Senate passes repeal of DADT with 65 votes

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

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.

[Verily]

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?

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.

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

[Verily]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

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.

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".

[Verily]

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.

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.