I've been saying for a while now that the day a Christian is tied to a fence post, beaten, and left to die, then I might have something better than a vigorous eye-rolling for people who claim to be the victims of Anti-Christian bullying and persecution. You know, the day anything even remotely bad happens to someone because of their Christianity.

Christians don't like thinking of themselves in the role of Rome.

This! They ARE the Romans. It's the religion of the Roman Empire.

If you don't let me persecute you, than you're a bully.
If I can't take away your rights, than I'm not free. Two thousand years of this bullshit is enough.

Not only are they Rome, but they're Rome after they ended their previous (eminently workable) policy of universal religious tolerance and instead imposed Christianity on the whole Empire. (Funny story: They fell right after that.)

tolerate my intolerance!

@3: it's not just the religion of rome, the Catholic Church LITERALLY IS THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

This Adam Lee guy is right on the money.

Oh come on, pretending you are victimized by, oh.. everyone, is crucial --crucial!-- to keeping a sprawling religious complex successfully mapped over a culture of very, very different people.

See, this is why you aren't a journalist, Savage. That whole BS screed from Lee could have been summed up- Christian hating bigot writes about how a Christian hating bigot hates Christianity.

Took him a lot or words to get there though...

Christians feel they are bullied when you take away their ability to impose their values on others.

Like those poor Catholic business owners who can't prevent their non-Catholic employees from having health-care coverage for birth control. Somehow that's entirely an affront to the business owner's freedom!

@7

Or why Savage was allowed to speak to high school children in a way that wouldn't be tolerated in any professional environment of grown adults?

To be fair, arrresting an indecent thing like Savage for public indecency would be hard on law enforcement. They'd have to put up with the filthy thing, to begin with. And he's kind of a like a chimp throwing scat in some ways. He's made himself so subhuman that he almost can't avoid being subhuman. Suppose it's a good thing that he's merely a clown to be laughed at, rather than someone to be taken seriously in the end.

Yeah, that is a bit puzzling.

@10: Lee's argument is perfectly valid, and your childish response demonstrates that it hit you squarely.

Another thing: In yesterday's post, you stated that homosexuals suffered from a "mental disorder", and that they are mentally sick. Yet, you have always maintained that they choose to be a "self selecting" minority. Well, which is it? Your internal logic is faulty and undermines the (flawed) arguments you make here.

Lastly, why have you lost your Danny Boy schtick?

And, SB, your continued use of "disgusting" and "filthy" when describing Dan and other gays is really, really telling. This says loads about your inner self-loathing.

@13

I stopped using Little Danny Boy the Savage because someone quite rightly noted that it's childish.

Savage made a vulgar inappropriate speech to other peoples minor children. He made fun of some of those kids who refused to listen to his tripe. He was properly castigated in the national presss for this. Lee wants to defend the indefensible for his own private ends, among them his own bigotry towards Christianity which he shares with Savage.

I answered the supposed conflict between the disorder of homosexuality and it's chosen nature in the other thread. My aunt suffers from a mental disorder for which she has prescribed medication. She can choose to take the medication and function normally, or not and function poorly. Unfortunately gays and lesbians have made very sure that treatment courses to help them to a healthy sexuality aren't studied, or even allowed to be studied. So if they can't be treated, it's kind of their own fault. Nevertheless, like an alcoholic who drinks, someone inclined to homosexuality who engages in the destructive behavior still is responsible for his or her behavior.

@14

Using those adjectives with reference to Savage or what he advocates has nothing to do with his chosen homosexual behavior per se. It has to do with his attacks on morality and integrity and fidelity and family and marriage. It has to do with his calling for young people to follow him into the sewer of his own promiscuity and perversions. It has to do with the moral nature of the man, not his homosexual urges.

I'd use the same words to describe a heterosexual man or woman who behaved in his loathesome manner.

And the implied 'you must be gay' insult? Really? On occasion you have something worth hearing to say. This is beneath you.

