funds for cancer research.

Good citations, Dan. I recommend Adam Hamilton's "When Christians Get it Wrong." In it, Hamilton discusses how Christians are driving people away from Christianity by being close-minded, anti-homosexual, against other religions, etc.

Tony Perkins was on Face the Nation yesterday morning weighing in with what religious leaders are saying and doing with regards to Obama's proclamation last week. (They don't like it - surprise, surprise.) On the side voicing support for what the President said was Clay Aiken - which raises two points. 1) Really? You couldn't have come up with someone better than Clay Aiken? 2) Something that was discussed a couple of years ago - when will news shows stop having people on speaking in favor of limiting civil rights? When is it going to stop? After some point in time, networks didn't invite anyone on saying, "Hell, yeah! Those coons need to go to the back of the bus and shut the fuck up," even though there were plenty who felt that way, They (the news people) realized doing so was ridiculous and wrong...at some point. When's it going to happen in this case? When are they going to say that they are going to stop giving voice to those who propose adding a limitation of personal liberties to the Constitution?

Churches moved away from supporting slavery and segregation, so I'm sure they'll eventually move away from homophobia. The world is changing and the Church needs to keep up.

@21: I think of the Church as an older relative...one who I disowned because they were trying to deny medical care and basic rights to people I care about.

@34

I once wrote a heartfelt email to Face the Nation after they'd had an anti-gay minister as their sole guest about a gay rights issue. I asked why they weren't doing a better job providing balance and why, if they wanted to go into religious opinion, they never seemed to have any progressive or pro-LGBT clergy on, but always went to the most extreme anti-gay spokespeople (like Perkins).

To my surprise, I received a response from Bob Schieffer himself (very apologetic in tone) who admitted they they could do better on the issue and promised to work on this in the future.

That was fifteen years ago.

So, I reckon Bob's still working on that, eh? Gosh, maybe he still hasn't located where he put those phone numbers for progressive religious folks? Maybe he should speed-dial Tony Perkins and ask him.

@34

Nice false analogy!

Being black, or white, asian or native American isn't a choice. Nor is being a woman or in a wheelchair with paralysis. So we as a society have enacted laws that protect such people from being treated as though these characteristics were character flaws. We've felt that where there was no choice no commendation or condemnation was defensible. And we are right about that.

Gay men and lesbians chose the sole thing that makes them any different from others, their sexual behavior. To compare them to my black wife, who fights real discrimination on both counts, isn't just ignorant. It's extremely insulting. It's as though you demanded wheelchair ramps for people who could walk fine but liked to ride in a wheelchair, and then called that inane position a civil rights issue.

@ 39, if you believe that your false statement become true with repetition, let me inform you that they don't.

Gay rights are a civil rights issue, and all opposed to them are bigots. Plain and simple.

@40

If you believe that your false statement becomes true with repetition, let me inform you that it doesn't.

Gays and lesbians chose their status and exempted themselves from protected class inclusion when they made that choice.

@39: You say she faces discrimination "on both counts". I agree racial discrimination is completely unacceptable, but surely on the count of being your wife, for consistency's sake you must agree that is simply a poor choice which she made and for which she must now bear the consequences.

@4, I'm late to this thread, but have you seen this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/18…

@ 41, did you know that when someone repeats something that was directed at them, it's a sure sign that it stung deep? Silly bigot.

@35 Very true. It only took them a hundred years to admit that Newton was right, five hundred for Galileo and about fifty to condemn the Holocaust. The Church always catches up eventually. She's just very slow.

@38 Force for evil? Religious organizations feed, clothe, educate and advocate for the poor and underrepresented all over the planet. Yes, they ALSO discriminate against gays, but if we're going to call them on that we should also acknowledge the good that they do.

It doesn't surprise me so much that Seattleblues is still around (he must get lonely in his villa in...France? Or was it Italy?) but that folks still respond to his trolling. Don't feed the trolls, even registered ones.

Ms F - One might think that such a splendid institution might be a leader in bringing about positive change instead of doing great amounts of harm resisting such change to the utmost. Perhaps there's inerrancy for you. Or maybe the assassination of John Paul I (who was far too good for the RCC) just set things back another few centuries.

I'm not really particularly bitter, but the indulgent fondness of "She's just very slow" rankled. I suppose that, in five hundred years, that the papacy will be opposed to the US practice of life imprisonment as a sentence for same-sex attraction (yes, I rather think we'll be taking a step or two backwards, but at least I'm not in full Pessimistic Mode or I'd expect death) is superiour to the alternative, but it isn't really much of a comfort, and comforting really ought to be a higher priority, not?

Oh, SB. Did you *choose* to be straight? Then why do you think I chose to be gay?

However: regardless of whether sexual orientation is chosen, innate, or somewhere between the two, we still don't allow discrimination based on such things. Wherein 'such things' means 'things that don't really tell us much about the intrinsic value of a person'.

You say you are a Christian. Well, you weren't born one. You chose it, and continue to choose it. Religious discrimination (in most things in the public sphere) is illegal. Same thing with sexual orientation.

@48: I didn't realize religion was actually a protected class. Fascinating.
(http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.…)

How is that protected but sexuality isn't? Or being a mother, for that matter. Jeebus.

@41: Seattleblues, I've several* times provided you with evidence indicating that sexual orientation is NOT chosen. Why do you continue to spout misinformation even after you've been educated?

