Talk Elections

Republicans voting in the affirmative: Brown, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, Murkowski, Kirk

Common sense had a majour victory today.

LOL Kirk is such a flip-flopping lying hack. He is a true piece of sh!t.

Well it's wasn't a repeal vote. But it's basically a done deal now. This is a great day. :D

I guess his lover threatened to out him.

()

not technically...you're right. But for all intents and purposes...

Excellent.

:D

Kirk can now continue feeding us his "zomgz i am modirate" card.

Obviously, Kirk can't win either way. If he votes against it, he's a terrible excuse for a human being for calling himself moderate and then voting against the gays.....if he votes for it, well it's obviously just a "show" to keep selling us the BS.

Perhaps you should give him....you know....a little time in office before deciding you hate him?

As I said before the election....it'd be nice if he voted similarly to his time in the House, but I still consider him the lesser evil regardless of whether he goes back to that point or not.

C-SPAN 2 has a thing at the bottom of their screen saying the Final vote will be at 3 PM Eastern today. Anyone else hearing that? I thought they were going to do it tomorrow.

Reid said it on the floor that the vote would be at 3.

Woo hoo!

John McCain should retire already. He's increasingly becoming a senile old right-wing nutjob.

Excellent!

It's about damn time.

Good -I prefer that this policy be overturned by Congress rather than through the courts.  

About 17 years too late. Other than that I welcome the repeal of this moronic policy.

Well, I guess Congressional Democrats aren't that bad...I guess.

Wait...is this still the lame duck session?

Have you completely lost it?

My brain tends to not work very well in the morning.

Excellent news!!!!!!!

Ensign and Burr?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Ding dong the witch is dead!

;D

They gays just got a fine Christmas present. And an early one, to boot!

Can we get a list of which senators voted yay or nay?

The cloture vote is right here. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00279)

Brown, Collins, Kirk, Murkowski, Snowe, Voinovich were Republicans voting in favor; no Democrats voted against it. Bunning, Hatch, Gregg, and Manchin were absent.

As far as I can tell, the only difference with the final passage is that Ensign and Burr voted aye on the bill itself while voting nay on cloture (for some reason).

I just thought of something really funny I could add to the end of that, lol.

Great news! :)

Burr's a bit of a surprise. Has there been any indication that he'd support this? I thought he was a pretty conservative guy.

Burr voted for repeal?  Where did that come from?

edit: Swedish Cheese had the same thought as me

I know the Ensign and Burr thing is crazy, yes, but to show proper sourcing proof:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn-senate-gays-20101219,0,4926811.story

Right after the paragraph saying who switched parties for the cloture vote:


I have no idea why. Why would those two support the bill? And if they did for whatever reason, why vote against the cloture motion?

Pretty map! (http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/senate/2/281?ref=politics)

The only thing I could find about Burr:

(about halfway down this article) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026108-503544.html)

Good news.

Did someone tell Manchin to get lost?

Actually, gays have been allowed to serve openly in Sweden since 1977, so it's more like 33 years too late ;)


I guess that kind of makes sense. So this is basicly Burr realising history will probably look bad on those who voted against this, and since there's six years until he'll have to worry about potential RINO-hunting he said why not...

EDIT: Also someone should edit the thread title, since it passed with 65. :)

:)

Passed in a Lame Duck as well. Double trouble.

Burr frequently votes against closure on popular things and then, if the bill gets 60+ votes, he'll vote for it, so that he can have his cake and eat it too, so to speak. He's pretty disgusting in that way.

Kirk voted against repeal in the House this year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/mark-kirk-votes-against-d_n_593728.html) and when he was running in the primary said DADT "worked out well" (http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/200910160001). He's an unprincipled, pandering douchebag.

Has Bubba comented on this?

17 years too late.  Better late than never, I guess.

To protect the world from devastation.

Glad Webb came around on this too

To unite all people within our nation.

()

Arkansas Senators FTW.

Judd Gregg and Charles Grassley confirm once again that they are "sensible" conservatives. ::)

Would libertarian hero Joe Miller have voted for this? Because Murkowski did.

Intresting, if you made SD, NE, and LA red, MO, IO, WV, FL, and NH green, you'd get what a McCain vs. Clinton map would likly have looked like. (Assuming Palin was never the Republican VP candidate.)

Montana and North Dakota, and especially Alaska? Dubious. For that matter, North Carolina? Also dubious.

To denounce the evils of truth and love.

:)

Great news! Especially pleased about Burr and his voting for this after the election (otherwise it may have been a ploy to woo moderate voters).

I think Gregg actually didn't vote, which means the only Senators in Obama states to vote Nay were Lugar, Grassley, and LeMieux.

To extend our reach to the stars above.

Jessie!

James!

Team Rocket, blasting off at the speed of light!

Surrender now or prepare to fight!

Awesome. This discriminatory policy should have never been enacted.

Meowth that's right!

She may be on her way to status as the Republican Lieberman. :D

FYI the issue with Kirk was how blatant his flip flop was on this. I wouldn't have made a big deal if he was always opposed.

Free Republic is full of hilarious comments. My favorite being something along the lines of "This will ruin our military just as it has ruined the British, Israeli, Canadian and German militaries." If this was on any other forum, everyone would assume it to be sarcasm, but for some reason Freepers expect us to take it as fact with no backing up. Quite amusing.

So... it would be better if he just flat out opposed repeal rather than to help overturn it?

Ideological extremists of either variety just don't make any sense sometimes.

Now when will Obama sign it?

because Gregg wasn't there to vote one way or another ::)

Congrats, Phil! :)

This comment won't go over well...  :P

And Manchin interestingly didn't vote.

Good to see this pass the though.  My confidence that this would get accomplished was correct!

Oh come on Phil... you'd look so much better with froofy black curly hair, a giant feather boa, and a stage name like 'Phillistina' ;)

It was a step in the right direction though, because allowing open homosexuals into the military wasn't going to happen in 1993.

Pat Toomey says he would have voted in favor, interestingly.