The babysitter is here, which means She Who Must Be Obeyed is expecting me elsewhere. Please enjoy the Christian bashing. Too bad you folks don't have any lions....

@15
I still find it cute that you're following Dan around like this. Trying to get his attention.

I just think that if you addressed your attraction to him in a more adult fashion it might be better for you both.

"Nevertheless, like an alcoholic who drinks, someone inclined to homosexuality who engages in the destructive behavior still is responsible for his or her behavior."

Yes. Including the way that person approaches others that he is attracted to. Now be responsible.

Nicely said.

@ Dan,

This made HuffPo
http://johnshore.com/2012/04/29/dan-sava…

Personally, I'd say that their "subconscious awareness" of the fact that their entire existence is built on a pack of myths, fables, and fairy tales cobbled together 2,000 years ago creates "cognitive dissonance" so great that they're ready to fight and kill anyone who challenges it.

@ Seattleblues,

Why don't you see if you can try proving your a Christian by following the Bible?

John 13:34-35
New International Version (NIV)
34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Ephesians 5:1-2
New International Version (NIV)
5 1 Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

1 John 4:19-21
New International Version (NIV)
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

Matthew 22:37-39
New International Version (NIV)
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

Mark 12:30-31
New International Version (NIV)
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Luke 10:27
New International Version (NIV)
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Micah 6:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly with your God.

Luke 6:35
New International Version (NIV)
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Stop getting worked up over what you see as disrespect for Christians, Christianity, and the Bible and start acting like the Christian you claim to be. YOU are more disrespectful to Christanity than anything a non-believer like Dan Savage can do or say. It is time to grow up and learn to love your enemy and actually do what your told you must do and stand against injustice, feed and clothe poor. Your repeated actions on this blog are in directed violation. You've made yourself an obstical.

Sorry, Seattleblues you can get all smug, sanctimonious and defensive about Christianity and then not follow the commands and actually act like one. Your Bible doesn't give you a choice. If your a Christian than you act like one, and if you can't act like one then you turn your cheek and you walk away. Your Bible doesn't give you another option. The salt must be salty and the light must shine, and if it doesn't it sent to the garbage. The tree that does not bear fruit is cut down.

Luke 13:6-7
New International Version (NIV)
6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’

Think about going somewhere that you can learn to love your enemy and bear fruit. Claiming that Dan Savage is too awful to do as you are commanded is not an excuse.

i hate being reminded that people like SB exist

@ 20: Thank you, Kim. It won't do any good, but I appreciate the effort.

@8, Adam is one of my favorite blog writers. Even times or places when I disagree with him, I find him to be articulate and well-reasoned.

Seattleblues everything you say in your posts are so obviously meant to stir shit up. You truly get off on it. You are pathetic and why people continue to engage in your weird little rants is beyond me.

SB, in @15 you wrote: "I answered the supposed conflict between the disorder of homosexuality and it's chosen nature in the other thread" in order to explain the internal logical contradiction you have in your beliefs towards homosexuals.

The thing is, you NEVER DID address that contradiction, and you are skating over that issue in your response. I am not sure whether you are being so glib on purpose (and deliberately deceptive), or if you are simply ignorant of how that undermines everything you claim about gays and lesbians.

On many occasions, you have claimed that homosexuals choose to be gay, and therefore should not be afforded protected status as "self selected" minorities. But, now you qualify your statements with vague notions that homosexuals are voluntarily embracing their "mental illnesses" and have even managed to sabotage research into treatment that would "cure" them.

Essentially, you are saying that they are choosing to be mentally ill, and I think we both know that that is not possible. The fact is that your argument is still contradictory, and that your beliefs are based upon that contradiction...they are weak, indeed.

Nail 'em up, I say! Nail some sense into 'em!

It's difficult to watch you guys engaging with SeattleBlues. I feel like I'm watching a group of exasperated people trying to convince a rigid old man that "it's not scientifically proven that black people are inherently stupider than white people."