*between 5 and 9, as defined by Heroes of Might and Magic III: The Restoration of Erathia

Exactly my experience when I was 'recruited' to a Christian church while attending university (got me at a weak moment – failing classes, low motivation, no direction in life...). So, I went along to a few church services, enjoyed it at first and thought there could be something to it... Had numerous discussions with my recruiter and another church leader about aspects of the Bible, etc. Eventually, though, I just couldn't square away their explanations for and reasoning behind their antigay stance and I walked away. Gratifying to read that I was just one of many who have rejected Christianity for this reason.

@47 The Catholic Church IS a leader in bringing about positive change, just not on issues related to sex or women. They advocate against the death penalty, for the rights of immigrants and for the rights of the poor. If you're going to be so vehemently critical of something, you should learn more about it.

@34 Using your logic people who are disabled due to preventable accidents or bad habits are choosing to be disabled. And your flawed logic makes sexuality in general a choice. A person could've been gay but they chose to be straight. It's semantics and you're very bad at this game. You can't have it both ways. It's not up to the likes of you to decide who gets a pass and who doesn't. The only choice I see in your argument is the choice you're making to remain willfully ignorant.

APOLOGIES! Should've been @39.

I love how this issue is viewed as such a tremendously destructive force:
"Boys, we got solid granite right where this here railway line needs to go through. Now, what we need to do is go out and find some men who are fond of each other and put a couple of 'em here and right over here. After that, we stand way the hell back, get 'em to marry each other and we'll just blast the eeefucking shit right out of that mountainside"

@32 (DRF): I wonder how the charitable-giving rankings might change if contributions to churches were excluded. I wonder to what extent contributions to churches are charitable and to what extent they are akin to dues for a private social club or private social welfare organization. I wonder how much contributions to churches might drop if they were not publicly subsidized via income tax deductibility. I wonder why we don't count public subsidies to churches via income tax exemptions and property tax exemptions as charitable giving by the non-religious, who make up the revenue shortfall.

So we as a society have enacted laws that protect such people from being treated as though these characteristics were character flaws. We've felt that where there was no choice no commendation or condemnation was defensible.

We've also enacted some highly foundational laws protected people from treating certain choices as character flaws. For instance, while I can demonstrate pretty easily that religious belief is not chosen, religious observance or practice is obviously a matter of volition.

And as I've pointed out before, to no rebuttal whatsoever (let alone a cogent or reasoned one), the "choice" for the homosexual activity is celibacy or loveless heterosexual relations. Well, or homosexual activity, of course, but since you're already dead set on the idea that this choice should exclude one from participation in basic civic institutions, I thought I'd limit the scope of those discussions to the only options left.

@Gay as choice

Read it again, folks. I neither know nor care whether the inclination to homosexuality is innate. If it is (and no proof is extant that it is- despite what VL says all his studies examine effect and erroneously call them cause) whether it's genetic or a chemical imbalance or whatever isn't really relevant.

Chosen, innnate, the helpless victims of your own sexual urges- the behavior is the only rational basis for social or legal code and that is entirely chosen.

I'm sorry for a pedophile who must choose between the expression of his or her sexual urge and the harm it manifestly does them and others. And I'm sorry for one with the mental disorder, whatever the source, of homosexuality.. That an urge or taste exists doesn't give one the moral right to exercise it. That an urge or taste exists doesn't automatically make it good or healthy.

However, since the only victims of homosexual behavior are the willing particpants, we wisely exclude that behavior from the purview of criminal law. Since harm to others isn't at issue we don't involuntarily commit those who suffer from this mental disorder.

But being left alone to live your lives isn't what you want, is it? No. Until every person stands and gives 3 rousing cheers whenever a gay or lesbian couple walks by you won't be happy. Until every inconvenient result of your choices is borne by anyone at all except you, you won't be happy.

Well, the hell with that. Grow up, for Gods sake. Nobody (serious) seeks to take from you what you regard as the positive aspects of your choices, so act like adults and accept the negative ones. Can't get married? Too bloody bad, but that doesn't mean you have to destroy that sacred institution for everyone else in your infantile temper tantrums. Some folks don't like your choices? Oh well. That isn't really your problem, is it? The Christian church stands on something nearly every culture has for as long as history records, and it hurts your wittle feewings? Too bad again. Don't go to a Christian church.

Just grow up, children.

@58

First, free expression of religion is an explicit Constitutional liberty. Gay sex isn't. Please make a note of it.

As I've pointed out many times, the choice is broader than you make it out.

You can choose celibacy and hope that your unnatural urges are redirected to healthy channels.

You can choose homosexual behavior and accept the consequences of it, like a grown up.

Or you can act like a spoiled toddler and throw tantrums about 'civil rights' and 'equality'. By which you mean the 'right' to impose the values of your tiny minority on everyone else. Or your 'right' to redefine key social institutions for your petty little conveniences. Or your 'right' to take all the positives of your choices and attempt to make the negatives someone elses problems.

@54

In a way. If a person fries their brain on dope then wants to spend the rest of their life on the public dole since they can't work I have little pity. Let their family care for them, but keep out of my wallet for the expense.

However, we don't distinguish in ADA rules for public access accomodation. We just say that if you can't get into a building or bathroom without a ramp or larger halls or whatever, the building owner must provide them. This is because you can't cull the herd, so to speak, of those who were bungy jumping off the Deception Pass Bridge using a cargo net from their truck and those with crippling disease when building wheelchair ramps or ADA toilets.

And we don't say 'this person feels a very strong urge to homosexual behavior and that one a mild curiousity about it.' So for those who feel they must be gay we'll destroy marriage and institute effetively a thought police about words (admittedly distasteful and vulgar) like faggot or dyke. But for those who might be inclined to bisexuality, we force them to marry the opposite sex. We just, so far, say that an adult making choices is responsible for the outcome of them.