Yes it was, Burr and Ensign decided to play weird games by voting against cloture and then voting in favor of the bill.  The majority of your party obviously were still bigoted piles of trash.

Not surprised by Ensign.  I'm a bit surprised Graham didn't end up voting for the actual bill after it passed cloture though.

Lindsey likes it in the closet.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Dude's so far in the closet he lives in Narnia.

He said this during the campaign.

At least now that Kirk was elected he'll have company. He was pretty lonely after Larry Craig left.

Probably sticking to the "not until the budget" thing for the cloture vote, and once it cleared that, they figured they could vote on the bill with a clear fiscal conscience.

Does anybody know why Hatch didn't vote?  He was one that I'd have expected to vote YEA.

Are you joking? For the rest of his term he will try to out-conservative DeMint and Coburn.

I wonder if we'll see Graham move right so he can save himself from being tea bagged in 2014? I'm a little surprised he voted against this unless he doesn't want to serve in the military anymore. ;)

He can't come out to himself yet, Dukie.  ;)

Then he would've voted NAY.

he was at his grandson's graduation.

Nice of you to post it the map.  I actually just learned about this vote, seconds ago, when I read this thread.  I've been mostly in the closet the last couple of days, and a few other strange places, so I haven't watched much TV except for some children's movies during prime time. 

Good to know that this is all behind us.

So... do we know how he would've voted?  The only quotes I see are that he's open to it.

Is anyone else shocked that Burr voted for this?? I am.

Somewhat but not really considering Burr himself and his style. I actually rather expected a few surprise votes on this.

:D

Here is my view of DADT

I happen to agree with this repeal. First let me say this, I'm a strong Christian, but I'm also politically-independent. I have a very weird view on this. First off, I HATE homosexuality, it goes against everything the Lord my God teaches. However, I have to agree with Hillary Clinton when she said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight". I come at it from a defense point of view. We have lost many strategic and key people in our military because of DADT. For example, we have had several soldiers who could translate Arabic, the predominate language of the muslim terrorists, be discharged because of their sexual orientation.  I think this move actually does strengthen our defenses.  If you want to talk about our morality slipping, it flew out the window ages ago.  Plus, I don't think my God wants me to discriminate against anyone.  I am called to love people.  I love the sinner, but hate the sin.  Homosexuality is no more severe of a sin than telling a little white lie.  The consequences may be more severe, but in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin and it doesn't matter whether you miss heaven by a half inch or 100,000 miles. The fact is, you still missed it.  If we banned homosexuality in the military, then to be fair, we'd have to ban everyone who has told a lie, which just about encompasses everybody.  So, that's my view on the situation.

This is not meant to offend anyone, just gives my views.

Pretty backward, bigoted views you've got.

Trying to avoid the predictable (and unproductive) discussions and go for a different angle:



Why do you feel so strongly against homosexuality -- all caps "HATE" -- and then say all sin is the same? Do you feel the same depth of feeling about little white lies?

Wow you have a lot of hate, venom and bigotry inside of you.

I disagree. No more than the average person, for certain, and whatever else is going that doesn't make it to the keyboard, he displays less than the average. There's other stuff going on here (no, not saying he's gay himself) which is less interesting.

Considering the opinions of the average Oklahoman, his views are liberal, deeply-felt, and well-reasoned.

Percicution people for their religous beliefs is bad.

Nice choice of words there. Tee hee ;)

No it isn't.

You go against everything I believe in quite frankly; in how you treat your working life, your family and your relationships. You are a model to the forum in how not to live your life.

BushOklahoma is a bigoted fake Christian.

Haha, Thanks for sharing!!  I know I do things a heck of a lot differently than most people, and I could stand to learn a few things in a few areas.  I'm not disappointed in myself or anything like that.  In fact, right now, I have a lot of joy in my life.  Joy unspeakable.

Haha!! Thank you, that gives me courage to keep on keepin' on!!!!

It's fitting a supposed reverend in a bigoted, compromised church would engage in immoral scamming.

Did you even read what I wrote? You think you can stand on a high ground and say you 'HATE' homosexuality (and as it is in uncompromisable part of my being, by extension you are making claims against me as a person) and then throw in a 'haha' to someone calling you out on your own shambolic, ego driven greedy existance.

You are not a model of humanity Bushie; you are a sorry excuse for a man forever in a state of arrested development permanently attached to the tete of anyone around you for support and succour while being captivated by the shiny pennies of scammers and people who want to f-ck up your entire existance. And when things go wrong you fix on your innane grin and raise out your platitudes to an empty sky. And then have the gall to think you have the slighest clue, have the slightest iota of what human relationships in everything from sex to business are all about. You fail at just about everyone you forge or you jeopardise it for a quick path to marriage and sex or for a quick buck.

I don't give a gold plated, cherry flavoured f-ck what you think about anything you open your gullible mouth about.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheReasonYouSuckSpeech

I don't know. A haughty gay university-educated Brit lecturing an ignorant American poor that he is an inferior class of human being seems like the dramatic conflict for every Indiana Jones movie made, except the miserable second one.

DAMN! Got chilly in Scotland all of a sudden.

How?

Good thing you've chosen to respond to him several times.

Brrrrrr...  It's chilly, and it's not because Heathrow is paralyzed!!!!

If he thinks that will phase me, he didn't even come close to succeeding!!!  Oh, wait, he did succeed! It makes me more determined and it reassures me I must be doing something right.

About my views, as I've stated several times before, I actually do support civil unions and really am ambivalent to gay marriage.  It doesn't affect me, and it doesn't weaken the God-ordained institution of marriage.  I do believe that I should not discriminate against gays.  They have just as much right to see their loved ones in the hospital, or be the durable power of attorney, serve in our Armed Forces (as the intention of this thread and repeal), or other things that heterosexuals have the privilege to do.  I don't agree with homosexuality and I do believe it's a choice, but I don't believe that choice should bar someone from living life as a normal human being.

And, back to alfeitch's reply to me, I specifically ask that no one report it or that no moderator infract it or edit it in any way.