This guy chooses to get his opinions on modern social matters from one single outdated and questionable source. Despite mountains of evidence that this source he relies on for his unquestioning moral guidance sometimes promotes evil (slavery, rape, murder, genocide), he refuses to question its validity. Likewise, if a rigid old man learned that "black people are biologically stupider" from the eugenics movement and yet he refused to question the movement's legitimacy in light of some of the evils it promoted, then we're not going to get very far in an argument with him.

Honestly, anyone who justifies their morals with a SINGLE text/source (whether it's the Constitution or Ayn Rand novels, it doesn't matter) rather than providing a legitimate argument of their views based on the empirically-proven impacts of that thing, is not an intelligent debater, and is not going to respond well to actual evidence-based arguments.

Luckily, the dude's either a dying breed (or the ultimate troll.) The serious homophobes, and with them the homophobic trolls, are slowly going extinct.

Kim in Portland is the Awesome!

@20 We should all copy your comment, carry it in our smartphones or wallets, and read it freely to annoying bigots who cite scriptural nonsense at us.

@21 Ditto.

I find it very telling that Roman history (as taught to schoolkids) highlights the Roman persecution of Christians, but never seems to mention the Roman persecution of Pagans which followed after Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, when people could be found guilty of Paganism simply for looking at the sun. IMO, the lesson we should learn from history is: Religious persecution is wrong. The lesson that is more commonly learned is: Persecuting Christians is wrong.

this is so exactly right. we've (i'm a christian) been in bed with the enemy pretty much since constantine converted.

there is, of course, a long history of christians casting our lot with the powerless and persecuted -- see dorothy day, for example, or thomas merton, or martin luther king, or shane claiborne for contemporary examples -- but the christianize (as andrew sullivan aptly calls them) right is not part of this tradition. they are definitely in bed with the devil.

that's "christianist" not christianize (i hate autocorrect)

@28: Brooklyn Reader,

Fix the typos first. :-)

@22: Nocutename,

You're welcome. And, I know. No "fruit" is expected.

#20/kim in portland: tell it sister!

also, there's the one in the 13th chapter of corinthians that i love, about how when it comes to faith, hope and love, the greatest of those is love. bigger than faith! get that? even bigger than faith is LOVE.

"christians" like seattleblues almost prove to me how radical and even divine jesus's message is, because it's so freaking hard to follow it: he says, put aside the purity codes, put aside the rules about who may touch whom, and who may eat what, and just start loving each other already. when the rules get in the way of loving each other, throw out the rules, not love. that's the bottom line.

Dan is obviously feeling guilty for what he said, as this is like the 6th + post he's made since then in an effort to alleviate his guilt. But seriously, Dan, you don't need to feel guilty, you just need to give people the same respect that you want from them. There is no amount of posts you can relay about your comments that will change them. You made some extremely offensive comments (without just cause) and regardless of how many people back you up, it doesn't change how piss poorly you expressed your sentiments (which, btw, I share with you, I just don't try and force it down people's throats unless they are disrespecting my beliefs). You are a role model now, like it or not, you are literally the face of this movement. Get over your guilt, and just learn from your stupid mistake by learning how to respect people as you desire to be respected. I'm sure you prefer if people do not call your beliefs "bullshit". And btw, I still haven't heard you give a proper apology, and I think that more than anything, will alleviate your guilt and help people forgive you. And no, an apology with an asterix explaining what you "meant to say" or rather, what you term "what I actually said", is really no apology at all. "oh, I'm sorry that you are offended", that's not an apology. Try this: I am sorry for what I said, I was wrong to say that, and I am going to do some soul searching to better understand where my contempt comes from. That, is an apology. For the record, I am not religious. I do not believe in any of them, but I do respect others enough to not belittle their beliefs unless they are doing so to mine...

I stand behind you, Dan. But while I agree that what you said wasn't bullying, it easily falls under the definition of intimidation. When you called the people walking out a name, you were attempting to embarrass them in front of their peers for their oversensitivity. To claim that that isn't a form of intimidation is lying to yourself.