@60: Ah yes, when people you don't approve of want to be treated equally, they're having 'tantrums'. Guess what, SB? Laws are written by people and are changed by people all the time. We are all free to lobby for changes in laws that create arbitrary inequality and arbitrary negative consequences for minority groups. In fact, "the right to petition Government for a redress of grievances" is in the First Amendment, right along with freedom of religion. Whaddyaknow?

@59: Screw your head on properly, Seattleblues. Discriminatory laws these days aren't against people who have gay sex; they are against people who are gay. DADT, for example, called for the discharge not only of people who were known to have had gay sex, but also of people who had admitted to simply being homosexual or bisexual.
Or this gem recently struck down by a judge: "No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual." (2011 Florida Statutes, section 63.042(3))
The laws made against gay people don't go after them for having gay sex; they go after them for being gay. Let me repeat that in words you are sure to notice.
LAWS MADE AGAINST GAY PEOPLE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY SEX AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH BEING GAY.
So you can stop with the whole "b-b-but they CHOSE to engage in guy-on-guy/girl-on-girl action!" bit you've been frantically brandishing. It's simply not true. And now that you know this, you're a hellbound filthy liar if you continue to say such clearly false things, right?

@37: I imagine it's harder to find moderate religious leaders who will speak out. It seems to be the conservatives that have the real passion. You rarely see moderate Christian churches bringing any real money or enthusiasm to bear on pro-gay causes, but conservative churches will spend millions to defeat them...

The moderate and main-line denominations have been losing membership for years, while the conservative megachurches are growing. Religion just doesn't seem to work well without someone to hate.

@53: They don't seem to put nearly as much effort into opposing the death penalty as they do into opposing gay rights and abortion, at least in the US. I've heard calls for the excommunication of pro-gay and pro-choice Catholic politicians, but never for pro-death-penalty ones.

@63

When you can note where I advocate for such laws, your point will have validity.

There is no such thing as an 'are gay.' There are people who chose a lifestyle based on innate or acquired desires or on a mental disorder. There are brunnetes and blondes, asian or caucasion or negro in skin color. And all these different folks have one thing in common, their genetics make them what they are without volition. When you can pin down the 'gay gene' you can start talking about gays as a naturally occuring characteristic, m'kay.

Anti sodomy laws were struck down, with which I have no objection.

The law does and should evolve slowly to serve the society it's put in place to serve. How destroying marriage and family using the law so serves our society escapes me.

The military is a horse of a different color. It isn't a civil rights lab, but the means by which we defend our nation. Which is why there's an entire code of law just for the armed forces. Still, once the joint chiefs said that they consider openly gay soldiers a non-issue, so did I. DADT being repealed is, and I've written that it is, a non-issue for me. I personally wouldn't want to shower with gay men or sleep in a dorm type room with them for the same reason I wouldn't want co-ed showers or sleeping accomodations. But were I in the military the rules of the service would apply, and I'd honor them.

I've never advocated for involuntary psychiatric treatment of gays and lesbians, since they harm only themselves by their conduct. I do think that blocking the serious study of that disorder for political reasons is a disservice to psychiatry and to the patients, but that's neither here nor there.

So what exactly are you arguing about, kiddo?

Engaging bigots like Seattleblues is a losing game. Stop it.

@65: Destroying marriage and family? Time for your anti-hysteria meds, I think, SB. Given that gays can now legally and merrily sex each other, shack up together and even adopt together, what is the rational basis for denying us marriage rights? If the government sees no compelling need to deny methheads, death-row inmates, convicted child molesters, the serially-divorced or celebrities their straight marriages, what is the rational basis for denying us marriage rights?

@ 66, that might seem to be the case, but speaking from experience, it's worth it when his little protective bubble of lies pops. You never know when it will happen, but it's not to be missed when it does.

@60 (with some reference to @59 and @65, that I needn't build a new post to mark each fallacy with which I must contend) - "Make a note of it"? Really? A little advice--if you imagine for a moment you've contemplated anything with either the natural aptitude or fervor with which I have contemplated everything, you've made a gross miscalculation.

With that out of the way, yes, free exercise of religion is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Indeed, as I've pointed out, it amounts to a guarantee of moral self-determination, but you've yet to come up with a cogent argument against that, yet, so I don't hold a lot of hope out for anything new here. Suffice it to say that that enumerated freedom actually guarantees the right to gay sex, or whatever sort of sex you can think of, provided that there are no empirically demonstrable consequences to someone other than the voluntary participants in the act.

Comparing it to pedophilia runs afoul on precisely this basis. In a sense, the comparison is interesting because both variances from the norm can be divided into inclination and activation; that is, there may be a celibate pedophile just as there may be a celibate homosexual. In that sense, it isn't pedophilia we proscribe, but sex with children. Why? Not because the act is immoral or disgusting (though I may find it both), but because what we know of brain chemistry and development points, with a big, empirical arrow, to a civic harm--that is, high levels of mental illness, suicide, and criminality among children who grow up engaged in sexual acts with adults.

But being left alone to live your lives isn't what you want, is it? No. Until every person stands and gives 3 rousing cheers whenever a gay or lesbian couple walks by you won't be happy. Until every inconvenient result of your choices is borne by anyone at all except you, you won't be happy.

What inconvenient result would we carry as the result of same-sex marriage that we don't currently carry on behalf of you, your wife, and your mewling litter of womb rats? Please be specific.