Isn't there this odd Christian belief (about which I have considerable ambivalence), that you supposedly should hate the "sin," (as seen through their particular little lens through which they peer at life),  but not the sinner. So Christians who buy the dogma, lock, stock and barrel, feel perfectly comfortable traducing that which is essential and of the essence of a person, and gives their life meaning and purpose and joy, and without which, none of those things would obtain, but don't have a clue that it is just so cutting an opinion, and very hurtful. They don't mean to hurt, it just come trippingly off the tongue.

That is just the way it is out there. For myself, I really don't care what others think (not that I am offended by their opinions, and I do try to nibble away at the edges sometimes, but not too hard, as I suspect most of you know), unless informed, and have reasoned opinions, and are persons whose intellect and knowledge, and careful parsing of the pros and cons, I respect.

Does any of that make sense?

PS: This post is directed to one person, by the way, really, afleitch.  Most of us, and certainly including myself, from what we know, consider you a fine chap indeed, and we admire you, and your partner, and how you manage you life. But if you can get into the frame of mind to just not let the "others" get you down, that is just one less source of negative energy in your life, perhaps.

Kind of. But here's the thing; the man who's teachings Christians are supposed to follow took a fairly strong line on hypocrisy. That's one reason why Okie's moralising is so utterly obnoxious.

The point, which hopefully you agree is reasonable, is that, while Afleitch and many others may be capable of shrugging off others' opinions, not everyone is so fortunate, and no one can do it all the time. It is somewhat difficult to imagine how incredibly difficult life would be if I were daily exposed to vicious hate and condemnation of the sort Bushie is espousing--even from evidently quite stupid people. And I think you would feel the same way but are blessed by only on rare occasions being the victim of such perverse nastiness of human character. Such is not true, of course, of gay people, who hear (whether through media or social interaction) pretty much every day that they are evil and immoral and nasty and unpleasant and all sorts of un-Christian (to borrow) statements.

Now, I guess being atheist I can sort of see it, but atheists, while even more universally hated, at least fly under the radar, and I wouldn't expect to hear nasty remarks more than a couple of times a month (and they are easy to take lightly as well, as I do not think it affects much of my life) at most frequent.

To me there is a double standard going on here.  I can't say one thing against homosexuality without being accused of bigotry or homophobia, but people can say bad stuff about Christianity all day long and never be called out.  People can't say one thing to promote their faith without being called a "Bible-thumper" or other things.  People can promote their homosexuality all day long and everyone is so loving and caring toward that.  Every time I try to tell someone about my faith, others accuse me of trying to shove Christianity down their throat.

I'm not trying to be offensive or anything and if I am, has anyone given thought to how I felt when my faith was being trashed right after I lost my job?  But, it's OK to bash Bushie, because he's fun to trash and his faith is useless, but he doesn't dare say anything about homosexuality or we'll call him a bigot and a sorry excuse for a human.

The issue is when you (or anyone else for that matter) use religion as a way to make excuses for being a bigot and going off on hate rants.

You didn't answer my question.  I can't say anything bad about homosexuality and the Biblical perspective of that without being called a bigot?

I agree indeed, Verily, but might add, that I am an upfront atheist, well "near" atheist  (although not a religion hater really), and I  have truly met no one, yes nobody,  who gives me any static, from all walks of life and points from the theological compass.

Of course, sometimes it helps when I say that faith is a gift, as to which I was not blessed, and to which I am not temperamentally suited, and that aspect of the lens through which I view life is very hard wiring in me really.  And I actually sort of believe that up to a point - sometimes.

And of course it helps that I am upper middle class (which kind of tends, and I mean it, to intimidate lower and below "Bible thumpers" from hitting us up), and beyond that run in circles that tend to be considerably more secular than the mean, with the balance understanding what is socially acceptable, and what is not, I guess.

But I don't think that that is all of it. There is something to be said for just feeling comfortable in your own skin, and projecting that.

No. The Biblical perspective is inherently bigoted. This is not a comment on religion; it is objective and would be true if the Bible were a compiled tax code.

If you make a bigoted remark its going to be classified as a bigoted remark, it doesn't matter if the reason is based off something biblical or some other reason.   If you make a bigoted remark you are going to be called a bigot.

Well, certainly in everyday life it is exceptionally rare. But I consider messages projected from a distance--through media, in particular--to be just as important and demoralizing. And media (not "The Media", media generally) is not nearly so diplomatic as people who have to speak to your face.

It doesn't matter, because even if I get accused of bigotry doesn't make it true.  I am not a bigot and that label will never stick to me.

Now, the second part of the question, since I was obviously called a bigot for my views on homosexuality, did anyone give thought to how I felt when my religion was trashed just two short weeks ago?

Is it perfectly acceptable to trash religion, but definitely against all moral reasoning to say one thing against homosexuality?

Bushie, the comments you made were flat out bigoted.  Plain and simple, you made very bigoted remarks and used religion as a way to explain why that venom you spewed was ok.

Also again I don't think anyone was trashing your religion.  You were being criticized for letting your religious beliefs get in the way of an actual and rationale thought process and decision making.

How was it bigoted?  I was just explaining my views on the legislation, which I am in favor of, by the way.  Yet, I called homosexuality a sin, which is what the Bible calls it, and I was called a bigot.  Then, I followed it up with my real views on the matter and it went in one ear and right out the other.

Saying you hate homosexuality and going off on that rant you did is pretty bigoted.   Do you think homosexuals should be put to death?

Okay, whatever.  Say what you wish, but it's not true.


Absolutely not!!! I never said that, you're putting words in my mouth.

So, another question.  If I say I hate homosexuality, am I a bigot?  Also, there were no hateful intentions in that post.  If there were, why would I follow it up with my real views?

Yes, if you say if you hate homosexuality you are a bigot.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was simply asking you a question.  You used the bible to justify your hate for homosexuality and the bible says homosexuals should be put to death

The punishments mentioned in the Bible are irrelevent. It's the morality behind the law that's important.