@20

It must create some intersting cognitive dissonance holding the views you do.

I mean, clearly you think yourself virtuous and loving and erudite regarding Christianity. So you defend that faith, right? Well, no. Christians are the especial target of your disdain and even loathing.

But any foul, filthy, vulgar, destructive thing said by the your hero Savage, any attempt to ruin kids lives and destroy family and marriage on his part is to be commended. Not excused, you understand, but loudly applauded by Ms Kim in Portland. Anything that passes through the keyboard of the sacred Daniel Savage is holy writ you unreservedly admire and fall all over yourself to defend, no matter how indefensible. (Cf- All republicans should be fucking dead, talking like a drunken lout to other peoples minor children, making fun of kids who don't want to listen to his foulness etc.)

So how does a person come to love the barbarian trying to tear down the walls of civilization? How do you love a person trying to corrupt young people and ruin their lives, start the rot in their souls? What's the line between defending your culture and those kids against this kind of barbarian and turning the other cheek? That's a difficult one, for me anyway.

However, in this case you're right. As mind bendingly difficult as it is to find anything whatever to love in the self made foulness of a Dan Savage, that is the commmandment laid on me as a Christian. But, I have to say, if anyone has Hercules number, I want to touch bases and see if he doesn't mind trading labors. His were far, far easier.

@27

Please note where I cite the Bible to support anything. (I assume that's the single source you state I use, though in your fear and hatred you can't even bring yourself to write the proper name.)

I'll help you. I didn't. You do know that regarding homosexuality as a rebellion against the natural order of things isn't limited to Judeo Christian cultures, don't you? See, if 4 people of different faiths look at the rising sun and say it must be morning a couple of things are true. A single faith source for the observation isn't in evidence. And despite having different backgrounds and moral systems, these people all came to the same conclusion.

You might ask yourself why this is so, if you weren't so afraid of the answer.

FYI- the homophobe BS is purely for consumption of true believers like you. The word is a bludgeon the left uses to try to shame those who have no reason for shame. It's high time the majority of us who realize that ignore the stupid insult accordingly. Bigot works- if a person truly is bigoted and not just 'someone whose views I dislike which is far more often the case than not-' just as well. The number of people truly pathologically afraid of homosexuals is so small as to render using the word kind of pointless in political discourse. But hey, you're a lib. Don't let objective reality intrude on your little delusions, amiright?

The one good thing about the ever so lovely Seattleblues crawling out from under his rock is Kim's absolutely amazing post @20.

@37:

Seattleblues,

I'll I asked was could you act like a Christian is supposed to act according to the Bible. And your answer is apparently a confirmation that you cannot. And, that your unwillingness is justified by your dislike of Dan Savage; a fellow child of God and worthy of Christ's sacrifice as your Bible states.

I do not disdain or loathe Christians. Why would anyone loathe someone who loves their neighbor, fights injustice, treats their enemies with the love that their humanity demands, and who sees to it that the needs of the poor are bring met? On the contrary I admire them. I aspire to live a life that emulates exactly that. So, I'm afraid your anger is allowing you to manufacture false attitudes about me that are simply untrue.

Personally I think your anger is misdirected. If you had integrity and the strength to check your behavior against how your Bible commands you, then you'd be sincerely repentant by your behavior here. That is IF you actually believe that you are supposed to live by the Bible and you TRULY believe that you are supposed to emulate Jesus. But, you lash out because you know that you have not acted as you are supposed to. And you are frustrated that I and many others know this and don't accept your dislike of Dan Savage and liberals as justification for your disobedience. So go be mad at your Bible, or more honestly, at yourself. YOU are the problem.

@20 and 40: Thank you Kim, once again.

@ Seattleblues: I was going to come in here breathing fire because you stepped to Kim. Because that right there is a step too far as far as I'm concerned, but she handled you with the grace with which she handles all your ass hattery, and again gave us an example of some one who walks the walk of her faith.