Again--the negative aspects you want gays to accept do not occur naturally, but as the result of moral engineering that your precious First Amendment all but explicitly forbids (since there is no freedom of religion without freedom of irreligion, and no freedom from establishment if behaviors are proscribed or rewarded solely according to subjective moral distinctions, thus using government to socially stratify individuals according to the will of a church or collection of churches).

As to whether some folks don't like the choices some of us make, I agree that the state has no role in preventing that. Please try to limit the scope of your blather to what's actually being discussed, and I wouldn't have to keep slapping you down for every extraneous fallacy you happen to feel like babbling about.

You can choose celibacy and hope that your unnatural urges are redirected to healthy channels.

You haven't pointed this out from me (you tend to turn tail and run when I've really put what passes for "argument" in your neck of the woods through the ringer), but since we're here . . . If you've been paying attention, you'd note that I'm a man married to a woman, so we aren't talking about my urges (primarily or necessarily, that is; my wife and I do identify as bisexual, or at least bisexually responsive). So "healthy channels," as you call them on no basis worth wasting any of my precious verbiage on, have always been part of the picture. But the track record for conversion therapy is abysmal, as one imagines the track record of left-handed people becoming right-handed would be. One can always change behavior, but one really doesn't change the wiring. I will always be left-handed even if I never write or use chopsticks with my left hand again.

We'll see if you're actually man enough to respond to this.

@66

Each person here uses the word bigot to mean something only they understand.

Fortunately, all of you use the non-word homophobe to mean 'one who asks of other adults that they accept the consequences of their choices.' Really, if such a word meant anything, I'd guess it meant someone irrationally afraid of homosexuals. I'd imagine that a fairly rare condition, unless a person were frightened of being decorated or lisped to death or something, but oh well.

For you bigot would appear to mean 'I can't contest your statements of fact, so I'll just vaguely insult you.'

Sort of like Mile High uses lie, liar etc to mean 'I think you're a big nasty meanie and I don't LIKE you!'

Fascinating the way you folks use the English language as a private cipher only you and your far left buddies understand.

Yes, and I wouldn't contest a segregationist's "statement of facts" either. They too were just bigots with arguments not worthy of refutation. Speaking of which, most people stopped using the word "negro" in the 60's.

Someday, if you are lucky, you will be deeply ashamed of yourself. Oh, but I'm engaging you now aren't I?

Well trolled.

@70

All right.

First, you contend that you're a thinker of rare worth and analytical prowess. Mazal tov. I stand in transported awe at your mental agility and power! Sometime I'll have to kiss your feet while chanting 'I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy.'

Second, you contend that sexual expression is the same as religious expression as a fundamental right. Prove it with the text of the Constitution or specific SCOTUS majority decisions interpreting the 1st Amendment.

As for 'moral self determination' that's clearly bogus. Mormons used to consider moral self determination the right to polygamy, but we know how that ended. The men and women at the Koresh compound were exercising their moral self determination, but child welfare trumped that, too. Native cultures using peyote were told that they had not that right to moral self determination. In sum, we have an obligation to live within the constraints of our society or accept the social and possible legal consequences of not doing so. Full stop.

Third you claim that all our laws and moral restrictions must serve some utilitarian purpose. In fact the Supreme Court has held that where a compelling government interest is in play in some cases individual rights can be restricted. Utility may be one such interest, or it may not, but that case law doesn't claim it directly. Again, if you know of case law that disputes that, feel free to cite it.

Fourth, pedophilia generally and the physical expression of it particularly has been held to be abhorent for a lot of reasons, but at root it's the disgust most feel at the victimization of children, at the expressed act of pedophilia without going into specific harms. The studies into harms antedate and bolster the taboos around pedophilia, not the other way around.

Fifth, the inconvenience is just that of not being able to marry. It is the inconvenience of writing a living or standard will or obtaining power of attorney to get the benefits my wife or I have just from our marriage license. How erroneously calling the union of 2 men or 2 women a marriage affects real marriage wasn't one of my contentions.

Sixth, nothing social occurs naturally. Naturally I'd whack my weaker neighbor on the head and take his stuff, and in turn have my head whacked by a stronger neighbor and so on. But we agree in the social contract to live by artificial terms for to protect our persons and property. You keep arguing for this clinical approach to a messy system we all call our culture or society. Sorry, but that isn't how it works.

Your left handed analogy is interesting. It takes a case where the brain is wired to do a specific thing, operate with left handed dominance, and compares it to a sexual urge. Please provide the evidence that both operate off the same biochemical or genetic systems and I'll bother responding.

@65: There is too such a thing as an "are gay", if you'll permit me to mangle the plural conjugation a little more. Someone who is attracted, romantically and sexually, only to people of the opposite gender, is gay. Or homosexual, if you prefer the more technical term, like I do.
Just because YOU don't believe they exist doesn't make them go away, Seattleblues.
By the way, the studies I've cited don't seek to prove causation of homosexuality. All they're showing, and all I'm trying to show with them, is that there are tangible neurological/physiological differences between gays and straights consistent with sexual orientation being fixed early in development.
And please, don't try to tell a biologist that nothing can be innate without being genetic. Take a good close look at your fingerprints, see if you can change them, and then read up what genetic polymorphisms are responsible for fingerprint variation. (I'll give you the answer: none whatsoever.)

So, Seattleblues, do you believe that gay people should be able to adopt children? Just curious here.

@72: You've many times claimed that allowing gays to get married will destroy marriage.
You lying sack of shit, don't try to walk your ridiculous assertions back.