Then, in that case, I am proud to be a bigot.

There is obviously just one way to resolve this: afleitch needs to get on Bushie's flight to Jacksonville, and debate him on the plane.

Mind you, I'm not trying to start anything or be mean about anything, I just wanted to get a feel for how liberals actually think.  Personally, I don't have that many problems with homosexuality and if you'll read my follow-up, it explains it.  I don't really "hate" homosexuality, I don't care for it, but I don't hate it with a passion.  I think it's unbiblical, but I'm not a hard-nosed conservative on that issue, and as was pointed out earlier, my views are liberal compared to most of Oklahoma.  I have good friends who are/were homosexuals, take jamespol for instance.  He and I have been friends for 4 1/2 years, and I have never had a problem with his sexual orientation.  I've had friends even here in Oklahoma, even working with some, and I've had absolutely no problems with them or about them.  I saw them as my co-workers, not as "that fag over there".  In fact, when someone around me bashes the lifestyle, I refrain from saying anything.  Sometimes I will speak my mind, which brings on attacks from the right, as well.

To afleitch and my other gay forum brothers, I really respect you and how you've conducted yourself.  I apologize for any hurtful comments I made toward you.  They were not intentional.  I was reacting to my views on the legislation and just got a little carried away with it.

Wow there are some overly PC and "highly offended" people in here.  Look, Bushie is entitled to his opinion albeit a highly f-ed up one.  But this is a political Forum- DEAL!.  Afleitch, there was no need for the personal attacks against him.  If you're offended by what BushOK says, then me thinks there are some unresolved issues with you.

This is pretty entertaining.

Continue.

When you start throwing around words like hate about homosexuality you start sounding like your Senators.  You back tracked from it a bit, but don't you understand how saying you hate it can be construed as bigoted? 

If someone said they hated blacks, or Jews, or Christians they would rightly be viewed as bigots, don't you agree?

What the hell is the "homosexual lifestyle"? You hear that a lot from uninformed people, particularly from places like Oklahoma.

I imagine it involves gratuitous amounts of gambling, drinking, promiscuity, and a clandestine desire to project the Homosexual Agenda onto the mainstream public.

Bushie, I'm on record here saying that you weren't being a hateful person, but also asking why you say you "HATE" homosexuality in one line and then say that a sin is a sin, homosexuality is equivalent to a white lie. I was wondering why, then, you view homosexuality as meriting HATE which you presumably don't feel in your bones about other sins.

Beyond that, I'd ask why you say homosexuality goes against everything God teaches, when I think any Christian would recognize there are plenty of things God teaches against that have nothing to do with homosexuality (like, for example, doing harm to other people and failing to take care of and love family members.)

What I see here is that your citing your religious education as a basis for your beliefs, but you've layered on some more serious feelings that aren't justified by the Biblical basis for your views, although I can believe that your religious leaders may share that... excessive concern... about homosexuality as oppoed to other sins. I'm not going to all you a bigot or hateful, but I am going to note that.

Sounds like a very reflective 15 minutes.

My problem is this; People nowadays try to 'bargain' when it comes to gays because they want to get away with holding stupid opinions; 'Surely because x book says y that I should be allowed to say homosexuality is wrong.' But the thing is you can't say such a thing and retain any credibility. It is intellectually dishonest to because of what we now know about homosexuality and it's genetic and chemical factors. Homosexuality can a biological trace on a person even before the person knows they are gay; in the length of fingers, in the direction of the hair pattern on the head, brain patterns are different, reactions to smells are different. Just saying 'I think it's a choice' over and over again doesn't make it so. To the contrary; research from reputable social, biological and genetic experts say otherwise. The may still be trying to work out exactly what it is but they certainly know what it is not Sadly you still adhere to what it is not.

People argue that 'it's a choice' so they feel they can legitimately speak out against it (particularly the religious; which is ironic as religion is a choice). But they are on dangerous territory. Not only are such arguments blatantly devious they are also deeply offensive. So alot of religious people simply ignore the science and they ignore the testimony of gays that they may know because it doesn't fit with how they want to think.

I'm not religious anymore. But I think if you believe that it's gods creation and if you ignore the things that we discover about the world and the people in it in favour of a book with human influence and error, then you essentially have a problem with his creation.


If you ever find that out please let us know :D

Probably the most succinct way of describing what Bushie was trying to do there.  He is two-faced: realizes his religious interpretation is patently false, but is emotionally unable to acknowledge as such.

But there is a difference between saying 'I hate homosexuality' and 'I hate homosexuals'. A lot of Christians go by hate the sin not the sinner. If BushOklahoma believes and follows the Bible, it only make sense that he would have a dislike for something considered a sin. You can't choose the things you'd like to believe from your religion, otherwise what's the point? No religion teaches moderation.

To take the moral high ground while still choosing what you believe, I suppose.

Condemning down harshly on homosexuality, BTW, is a pain-free way for people to feel like they're doing good and being rigorous in their morality without paying any price for it. That's kind of why it's galling. I imagine Bushie feels he's being persecuted here for standing up for his deeply-held religious beliefs, while I doubt he's ever had to give much thought to why he holds this belief or what the implications are for other people, how it conflicts with other teachings, or why those of us who embrace this "sin" do so and to understand how we reach that conclusion in a way that respects our autonomy and basic goodness as individuals. Instead of holding to cartoon-book explanations of lazy sinners, ignorance, or the devil, as if none of us had to struggle through religious views that conflicted with what our own creation tells us is true.

If he were preaching this in a college classroom in some parts of the country, he would be going out on a limb, but where he lives, everyone is part of the game and applauds his moral stand to be critical and hold himself above that which he doesn't understand and declines to try to understand.

I know, based on the job search discussions, that it's nearly impossible to get him to reconsider something when he's already decided he knows the answer--especially something like this where he is absolutely certain he has the answers and there is no threat of a vanished paycheck or angry, defrauded relatives to focus his mind and force him to examine the contradictions and shallow thinking at the root of his beliefs. But, like him, I have to keep sharing the truth and hoping people will open their eyes and see the light. In the meantime, I love him as a person and hold out hope he will rise out of his pride and lack of compassion for his fellow man with time.