You are a liar and coward and as full of bile and hate as is possible for a person to be, and yet Kim is still kind to you.

You should listen to her.

@37
"So how does a person come to love the barbarian trying to tear down the walls of civilization?"

I think you may have built him up a little bit in your imagination.
The dude writes a sex advice column.

"But, I have to say, if anyone has Hercules number, I want to touch bases and see if he doesn't mind trading labors."

Again, he writes a sex advice column.
It isn't even carried in many "mainstream" papers.

I think you may have unrealistic expectations of Dan.

I'm sorry, Seattleblues. No matter how persistently you try to get Dan's attention, he and his partner probably still won't want to have a three-way with you.

@SeattleBlues. So far, just in this thread, you've referred to Mr. Savage using the following terms:

an indecent thing

the filthy thing

so subhuman that he almost can't avoid being subhuman.

If you want to see a reason that others aren't taking you for a serious person or considering your finer points, look no further. Reasonable people don't feel compelled to dehumanize those with whom they disagree.

You're not making a very good case for Christianity as a civilizing influence by your own example.

I like this article.

Because I can't help comparing this "Christian False Victim Syndrom", that makes members of a majority and powerful religion cry foul everytime anyone from a minority dares to contest anything about it, with their deafening silence on the very real abuse that the Iraqi Christians are suffering right now.

Do the far-right American Christians care for the plight of Iraqi Christians ? No, they don't !

How come American far-right Christians are not up in arms, demonstrating against the persecution of their Iraqi comrades, that has led to the biggest Christian exode in this millenia ? That is real abuse ! How come their indignation is directed toward Dan Savage instead ?

Over there, fellow Christians are being tortured and killed because of their religion - ever since far-right American Christian G. W. Bush decided to start a war there, while spewing fundamentalist Christian "Gog and Magog" religious nonsense, instead of honestly avowing oil envy as his main motive. Check Wikipedia :

"Chaldeans and other religious minorities in Iraq have endured extensive persecution since 2003, including the abductions and murders of their religious leaders, threats of violence or death if they do not abandon their homes and businesses, and the bombing or destruction of their churches and other places of worship. All this has occurred as anti-Christian emotions rise within Iraq.

Father Ragheed Aziz Ganni, pastor of the Chaldean Church of the Holy Spirit, was killed on 3 June 2007 in Mosul, Iraq alongside the subdeacons Basman Yousef Daud, Wahid Hanna Isho, and Gassan Isam Bidawed, after he celebrated mass.

Chaldean Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho and three companions were abducted on 29 February 2008, Mosul, Iraq, and murdered a few days later."

@38: "Please note where I cite the Bible to support anything. (I assume that's the single source you state I use, though in your fear and hatred you can't even bring yourself to write the proper name.)"
Please note where Username claims that you cite the Bible to support anything. Though in fairness, he's being a bit inaccurate; you have yet to cite any sources in support of your views on the gay, instead relying solely on hand-waving.
Also, please don't conflate religious principles with empirically-based reasoning. Just please don't; it makes me a sad panda the likes of which are almost never seen in this universe.

@27:

Yeah, it now seems rather pointless to engage SB after the couple of years that he has been posting to SLOG. We've shown that his belief system is contradictory and not internally consistent, and Kim has demonstrated many times that he is not sincere and acts in an unchristian-like fashion.

At this point he should be dismissed, like the period troll, or the Danny Boy troll (who I suspected he was...when SB gets in a lather his posts parallel the Danny Boy troll to an eerie degree).

Furthermore, not only do his statements in this thread completely adhere to Adam Lee's characterization of "christians" with victim complexes, but his constant use of the words "filthy", "dirty", "disgusting" and "ill" when describing gays shows us that he has deep seated self-loathing. He's in denial over the study that shows a high correlation between being queer and engaging gay bashing, and perceives those who call him on it as attempting to insult him.

I haven't gone back to check (and I wouldn't waste my time this way), but it seems that Seattle Blues has really amped up the use of epithets like "filthy" and "disgusting" lately. Now he's calling Dan "an indecent thing." He's losing his command of civility.