@ 69, be aware that @ 72 is making demands when he has a long record of ignoring similar demands from us. (Also note the intellectual dishonesty of his demands: As though SCOTUS rulings specific to the 1st Amendment are the only constitutional rulings germane to the issue. He's probably aware that rulings specific to other parts of the Constitution, esp. the much-hated-by-the-right 14th Amendment, is where his challenge is to be answered.)

In short, declining to take him up will not be a sign of cowardice, or an inability to answer SB. That cannot be demonstrated when the challenger is a hypocrite and a liar.

The law does and should evolve slowly to serve the society it's put in place to serve. How destroying marriage and family using the law so serves our society escapes me.

Offering marital contracts to same-sex couples does nothing in the way of destroying marriage or family. It does, however, serve society in the same way that your own marriage does; to wit, more financially stable, law-abiding, and physically healthy familial and clan units dragging less on social services.

@ 74, thanks for that. I'm building up a list of the lies SB has told. Something for me to present to him personally next time I'm in Seattle*. For the life of me, I don't see why he takes offense at being called a liar.

* I fully expect to be stood up, but until it happens, I'm treating our eventual meeting like a set date.

@72: Wow, you really are tying yourself in knots, aren't you? We require laws for civilisation, but they mustn't be 'clinical' nor necessarily serve a rational purpose? Seeking "a redress of grievances" (Amdt 1) is just an illegitimate bid to avoid 'consequences'?

And for the record there are many marriage rights that cannot be claimed by gay couples by private contract in areas such as immigration, taxation, spousal immunity, inheritance and family law. But I suspect you know that full well. And you know what we call systems that place extra burdens and requirements on minority groups to achieve the same ends? We call them unequal and unfair.

Second, you contend that sexual expression is the same as religious expression as a fundamental right. Prove it with the text of the Constitution or specific SCOTUS majority decisions interpreting the 1st Amendment.

I would go so far as to say that sexual expression IS a religious expression. Given the degree to which religion has historically commented on sex, I'd suggest that the plurality of world religions agree with me, though any one of them may disagree on the particulars.

As for 'moral self determination' that's clearly bogus. Mormons used to consider moral self determination the right to polygamy, but we know how that ended.

It ended incorrectly. I believe that polygamy should also be legal. Outlawing polygamy was a clear violation of free exercise.

The men and women at the Koresh compound were exercising their moral self determination, but child welfare trumped that, too.

What makes you imagine I support what occurred at Waco? I don't disagree with there having been investigations into possible child welfare violations, but that says little about what was to follow.

Native cultures using peyote were told that they had not that right to moral self determination.

Again, I do not support their being so told.

In sum, we have an obligation to live within the constraints of our society or accept the social and possible legal consequences of not doing so. Full stop.

No. In sum, we have an obligation to ensure that the constraints of our society--at least insofar as it is embodied by the state--are always accountable to empirical measures. How we govern ourselves as families, churches, communities, professions, and so on is another matter; the state defends only life, property, and right of egress (that your children, when they wisen to what a peckerwood shitbag you are, may leave the enclaves of your self-imposed exile from joy and beauty, and hopefully draw your poor abused wreck of a wife out with them).

Third you claim that all our laws and moral restrictions must serve some utilitarian purpose.

More evidence that you're actually too stupid to comment effectively on what I've said. A good many of our moral restriction do not serve utilitarian purposes; that is why they do not belong on the books as laws. The way I govern myself as an actor, martial artist, playwright, personal trainer, pantheist, Buddhist, or existentialist has nothing whatsoever to do with how I am governed as a citizen of the U.S. or the state of Washington.

In fact the Supreme Court has held that where a compelling government interest is in play in some cases individual rights can be restricted.

What I submit is that nothing that cannot be quantified by some empirical test amounts to a "compelling government interest."

Utility may be one such interest, or it may not . . .

It is, or should be, the only interest of the state. Otherwise, men of my capacity are bound by the will of men of yours. You may as well hold the lion hostage to the interest of the average mound of zebra dung.

Fourth, pedophilia generally and the physical expression of it particularly has been held to be abhorent for a lot of reasons, but at root it's the disgust most feel at the victimization of children, at the expressed act of pedophilia without going into specific harms.

My interest in why anything is held abhorrent is limited to the moral philosophizing of those whose moral philosophies reflect my own first, and those who are at least qualified to engage in moral philosophy with me second. You are neither. As such, I acknowledge no power on your part to impose your moral interests (even those with which I agree!) on me by way of law. I've long held that I can morally oppose, say, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest without believing for a moment that my moral disgust should serve as any basis for civic law.

Fifth, the inconvenience is just that of not being able to marry. It is the inconvenience of writing a living or standard will or obtaining power of attorney to get the benefits my wife or I have just from our marriage license.

As I've pointed out, many of the over a thousand benefits of marriage cannot be acquired even through an attorney. There is also the question of expense in addition to inconvenience. And as noted, society benefits just as much from any gay couple engaging in such a contract as from you and your wife doing the same .

Sixth, nothing social occurs naturally.

Not exactly true, but I know what you're saying even if you don't know how to say it. Certainly the broader social contract is a more high functioning construct.

Naturally I'd whack my weaker neighbor on the head and take his stuff, and in turn have my head whacked by a stronger neighbor and so on.

Not really true, if we look to how colony insects or high-functioning social primates operate. There are patterns of dominance, but they are as ritualized and non-lethal as our more refined versions of same.

That said, "governance," the way we understand it, appears to function on a more complex basis. Morality, though it may be less unique to humans than governance, is actually more complex yet, and more subjective . . . and perhaps more necessary. So necessary, in fact, that the state is far too blunt an instrument to wield it.