Come now. "I don't hate black people, I just hate dark skin." Now, Christianity doesn't actually preach this--although Mormonism did, until the 1970s. Imagine someone believed in an otherwise sane religion that had a line in its holy book condemning dark skin. Would you honestly argue to us that hating "dark skin" was not being bigoted?

The point is that "the sin" and "the sinner" are not extricable when the "the sin" is not a choice. In such cases, to hate "the sin" is to hate "the sinner".

But to a certain extent, isn't it that Christians have a problem with the act of homosexuality, as in two members of the same sex having sex, rather than the attraction itself? Last time I checked most of them don't even accept that it's something they are born with. I remember Falwell at least accepted the possibility that it was, but he viewed it as no different than him being attracted to women other than his wife.

I'm not condemning homosexuality, but that argument would not work with most religious people, because even though people cannot choose who they are attracted to, they can choose who they have sex with. People cannot choose if they are born with dark skin.

But that argument doesn't stand up either. Again it was only two generations ago that some people said; okay so you're black but do you really have to marry and have sex with someone who's white?

Of course I can choose who to have sex with....but the person has to be male. And that is a direct consequence of my homosexuality. Sparks in my brain and sparks in my loins just don't happen for women. So they say I have a 'choice' but I don't really; it's either sex with men or no sex.

In both examples they are exuses given by people for no legitimate reason other than that they are personally uncomfortable with it.

Except you can't. I mean, you can choose individuals with whom you have sex (don't have sex with everyone, kiddies), but you can't choose in general the type of people with whom you have sex. Celibacy is not a legitimate option (for anyone, or at least those who are not asexual), nor is having sex with people to whom it is impossible to be attracted (which sounds a lot like having sex with just anyone).

It's just a fallacious assumption, and one that not even their religion (as evidenced from Biblical texts) endorses.

I understand your point, I doubt most Christians would agree with it though. That's all I'm saying.

Then that essentially is their problem. We cannot sweep aside decades of increased understanding and research on human sexuality because a religious group is uncomfortable with it.

Shut up. You're a disgrace to our God and our values.

Now you're all just feeding his persecution complex. 'Liberals' laying into him for HATING homosexuality probably makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside. Don't call him a bigot, call him a hypocrite. Hey Reverend, have you spotted any new get-rich-quick schemes? I'm sure that the Lord approves! Considered scamming any vulnerable people to make money? It's what Jesus would have wanted! And how goes the preying on vulnerable women for sexual thrills? And if the persona is not entirely real, then how goes making this sort of thing up for attention on the internet? It's nearly Christmas, should you not be in Church?

I just have one question - when you wrote this were you giving or receiving?  Thanks!

It has always struck me that complete ignorance of BushOK antics is always the best policy.

0.5/5

This is usually the quality of all of Sam's posts.

A racist homophobe with an obscene sense of self worth. A horrible, loathsome person.

BushOklahoma is just another Fake Christian, just like jmfcst, and the vast majority of the South.

I hate every sin there is.  I hate lies, I hate adultery, I hate pornography, I hate gossip.


The Bible is full of verses that forbid homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22
Matthew 19:4-6
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10

I believe the Bible is 100% inerrant, authored by God and penned by 40 writers, and none of it is out of date.


If you look at the verses I mentioned above it mentions a whole array of sins, not just homosexuality.

These are not my words, they are God's Words.

I'm going to speak no more of this matter, because I do not want to ruffle any more feathers right before Christmas.  You believe what you believe, and let me believe what I believe.

After I get home, I do not want to revisit this particular issue.  Instead, My forum focus will be my update thread and the 2012 campaign.

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

Hahah, excellent. This thread is going places.

()

People usually don't get mad at books (like the Bible or Koran), rather, they get mad at how extremists interpret them.

Sam provides a lot of value for the kind of stuff I come to this site for. His predictions posts take a lot of work and a lot of thought, and I appreciate it. 

At times yes, but one doesn't have to be an extremist to get the message from passages like this (Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)):



My view tends to be the passages (whether put there by God or by man) like this are there for a very practical purpose (not so much per se, a moral mandate)...God's chosen people need to multiply etc...sodomy tends not to aid in that effort.  Therefore, since it doesn't...its wrong...

Now that's all well and erm...good? But perhaps...just perhaps...as eras change, as circumstances change, what's practical changes...and perhaps certain rules become...obsolete?  Maybe?  Just maybe?

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

since when is accepting statements at face value considered “extreme”?

Rom 1:26 "God gave them up to shameful passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men."

Regardless what context you wrap around it, it still clearly describes women desiring sex with women and men desiring sex with men.  It condemns desire for homosexual sex and calls both the passion and the acts shameful.  And, of course, the statement meshes with the rest of the bible that defines the proper context of sex to be within a heterosexual marriage.

So, it is the bible itself that you are calling “extreme”, that is why you’ll only those who accept a watered down “interpretation” of it, which is really no interpretation at all.

Emphasis sure...to make it a crusade...you'd have to be pretty extreme...but to merely demarcate what's acceptable and not acceptable you don't have to be an extremist.  Do you?

I generally agree with you on the emphasis and place of those laws.

then why doesn't the bible condemn sexual acts between a husband and wife that don't promote conception?  and you're ignoring Rom ch1 which calls homosexual passions and acts as shameful and unnatural for humans.

actually, you are mischaracterizing those sections (Lev ch 18 & Lev ch 20) because you’re acting as if those sections include laws that were only put into place at the time of Moses.  But if you read the context, those chapters are describing the PREVIOUS actions of pagan nations and those nations were being thrown out of the land because the nations of their PAST HISTORY  of practicing these things.