Either he's getting desperate or the self-loathing is getting worse.

Also, what's with this "Dan used vile, foul language in front of defenseless minor children" stuff? Dan used the words "bullshit," and "pansy-assed" to an audience of high school journalists. I think they've heard worse before. I'm pretty sure they've used worse before.

Yep, you caught me. Darn.

So, I'm going to ask humbly for your help, Sloggers. How does a guy go about being queer when he has no sexual attraction to other guys? Close my eyes and think of Global Warming, maybe? Should I follow the example of my new hero Savage and have sex with anything that moves, or am I allowed to even a little discriminate? I don't know, don't want to have sex with guys at all, never mind strangers or groups of other guys. I guess I'll have to be a celibate queer guy since I see other guys as fishing or golf buddies not butt buddies- if that's okay with my new pals.

As for etiquette, do I have to stand up in an auditorium and insult and belittle children for disagreeing with me, because I'd find that one kind of difficult. Do I have to sell my two hunting dogs and buy some fluffy suqueak toy of a dog with pink ribbons tied in it's fur and cute little matching coats to wear, because I really like my dogs and that would really be a bummer. Walking a cat wannabe with personality problems really isn't my thing, dog-wise. Do I have to engage in vile unjustified personal attacks on politicians who happen to think gays like us (Go gays!) don't get to redefine society for our own benefit? Do I have to say that everyone who disagrees with me 1) Is a hater bigoted Christianist homophobe, honey!! and 2) MUST be gay!

Final question- Can I just be the healthy heterosexual I am who happens to think gay men and lesbians have the right to their sex lives, but not the right to redefine society for their self selecting minority benefit? Cause that's what I am, you pinheaded morons.

@50: So, you have no attraction to dudes, don't want to suck cock, and have no desire to gay it up? Oh my gosh! You must be straight! Thanks for admitting that sexual orientation is innate rather than chosen; I feel like you've made some real progress here.
Unfortunately, you seem to have confused "gay" (which most people are fine with but you seem very uncomfortable around) with "swishy as all hell" (which I can't stand either, no matter the gender or orientation of the person in question). And again, you think that gays will be redefining society. You have long been too cowardly to support this view with any evidence, so I will ask you again.
HOW WILL ALLOWING GAYS TO GET MARRIED AFFECT A STRAIGHT DUDE LIKE YOU OR ME?
Evidence, motherfucker; do you have it?

@50
"How does a guy go about being queer when he has no sexual attraction to other guys?"

But you had previously claimed that homosexuality was a choice.
Can't you just ... you know ... choose to want to have sex with other guys?

Don't ask me. I don't think it is a choice.

"Final question- Can I just be the healthy heterosexual I am who happens to think gay men and lesbians have the right to their sex lives, but not the right to redefine society for their self selecting minority benefit?"

See? There you go again.
"... self selecting ..."
So you are claiming that homosexuality is a choice.

But then you ask for help on making that choice?

I don't think you need help with that choice.
I think you need to be honest with yourself.
There's a reason you spend your time inveighing against a gay guy who writes a sex advice column.

A couple years ago SLOG had a thread where Christianity was discussed, and SB participated in that thread.

In that thread I stated that a person whose preponent subjective value is to adhere to rationalism when making ethical decisions can be trusted to at least attempt to reach sound decisions. On the other hand, I maintained that religious persons who place greater value on their (inherently irrational) religious doctrines than on utilizing rationalism cannot be so trusted. Those persons allow their religious views to take precedence over rationalism and override their ethical decision making processes much of the time.

The real problem is that typical religious persons generally cannot articulate their beliefs, and when they do we find their beliefs to be inconsistent, contradictory and confused. Their beliefs are unpredictable and untrustworthy. Ironically, those religious persons who ARE consistent most of the time are fundamentalists and literalists.