But we agree in the social contract to live by artificial terms for to protect our persons and property.

Exactly! My goodness, it's almost like it understands (like a dog responding to its name). Persons. Property. Protected by state to whatever degree they can be empirically quantified; subject to sub-or-supra-governmental entities to whatever degree they cannot.

You keep arguing for this clinical approach to a messy system we all call our culture or society.

I argue for a clinical approach to government; otherwise, my "messy system" isn't truly mine to choose. If I can't choose my moral system free of the anxieties of a being like you, who'd generally be lucky to be allowed to change the oil of my car, then we don't really have free exercise of religion.

Your left handed analogy is interesting. It takes a case where the brain is wired to do a specific thing, operate with left handed dominance, and compares it to a sexual urge.

Both cases involve natural acts (dexterous function, seeking erotic pleasure) by way of non-traditional pathways. Both appear to have some level of inborn hard-wiring, triggered by environmental factors, and characterized by acts from which the actor could, in theory, refrain.

@79

Awwww. Isn't that cute? He's playing all superior! Kind of like when my kid acted so proud of going to the bathroom the 'big boy' while he was potty training. Nice job showing your true colors with personal attacks on me, my wife and my kids there, junior. It's odd how liberals have the most infantile worldview and get so annoyed when others see right through it. Think I touched a nerve there.....

You could have kept the personal abuse. It would save you typing and I assure you, it makes no slightest difference to me. And since personal abuse was all you really wrote, I suppose there isn't any point in bothering responding to it at your level, even assuming I could go that low and retain sentience.

@78

All those marital rights are as available to a gay or lesbian as to me. A gay man can marry a woman, or a lesbian a man and obtain them. Or they can choose their current lifestyle and not obtain them. The choice is theirs, not mine.

You brought it to a personal place, Seattleblues; I just showed you how the professionals do it. Given the time you've spent arguing with people who've abused you far more, with far less provocation, I can safely assume that your utter failure to address the content--as with every other time you've left the content dangling--is yet another illustration of your lack of any substantive response. That even my abusive sentences make your best work look like a crime against English has been noted.

How is sexual expression not part and parcel of religious expression, given the degree to which religion has historically commented on sex (and sex on religion)? You do not say. How can true freedom of religion, speech, or conscience exist where moral self-determination is not present? You do not say.

The thesis you have yet to so much as make a fingerprint (let alone a scratch) on, that others may see what amounts to the last word (unless you've learned something sense the last dozen times I've sent you home without a rebuttal):

A good many of our moral restriction do not serve utilitarian purposes; that is why they do not belong on the books as laws. The way I govern myself as an actor, martial artist, playwright, personal trainer, pantheist, Buddhist, or existentialist has nothing whatsoever to do with how I am governed as a citizen of the U.S. or the state of Washington. We have an obligation to ensure that the constraints of our society--at least insofar as society is embodied by the state--are always accountable to empirical measures. How we govern ourselves as families, churches, communities, professions, and so on is another matter; the state defends only life, property, and right of egress. I've long held that I can morally oppose, say, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest without believing for a moment that my moral disgust should serve as any basis for civic law.

Persons. Property. Protected by state to whatever degree they can be empirically quantified; subject to sub-or-supra-governmental entities to whatever degree they cannot. I argue for a clinical approach to government; otherwise, my "messy system" isn't truly mine to choose. If I can't choose my moral system free of the anxieties of a being like you, then we don't really have free exercise of religion. I've long held that I can morally oppose, say, bestiality, necrophilia, and incest without believing for a moment that my moral disgust should serve as any basis for civic law.

There's more of value, both rhetorically and artistically, in my last post, but these are the primary theses which you've so far failed to address. That you opt to take me task for an insult war that you started rather than even try says far more about you than anything else either of us could, at this point, see fit to publish.

All those marital rights are as available to a gay or lesbian as to me. A gay man can marry a woman, or a lesbian a man and obtain them. Or they can choose their current lifestyle and not obtain them. The choice is theirs, not mine.

You and I can marry, have married, individuals with whom we are biochemically capable of experiencing erotic attraction and romantic love. A homosexual cannot, in most states. You have yet to refute this; you have yet to even give it much of an effort. Your argument against my comparing it to left-handedness amounted to "Yeah, well, PROVE it!"

@82: You know, I haven't been on SLOG in months, but I can tell you SB was doing this back then too. He makes a personal insult, then when people call him out he tries (TRIES being the key word here) to lay out an actual argument, people like you then logically destroy him point by point, THEN rather than respond he whines about how people are making it personal. He can't respond, and he never does.

He's been doing it for months, at least. You'd think it would get old.

@82

For the sake of argument I'll pretend you made cogent arguments. A stretch to be sure, but I'm a hell of a nice guy, so here goes.

Prove that the biochemical differences between one who engages in homosexual sex and one who doesn't are causal of homosexuality, not correlated with it. Or show the gay gene that makes homosexuality inescapable for those who suffer from that disorder.

Then demonstrate why the urge to homosexuality is compelling on anyone but that person who feels it. That is, if in fact it is innate (which absolutely hasn't been demonstrated) so is heart disease or other genetic flaws. Why should we celebrate this perversion and attempt to cure heart disease, for example? What utility, to use your terms, lies in the rebellion against the natural order that is homosexual behavior that should command the awed admiration of the rest of us? I'm perfectly willing to shrug, say it's their life and move on, but the acclaim and awestruck wonder at the beauty of homosexuality demanded by the like of Savage and you is frankly several bridges too far for me.