So, God explicitly stated the acts described within Lev ch 18 & ch 20 were already judged PRIOR to the Law of Moses.  And none of those actions mentioned within that contextual pagan wrapper are allowed in the New Testament.  So, you are wrong in characterizing “that particular part of the OT” as being first instituted under the Law of Moses, and you are wrong to say “hardly any Christians actually follow those laws” because nowhere in the New Testament are the list of these sexual acts (incest, bestiality, homosexuality) allowed.

They were the obvious choice.  I was in the closet much of that day.  Big walk-in closet.  I was trying to surreptitiously wrap presents. 

I think I'm in favor of the repeal, but some would say for the wrong reasons.  I think it's the egalitarian, morally correct policy to allow homosexuals serve openly.  That's obviously a naive point of view, but it's my point of view.  I can understand that some more practical minds would base their support or opposition on such considerations as unit cohesion and the possibilities for distraction and such.  I do not think that people who base their support or opposition to this policy on moral considerations have any innate ethical leverage over those who base their support or opposition upon more immediate, pragmatic considerations.  After all, the military is charged with the task of national defense, and it is therefore logical to make military policy decisions based the efficacy of that defense.  In that sense, those who support the repeal based upon egalitarianism are rather like those who oppose repeal based on theological interpretations.  Neither group is focused on the primary goal of the military.  But that's okay.  We all have priorities, and we should state them.  It's the foundation of the democratic process.

For God's sake, people, why are you all getting to angry at BushOK?  His statements are completely in line with his OCPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_personality_disorder).


Actions are either Right (tm) or Wrong (tm) for him, without a middle ground.  You're not going to be able to bargain him out of his position, by trying to get him to acknowledge that there's any sort of fuzziness to his beliefs.  That is, quite simply, impossible to do, at least in the constraints of the Internet.

Instead, the proper approach is to start from his acknowledgement of the idea that open, public discrimination against gays is in the Wrong (tm) category, and move from there.  For example, regardless of what he believes about homosexuality, it shouldn't be that hard, relative to getting him to do a 180 on the issue, to convince him that toning down his rhetoric would be Right (tm).  In saying that he "HATES" homosexuality, he's speaking like someone who would treat gay Americans in a discriminatory way.  I think he'd agree he doesn't want to be perceived that way.

Learn to read for Christ's sake. Whether it is right that most Christians do not closely follow the mass of laws in the OT (or who came up with them first or whatever) is not the issue, the fact that they clearly don't is.

Wait, why did I take you off ignore? Ah, yes. I remember now. But you never contribute anything meaningful outside election time, so...

Zap.

you said, "that particular part of the OT", which to me means Lev ch 18 and ch 20.  and within the context of the actions of the pagan nations as described in Lev ch18 and ch 20, are dozens of laws defining incest, bestiality, and homosexuality....all of which are not allowed in the context of the New Testament.

if you meant "follow the mass of laws in the OT' instead of "that particular part of the OT", then simply get your story straight to begin with.

Indeed, indeed. Carry on.

So you believe in this then....


"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." 

I heart this thread.  People getting pissed off left and right.  Bitterness and enmity. Atlas as a microcosm.

Vander Blubb complaining about people crying out for attention.

Hahaha.

do I believe that NT church members are to be executioners of sinners?  no, the execution of sinners back then was simply a prefiguration of God's eternal judgment.  For the believer, Christ died and took the wages of sin (death) upon himself.

do I still believe homosexuality is a sin that if not overcome will result in the person being eternally condemned?  absolutely.

Hey Angus, I'm ok with your major reason for supporting the repeal.  Of course there are goals in military effectiveness.  But there are also principles of what we are fighting for.  It's kind of hard to justify fighting for the protection of freedom when the fighting force itself, or the government that commands it, discriminates against those who would choose to serve.  So, the fact that egalitarian and moral concerns are be predominant ones in your mind sounds good to me.

Cute. I've always wondered how that's supposed to work given the testimony of countless numbers who persuaded themselves they had done so only to realise they had been sold a pup by the charlatan that promised them a fix for the unfixable.

of course, you discount the testimony of the ones who actually escaped out of homosexuality.  as i said earlier:

just to be clear jmfcst, if a dude likes a dude but doesnt have sex with a dude, the dude's okay right?

define "likes a dude"...do you mean "likes a dude as a dude likes a fellow dude" or "likes a dude as a dude likes a dudette"?

Of course I discount it; because of the testimony of those who realised they couldn't change makes you understand what they went through because of social or religious pressure. Look at this way jmfcst; ex-gay'therapy' is a scam. Scientology is also a scam out to get people by saying theres something wrong with them that only Scientology can 'cure.' Who's testimony do you trust more - those in Scientology who say it's wonderful and amazing and fantastic or those who got out and exposed it for the sham that it is?

Scientology?!  Let's keep the context on Christ:  if a pig that is washed returns to wallowing in the mud, does that mean the pig was never cleaned?  or if a dog returns to his vomit, does that mean the dog never threw up?  If some drunks conquer alcoholism and some drunks fail, does that discount the ones who escaped?

I wanna see the dirty pig jmfcst in anti-straight therapy.

No. Let's not. Until you learn to start answering the question that is put to you, you do not have the right to dictate the context of the debate. Agreed?

as if heterosexuality is something one needs to cleansed of?  And who said anything about "therapy"?  All it takes to be cleansed of sin is a meeting with Christ.

No. Let's not. Until you learn to start answering the question that is put to you, you do not have the right to dictate the context of the debate. Agreed?


Ignoring the Christians who can reconcile their faith with their sexuality again jmfcst ::)

Do I need to point out the obvious flaw in your logic?  I only have to change one phrase to have you sound exactly like a drunk unwilling to come clean:

no, I ignore "Christians" who hack the scriptures to suit what their itchy ears want to hear

I gave the example of another faith (Scientology) offering people a cheap fix for their perceived problems. Which is exactly what some Christians flog to gays. Now answer the question; whose testimony due you trust - the gullible person deeply embedded in Scientology thinking their stress was due to 'soul dust' or the person who left knowing that what it offered was a sham that made problems where there were none.

there is corruption in everything (in school, in church, in business, in politics), so I don't discount institutions based on the failures of humans, otherwise I would renounce school, business, etc, etc, etc.

also, it should be noted that many times on this forum I have discounted the idea that "sinner's prayer" automatically translates into an conversion to Christ or an experience with Christ.  I myself have stated I said that prayer years before my conversion and knew at the time nothing was changed about me.