Typical for an American Christian, SB falls within the first category...he takes a very irrational approach when making many ethical choices (religion supercedes everything else). So, SB, and those like him, are unpredictable...they cannot even clearly articulate which portions of the Bible they adhere to and which they dismiss as outdated cultural remnants. Being unpredictable, they cannot be trusted to make rational ethical decisions.

Now, Kim in Portland is also religious, and it follows that religion would intrude upon her ethical decision making as well. But, she can be trusted to a much higher degree than SB because she has stated, time and again, that she has dispensed with the dross that fills her holy book. Instead, she sees the Bible as a cultural artifact that is filled with metaphors that are sometimes poetic, sometimes horrific and sometimes useful in providing guidance. Kim disregards the horrific and outdated moral imperatives in the Bible and uses the book's relevant wisdom to help guide her life.

And this is where liberal Christianity triumphs over its conservative counterpart. I, personally, have zero use for religion. But, at least I can trust Kim to do the right thing most of the time.

I've been reading Seattleblues' comments over the last two years in an effort to understand what his beliefs are, but he has shown in the last few weeks that he's inconsistent and insincere. We need go no farther than his last post to see that he's simply a troll and easily dismissed..

@55
"@51 & 53 What SB means by 'gay is a choice' is that engaging in homosexual activity is, except in cases of sexual assault, a choice. I think most of us agree with him about that."

I do not think that a person "chooses" to have a sex drive.
Nor do I think that a person "chooses" the orientation of their sex drive.
So you have a default state of wanting to have sex.
This default state even includes dreaming about having sex.

Sexual response is even part of your autonomic nervous system.
So it is only a "choice" if you define "choice" in the broadest possible sense.

50, Seattleblues, you seem very attracted to Dan Savage. You never seem to stop thinking about gay sex, and have been posting about it for years now.

"How does a guy go about being queer when he has no sexual attraction to other guys?"
Wait, you're saying you didn't choose your sexuality? How does a gay guy go about being straight if he has no attraction to women?

58, So you, as a gay man could choose to have sex with a 400 pound woman? You'd be able to choose to be sexually aroused by that?

Repressing one's true sexuality has been shown to be very psychologically damaging. While gay people don't harm society, celibacy has been shown to manifest itself in destructive ways. (Ever wonder why there's so much pedophilia in the Catholic church?)

@60
"SB seems to believe that the agenda of the gay rights movement would harm society in some way, if put into practice. How he came to that conclusion, I don't know."

Then stop trying to explain his (your) opinion (by proxy).
He's had enough people asking him that question already.
If he (you) want to claim otherwise ... stop being disingenuous and just state what the damage would be and why.

@59: Choosing celibacy does *not* cause people to molest children. Please don't say that.

There are celibate monks and other spiritual people who choose that life; hell, there are celibate-by-choice married couples. Molestation of children by priests is much more complicated than that. Some psychologists believe it is the arrest of sexual development at a young age that makes them attracted to children, but, it's hard to make studies to confirm that.

Celibacy can be a challenging yet very rewarding way of life for some people and that decision alone doesn't cause them to start raping kids. If I became celibate right now, my attraction for grown men would not manifest itself into a desire to fuck whatever vulnerable person came into my life, and I'm suspecting that would not happen to any other psychologically healthy person either.

62, Sexuality is hardwired into us. I'm not saying that all celibate people will molest children, but repressed or denied sexuality will come out, often times in destructive ways. Not all Catholic priests molest children. Though a very high number of them do, but that also has a lot to do with the secretive culture of the Catholic priesthood, and their protection of known molesters. If priests could have open, unashamed sex lives with other adults, you'd find that the cases of molestation would go way, way down. Many Priests just have secret sex with other adults. (I personally know several sexually active gay priests, non of whom would molest a child.) Some are actually celibate, and don't molest children.

"The Professionally Confused and Frantically Brandishing " is SeattleBlues.

And y'all should know better than feed the troll. It just goes to its tighs.

Wow. And all this time I thought Seattleblues was a woman. Huh.