Prove your insane claim that sexual and religious expression are the same, using court decisions or even established legal theory to do so. And please note that their are legal definitions of religion (see Blacks Law) at play which you must incorporate if you wish to equate copulation and faith for legal purposes.

Show me where I insulted you even, before you went off on my wife and children. And @60 was a hypothetical 'you' since I'm well aware that you claim to be heterosexually married. Apart from that, it was an accurate and therefore non-insulting description of the antics of the Gays Deserve More Priviledges as Citizens Than Anyone Else gang Savage and his ilk belong to.

@85: Okay, your post is the discussional equivalent of the Augean Stables. Not sure where to begin.
One, there is a distinction between those "who [engage] in homosexual sex" and actual homosexuals. I could go blow a dude, and I'd be part of the first category but not part of the second. Why? Because I'm not romantically attracted to dudes and I don't have any sexual desire for dudes' bodies. Moving on to the actual point you are pathetically failing to make in that paragraph.
Two, it is not possible for a causational relationship to exist between two traits without a correlational relationship also existing. While correlation does not imply causation, causation does indeed imply correlation. I suspect that you don't actually understand any of those terms, and are just repeating things that I've used to refute your inane assertions previously.
Three, here is the "proof", as it were, that homosexuality is innate. I'll spare you the technical details.
-There are certain loci in the brain that are known to differ bimodally between heterosexual men and heterosexual women.
-These loci are known to have some relation to sexual attraction in their activity.
-Homosexuals of either gender tend to have intermediate conditions at some of these loci.
Q.E.D.
Four, homosexuality does not have any negative effects on those who bear the phenotype, other than possible lack of offspring. You have repeatedly, and falsely, claimed that homosexuality has negative effects on homosexuals; please either cease and desist from doing so, or cite evidence supporting your assertion.
Five, thelyamhound did not claim that religious and sexual expression are the same, but rather that sexual expression is an important part of religious expression in many religious disciplines*. Please don't expect people to prove your misinterpretations of their claims.
Six, Dan Savage and people sharing his views on marriage equality are not pushing for gays to have any more rights than straights. If you disagree, please provide an example of one such Special Gay Right. (Remember, hate crime laws protect everyone equally.)

*As an example illustrating this connection, Judaism holds that a both members of a couple married in the Jewish tradition have the right to sexual pleasure from each other and the duty to provide such to the other.

church is going to become worse than ever. It will become a positive-thinking, "everyone's ok" happy thought place of New-Age thinking. Like I said, worse than ever.

Ms F - My apologies for framing it as a general condemnation; I did not intend for that to appear to be applied across the board.

I'm not sure, though, that doing A, B and C right makes doing X, Y and Z wrong any less wrong. If anything, those hurt by X, Y or Z might feel more of a sting - at least, that's where my attention is focused. And in at least one instance and probably more, I would contend that the RCC is not moving slowly towards being right but is moving actively in the contrary direction. It's far more a source of sorrow than anger for me.

god bless the young for choosing their friendships and families over hate, under the threat of eternal damnation. That is a sign of character.

Just say no to all belief in paranormal activity.

It is so freeing to know we live in a world of reality.

Prove that the biochemical differences between one who engages in homosexual sex and one who doesn't are causal of homosexuality, not correlated with it. Or show the gay gene that makes homosexuality inescapable for those who suffer from that disorder.

Why would I offer to prove what even those charged with researching such things haven't proven? I'm working two jobs, performing in one show, and rehearsing and writing another. Luckily, no scientific credentials are needed to have an opinion. I can say that the fact that, even when conversion therapy was in general use (and make no mistake--conversion therapy is alive and well; it's just not officially recognized by the APA; it's no more "suppressed" than, say, acupuncture), the most generous statistics on its success rate suggest that 30% of patients successfully ceased homosexual activity without recidivism, and reasonable speculation that at least some of these individuals were functionally celibate, suggests biochemical origin.

I've never actually asserted that there is a gay gene. Not once. In my opinion, there is an inborn "difference" in some that may or may not manifest as homosexuality; there is, of course, an environmental factor. But the environmental markers appear, in many cases, to be too subtle to successfully suppress; in any case, I tend to see some truth in the Freudian speculation that sexual identity is essentially confirmed by age three.

Then demonstrate why the urge to homosexuality is compelling on anyone but that person who feels it.

I'm not sure why you think that I even think that, let alone why I would take time from my busy schedule to demonstrate it for the likes of you.

That is, if in fact it is innate (which absolutely hasn't been demonstrated) so is heart disease or other genetic flaws. Why should we celebrate this perversion and attempt to cure heart disease, for example?

Heart disease has empirically demonstrable consequences for society at large, in terms of treatment costs, loss of productivity on the part of the sick individual, and so on.

What utility, to use your terms, lies in the rebellion against the natural order that is homosexual behavior that should command the awed admiration of the rest of us?

Who wants your awed admiration? We're talking about tolerance and marriage equality. Please remain on topic, and don't make reference to things I've never said.

Prove your insane claim that sexual and religious expression are the same, using court decisions or even established legal theory to do so. And please note that their are legal definitions of religion (see Blacks Law) at play which you must incorporate if you wish to equate copulation and faith for legal purposes.

The legal entities to which I owe tacit allegiance serve the same master as I do--humankind. When the law interferes with my capacity to serve mankind, I serve in my way. That is, I'm not concerned with legal definitions of religion, but actual definitions of religion. If you can define family according to your fairy tales, I can according to my philosophies. Moreover, Black's Law is a pay site; if you think I'm going to waste any of my hard-earned money to argue with you, you flatter yourself.

Show me where I insulted you even, before you went off on my wife and children.