So do I discount human programs, whether in Scientology or Christianity?  Yes, absolutely.  But discounting human programs has nothing to do with the power of God.

Comparisons to filth, mud, and vomit are an effective propaganda technique for associating the target with an individual's natural sense of disgust. Additional options are to associate them with infectious disease, vermin (rats, fleas), or decaying food.

Did Bushie seriously cite Leviticus? Seriously? No one follows all the crap in that today.


I tend to associate the first couple examples with false bigoted churches like the one BushOK goes to and the Catholic Church.

Oh you mean like you do when you say gays shouldn't be put to death, or that slavery isn't a good thing, or that the first born shouldn't be sacrificed.   Unless if you believe in those things then you are hacking scriptures as well.

I am genuinely curious about what the 'straight' therapy consists of. Besides something like hormonal treatments or some type of lobodomy I can't see therapy affecting your sexuality in anyway whatsoever. But I really would like to know, is it some kind of hypnosis or just prayer? Either way it has to be bullsh**t, but if it is just a 'pray the gay away' thing I've lost even more respect for the Christian religion.

Interestingly, we constantly hear of these studies and evidence that homosexuality is not something your born with, or that as Ted Haggard's wife says people can be 'conditioned' in their sexuality. But I've never seen any of it. Saying you know someone who 'used to be gay' is not evidence at all, just an irrational statement based on something you cannot prove. How can you know if someone's sexual attraction has changed? And if people can be conditioned in their sexuality does that mean heterosexuals can turn gay? Or people can turn themselves into pedophiles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay_therapy

Or rather, that anyone is dumb enough to take them seriously at all in the first place.

Even if they take the books seriously, that's not the same as extemists, bro.

I never said it was.  I'm just annoyed by faith. 

You're not alone around these parts ;)

please tell me you're joking

The beliefs you maintain, and the beliefs encouraged by the bible, are precisely analogous to that to which the excellent brittain33 refers.

i don't buy into the therapy thing at all, nor do I believe that people are born again simply because they pray the "sinner's prayer".  God doesn't require a 12 step program of human works.  And I agree that testimonies cannot be proven or disproven, which is why it is idiotic and hypocritical to discount one side yet not discount the other side.

I am completely serious. I don't know if you're aware of what you're doing when you choose either harmful traits (lying, stealing, cheating) or those associated with disgust (mud, vomit) when making analogies to homosexuality, but it's an old tactic and easy to slip into. I'm sure it reflects your own feelings of disgust as well.

1) I could have easily chosen heterosexual fornication instead....but I simply chose sins we all have in common (idolatry, lying, cheating, stealing, greed).  For you to state sexual sin isn't harmful simply shows how degraded your mind has become.

2) the analogy of a washed pig returning to wallow in the mud and a dog returning to his vomit is an analogy Christ himself used in scripture to portray those who have been freed by Christ from the bondage of sin yet choose to return to it.  the analogy is applicable to any sin, sexual or otherwise.

somewhere you missed the parts where bible repeatedly and explicitly claims the new covenant superceded the old.

Like Leviticus.

I don't consider harmful to one's soul to be objectively meaningful. It can be so for you, but I find that even people who cite religious scripture often lump that in with other assessments (you're unhappy, you don't know true love, you're going to get sick or become an alcoholic etc.) I measure harm differently from the way you do, and do so for all acts categorized as sins, not just the one that's central to who I am and how I live my life. On the factors other than the wellbeing of my soul, I know for certain my life would be worse if I tried to be celibate and single.

Seriously. While I certainly don't share Bushie's views, its a fact that this is probably the best view one can hope for for tens of millions of conservative Christians for the next few decades.

So on a graded curve, Bushie isn't really that bad here at all. He's miles ahead of certain other posters here.

Reposted here for relevancy and truth.

the bible says the wages of sin is death, and since death is the antithesis of being "healthy", you're basically arguing you reject the bible.  which is ok for the purpose of this argument.  just for future reference, there are only a few posters (opebo, JSJ, Andrew, Dibble, Naso, etc) on here whose positions on issues I remember, and you're not one of them (which is probably to your credit ;) ) so in the future simply state that you reject the bible so I know where you're coming from.

having said that, I'm not going to going to tell you that you're "unhappy", for I wasn't "unhappy" before I came to Christ, I simply didn't have the peace and joy of having a clear conscience and knowing that everything was completely taken care of.

True. Alternatively, I could be rejecting the New Testament or a literal reading of the Bible, but I accept that those may be functionally equivalent. I concede the metaphysical ground to you because I don't have the grounding to argue it, nor do I see it as worthwhile. Where I involve myself is when I perceive arguments that have some intersection with the physical world.

It's always been my belief that such "homosexual fixing" success stories are actually just bisexuals broadly painted as homosexuals by the ignorant fixers.  It's very easy to get somebody already attracted to the opposite sex to stick to the option that doesn't cause ridicule by their backwater community, family, and "friends."

See, this is an argument of the physical world as well as the metaphysical world. You're arguing that the Bible says that by committing the sin of homosexuality, I will die earlier than I would otherwise.  Is that your argument?

Do you believe that God kills people earlier if they're sinners?

If 'gay therapy' worked, it would work for everyone - you wouldn't expect to see failures like this (http://bonusroundblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/another-ex-gay-failure-ends-in-tragedy.html). That's one of the reasons why Freudian psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific: unlike real medical treatment, it's 'selective', at best. The same criticism applies threefold to the 'ex-gay' movement.

The ex-gay movement doesn't mark success in terms of people who become straight--it does so in terms of people who try to suppress their same-sex sex drive and or get married, neither of which is the same.

Anyone remember John Paulk, who was a national spokesman for one of these groups until he was caught going into a gay bar in Washington, D.C.?

The women who marry these men are also victims.

what part of the bible doesn't intersection with the physical world?

---


obviously, it impacts physical health, but not always to an early death.  but "the wages of sin is death" is referring to current spiritual death even though one is physically alive, as well as referring to the physical-spiritual "death" of eternal condemnation after the resurrection.

In other words, the ex-gay movement actually prides itself on failure -- if an individual is still 'struggling' with his or her homoerotic feelings, he's certainly not 'ex-gay'. But it's the thought that counts, dammit!

that's a very dumb statement considering no kind of therapy works 100% of the time


---


this whole tangential discussion of "therapy" and "ex-gay movement" is a straw-man, for I have never equated any "therapy"  or any 12 step program to a cleansing by Christ.  these programs are man attempted reformation, not Christ enabled recreation.  

some may find Christ while they are involved in a 12 step program, just as some may find Christ while reciting the sinner's prayer,  but it's not the motions of the 12 step program or the motions of the sinner's prayer that has any value, rather they simply opened to Christ while he was knocking on their heart's door.

The idea of a soul; life after death. Neither of these are observable or provable in the physical world. They exist because you believe the Bible says they exist and that the Bible is without error.
---



"Spiritual death" is a meaningless statement to me, and therefore isn't the antithesis of being healthy, because it has nothing to do with any form of health that affects my life. I recognize physical, emotional, and financial health. Spiritual health is a vapid phrase to me because I don't have a soul and there is no account where it is being tracked.

You're absolutely right. Which is why psychology generally is considered a 'soft science' by its most lenient of critics, and an outright fraud by its most severe. 'Gay therapy' fails not only because its claim to metaphysical surety is a scam, but also because it relies on the same old tried-and-tired quasi-Freudian theories that put all forms of psychology to the lie.



Most 'ex-gay' movements claim to be 'Christ enabled', and almost invariably rely upon heavyhanded moralizing funneled through a 'Biblical worldview' to be effective.  


You have created a world where it is literally impossible for you to be wrong. Any homosexual Christians are reprobate backsliders who aren't real Christians; conversely, anything in Christianity that can be considered true axiomatically validates your claims. You have effectively monopolized metaphysics.

yeah, but it still intersects with the physical world, just as Christ clothed himself in flesh, just as Gen 1:1 starts of with "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".


---


but you're leaving out the fact that your body will be resurrected and therefore directly impacts your physical health for all eternity

---

I think we are at an impasse, but it's been a civil discussion

You mean to say the p**f will have a s****g b**g for all eternity?  Kind of adding insult to injury, considering the fires of hell and demons and all that.

look, I never said I couldn't be wrong, rather I simply allow the bible to be my guide between right and wrong within the realm of the areas it addresses, and I believe same-sex sex is one of the areas it addresses.

and I highly highly doubt if I have ever used the term backslide in any religious context on this forum because it is not a concept that has anything to do with Christianity

And yet you presume that your own reading of 'scripture' is privileged at the expense of any other possible interpretations. That's one of the many, many theoretically difficulties of a hardline sola scriptura stance.


The meaning is the same.

What part of my interpretation is being questioned here?  Are you questioning if marriage was defined as the only proper context for sex?  Are you questioning whether marriage was defined as heterosexual?  Are you questioning whether every instance where the bible mentions same-sex sex is cast in an extremely negative light?  Are you questioning whether the New Testament condemns both the lust and act of same-sex sex?

Because the ONLY arguments I have seen in opposition attempt to introduce a context that is not presented (“they didn’t really desire to have sex with Lot’s visitors, they simply were trying to establish dominance”, “this was just the opinion of Moses who didn’t have any concept of a loving homosexual relationship”, “it only was a law for the Levites and not the whole of Israel”, “Paul is only forbidding homosexual sex in the context of pagan worship”)…and EACH AND EVERY ONE of those arguments falls to address the clear and undeniable fact that every one of these passages is addressing the desire to have same-sex sex, because when the desire for same-sex sex is the topic, it doesn’t matter what setting you wrapper around it, because when you’re discussing the desire you’re striking at the heart of the matter

Example:  Andrew totally stopped discussing Romans ch1 when I pointed out the undeniable facts that it explicitly referred to those who 1) had homosexual desires and engaged in consensual homosexual sex, and 2) had knowledge of the scriptural decrees that condemn the acts in which they were engaged.  And he stopped discussing it at that point because there is no context one can contemplate that can trump the obvious fact it was explicitly addressing homosexual desire leading to consensual homosexual sex among those who have knowledge of the word.  And once those facts were pointed out, no one has offerred an alternative "interpretation".



---


I lost the plot here - What exactly are you comparing and equating to concept of being backslidden?

I stopped discussing it when I ceased to hold any faith at all.

Could a mod please move this thread over to the religion board? The endless back and forth on whether or not jm's holy book approves of teh gays or slavery or human sacrifice has no bearing on US general discussion and is rather tiring to those of us who don't care.

Jmfcst (sp?) is making arguments that can easily be refuted (any commentary against Augustine should do -- Google is one's friend), but not by anyone posting on the Atlas Forum. In fact, it's the responses to him that make me cringe the most.

And I agree that it should be moved to the philosophy thread.

Well, if you have the magic bullet...then fire away.

Jmfcst's argument (and it is one ... that is what the previous commentators neglect) is based on Augustine's concept of the natural law. Every theological argument against it can be found trolling through philosophy department web sites. Then, relate jmfcst's points as an illustration of the refuted Natural Law. Anything else jmfcst says (Bible quotes and whatnot) is an appeal to authority, which we all know is fallacious.

I am unfortunately a proper subset of anyone posting on the Atlas Forum. Gully and Soulty could do this, but I, and no one else so far, can.

Nice comment Bushie.  Engaging in candid self reflection about yourself is a very good habit to try to cultivate. And it's tough - yes it is - to do that.

Unfortunately, it has very much bearing. It shouldn't, but it does. :(