I expressed nothing but sympathy for your wife and children. I may have, in an earlier conversation, suggested that anyone who would marry such a fiend as you is likely suffering from some sort of mental illness, but I don't really see that as an insult to her.

And @60 was a hypothetical 'you' since I'm well aware that you claim to be heterosexually married. Apart from that, it was an accurate and therefore non-insulting description of the antics of the Gays Deserve More Priviledges as Citizens Than Anyone Else gang Savage and his ilk belong to.

Interesting wiggle. So how do you know, given your convoluted logic, that any of the various peckerwoods, zebra dungs, or lesser beings applied to you? Or, whether they applied to you or a 'hypothetical "you"', who's to say that the description isn't accurate, and therefore non-insulting.

That said, "please make a note of it" implies that you have thought, imagined, or contemplated anything that I have not. Given your noetic limitations, that is a profound insult. Repeated admonishments to "grow up" may have been directed at the hypothetical you, but given that I'm 16-years married, working 2 jobs (3 when I'm doing a show and 4 when, like now, I'm doing 2 shows), active in a religious community, and that in all of those spheres--professional, artistic, and religious--I am virtually surrounded by gays and lesbians who can say the same all around, I'm happy to take the insult personally on their behalf. And while I have still labored to approach you civilly over the many, many months I've been decimating what passes for your arguments, I was only able to do so by overlooking your statements regarding individual who are "stupid or ill informed or liberal (sorry, the last repeats the first two)" as though I were not being insulted by association (and insult, I might add, of the sort I would never level at conservatives or Christians, since I don't imagine anything at all to be intrinsically and universally true of conservatives but that they identify as conservatives, or of Christians but that they identify as Christian).

Of course, your sort likes to couch insult in innuendo, which is how we get tortured constructions like "I might note that you seem terribly concerned about spousal inclusion in the 5th Amendment protections. Can't help but wonder why.... "

There are offenses going back many months earlier than that, but I'm frankly not interested in trawling your history yet further. Suffice it to say that insulting me via innuendo and subterfuge isn't going to escape the notice of a reader of my capacity, and insulting groups to which I happen to belong or with which I share solidarity is every bit as personal as directing your ire at "thelyamhound" himself.

I appreciate reading the conversation here. I must say that I doubt its ability to create change on this blog. I must confess that I don't understand why the moniker "Seattleblues" deserves to be convinced of anything. Why acquiesce to this demand? Certainly one must realize it is futile:

1) His mind is made up and closed.
2) His "facts" and "arguments" have been refuted for months and he refuses to acknowledge that his arguments are flimsy.
3) He changes the engagement and allows himself the privilege of name calling, veiled insults, and nastiness at others and their extended families. But others may not return insult. This proclaimed Christian dishes out, but can't turn his cheek.
4) He changes his story and pretends he does not say things, but the SLOG archives hold his words. There is a word for that.
5) Poll after poll reveal that his desire to see LGBT people discriminated against is a minority view. A minority view that continues to shrink in size at a nice pace. His fellow Americans be they straight, gay, religious, agnostic, and atheist do not agree with his opinions. His fellow Americans think that marriage equality is a good thing.

I pity the moniker "Seattleblues". His insistence upon discrimination is a sad reflection of his character. His continual insistence that he is some "majority" that is having justice and equality forced upon him is a delusion not based in either reality or fact.

That is my $0.02. If you don't agree toss it in the appropriate dustbin at your leisure.

Take care.

Seattleblues, I was wondering when you made the conscious decision to be sexually attracted to women.

Just curious.

@86 - If I'd read your post, I might have saved myself the trouble of responding to the blighter. Oh well. Thanks anyway!

@92 - Just lovely. Truly.

Ignoring everything to do with SB:
@57: What you said. I've had Christian coworkers who brag about taking home more, after taxes, than they would have had they not tithed. And it's all tithing. There's no giving to what I would traditionally think of as a charity.

@93: I suspect that may be a daily ritual.

Let me put it this way: the citizens of a free society accept that it is possible to obey the law but still behave shamefully. In a theocracy, this distinction does not exist.

In other words: disgust, loathing, and ridicule of same-sex marriage may be unpleasant, but it's your right to feel that way and say so. It's our right to have legal same-sex marriage. You just have suck it up and deal, the same we have to suck it up and deal with all your rants and opinion. Neither one of us has to like it.

You know, I checked this thread two days ago to see when and if SB would get involved. Glad I wasn't disappointed.

I realized that as a conversationalist, he is a stereotype - the embodiment of the WASP Father figure that has historically dominated our idea of where authority lay. Society has slowly but surely been removing the Jenga blocks that make up his pedestal. Now that he realizes how tenuous his authority is, he pitches the most impotent of shit fits here on a blog.

I almost feel sorry for him. But not really, given his point of view and behavior here, my sense of schadenfreude as concerns SB is much stronger than my sympathy.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/how-…

Can't even get past the title: uh, no; Tony Perkins or any other minister or bible-believing, bible-obeying person does not force anyone to choose between anything in this regard. Jesus himself said he did not come to bring peace but a sword of division--even between family members, it's right in the book. Truth by its very nature separates from anything indicative of error. Being divisive or division is decried these days but if people just stop and think for a few minutes it's easy to see that division can be good and necessary. If you are obstinately disobedient to the law and design of God and am not interested in repenting--FOR ANY SIN--a person who is obedient and repent and fears God will inevitably separate and divide.

God is well within His right do command highest loyalty; friends don't have a heaven or hell to put us in, and it is Him we will all bow before--not temporal popularity or pleasures.