Next up: force the churches to perform gay weddings

Hello, “gay rights” proponents.

I’d like to ask you a question.

Think very carefully before you respond, because I will hold you to your answer.

It’s a two-parter, and here it is:

Do you believe in freedom of association? Do you believe in freedom of expression?

Wait! It’s a trap! Mind your step, my friends. Think about this. Take a break, meditate on the question, and then come back to it.

OK, now, after careful consideration, I ask again:

Do you believe in freedom of association? Do you believe in freedom of expression?

You do? Of course you say you do. Your entire philosophy is built on these two freedoms. Personally, I don’t think either are actually relevant to the fundamental question of whether or not the union between two men can be equal to the union between a man and a woman, and therefore whether two men can actually be “married,” but I’m accepting your premise for the sake of argument.

Freedom of association. Freedom of expression. The latter explicitly protected under the First Amendment, the former implicitly. Both, in my mind, pretty unrelated to this subject, yet consistently trotted out by gay marriage advocates.

So, alright, let’s go with it.

But remember, you can’t just profess these principles when they are convenient to your cause. Principles are solid things; they can’t be picked apart and redesigned. They carry with them a certain responsibility. If you fail in that responsibility, your principles become meaningless, and no intelligent adult can be expected to take you seriously. This is what forever irritates me about modern America. Very few people have the guts to apply their own principles evenly, equally, and consistently in every situation, all of the time, no matter what. And nothing will get better as long as we’re too cowardly to even believe in our own beliefs.

This is all a long way of saying that you, gay marriage supporters, are frauds and hypocrites if you don’t speak out loudly against this.

A judge in Colorado has ordered a baker to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. This is like something out of a George Orwell acid trip. We now have judges forcing Christians to bake desserts for gay men. Let that sink in for a moment. This is actually happening. In America. In reality.

This baker, specifically targeted by this attention-seeking couple, initially declined to make a cake for the gay wedding because he had deep and profound religious objections to the ceremony. This left the gay couple with two options: 1) Go, like, find any other baker in the area. 2) Try to legally force the man to bake the cake, because FREEDOM.

Of course, as per usual, they went with option two. There is so much laughable hypocrisy in the “gay rights” movement that I have officially decided to stop parsing my words about it. Actually, I suppose I’ve never parsed my words about anything, so I’ll just continue with that strategy. It’s simple: you can’t FORCE people to associate with you and then turn around and preach about freedom of association. You see that, don’t you?

Meanwhile, a florist in Washington State faces penalties for declining to provide flowers for a gay wedding, and the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against a photographer for deciding not to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony. This, as a t-shirt company here in Kentucky is still embroiled in a legal battle for committing the crime of refusing to make t-shirts for a gay pride parade in Lexington. The owner even referred the gay pride parade organizers to other t-shirt companies who offer the same service for the same price; but that wasn’t good enough for these Freedom of Association Crusaders. They’ve dedicated the better part of two years to destroying this man and his business.

If a man has the right to choose who he marries, a business owner surely must have the right to choose who he serves. You can not argue for the first while actively attempting to undermine the second. Well, you can, but you’re a fraud, and I will call you a fraud. If the “gay rights” campaign is simply about winning the culture; if it’s really, as many of us suspect, about defeating the Old Way, the way of Natural Law and Judeo-Christian values, then these tactics are understandable. Even necessary. But you claim that such talk is nothing but hysterical, bigoted nonsense. You claim gay rights are about freedom.

Well, freedom is a two way street. Freedom can’t be contained in your convenient little box. You can not achieve freedom for yourself by taking it away from your neighbor. You can not find freedom through tyranny.

Try to appreciate the irony. A gay wedding is, supposedly, a victory for freedom of association. Yet gay activists see no problem with forcing Christians to associate with it. The gays who pull these stunts are nothing but spiteful bullies. I wasn’t in charge of finding someone to make our cake for our wedding, but if I had been, and if I had accidentally ventured into a store owned by a Catholic-hating baker, and if that baker told me that he did not want to be a part of a Catholic ceremony, do you know what I’d do?

I’d find another baker.

I’d go out and use my freedom of speech to tell my Catholic friends that Jim’s Bakery down the street doesn’t want their business. I might write a scathing blog post about them. But I wouldn’t attempt to take their freedom away. And I DEFINITELY wouldn’t attempt to FORCE the man to bake a cake for me.

Because that’s just insane.

Many of us old fashioned types have long worried that the next step in the gay rights battle is to force churches to perform these ceremonies. Attention, Christians: this is no longer a hypothetical.

The rest of this post will be addressed to you.

Wake up.

Pay attention.

Are you watching this? If the government can force a caterer to cater a gay wedding, and a photographer to photograph a gay wedding, and a baker to bake for a gay wedding, why can’t it force a church to conduct a gay wedding? Why, precisely? Because the church is a “religious institution”? So what? Where is it written that only religious institutions have a right to religious expression? I’ll tell you where that distinction isn’t made: the Constitution. If a photographer does not have the freedom to express his religious beliefs on the job, why should he have it just because he walks into a church? If bakers, and photographers, and t-shirt printers can be compelled to abandon their opposition to gay marriage, so too can pastors. Do you see where this is headed?

We’re told that the baker must bake for the gay couple because his refusal would constitute “discrimination.” Aren’t the churches guilty of discrimination then? And if gays have a right to not be discriminated against by a baker, why don’t they have a right to not be discriminated against by churches?

The right to not be discriminated against doesn’t, and can’t, exist alongside the First Amendment, but progressives always make up rights as they go along. Often, we cooperate when the fabricated right feels and looks innocent. “Hmm, a right to not be discriminated against? Well, that neither exists nor makes any sense at all, but it feels good so I’m fine with it!” In the next phase, the made-up right is applied in ways that we don’t particularly enjoy, but we’ve lost the ability to oppose it.

So stay silent while the government turns business owners into indentured servants for gay wedding ceremonies, but don’t suddenly cry out when they do the same to your church.

Now is the time to protest.

Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

***********

Follow me on Facebook.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2,004 Responses to Next up: force the churches to perform gay weddings

  1. Shercon says:

    @babaroni
    You said:
    For instance, a catholic couple who has a civil ceremony, but never obtains the religious sacrament of marriage from a priest will be considered to be “living in sin,” and if they some day wish to correct their relationship with their church, will need to perform penance for living together without benefit of the sacrament of religious marriage, and then need to have a sacramental marriage before a priest.

    Likewise, a Mormon couple who is civilly married by the court is not considered married by their church. They will need to wait a year if they wish to be “sealed” in the temple, or they will have to have a religious ceremony performed by a bishop in order to be considered “married for eternity” or “married for time.”

    My Reply:
    Barbaroni I do not wish to argue with you on the point of gay-marriage. I only want to correct you on the information presented in your above statement.

    First, I do not know whether you misunderstood the stance of the LDS church or if something was implied unintentionally. Either way I want to correct this so that you and others reading this will obtain correct information. By placing the sentence, “Likewise, a Mormon couple who is civilly married by the court is not considered married by their church” after the paragraph regarding the Catholic church’s stance you implied that the LDS church also believes that the couple who was civilly married to be “living-in-sin.” This is not the case. While the LDS church does believe in being sealed in the temple, it does not discount the marriage of those who were married civilly. Those are recognized and the couple is considered to be married. Thus, they are not “living in sin” and are not required to perform any type of reconciliation or repentance for living together.

    Second, in order for the couple to be “married for eternity” they MUST be sealed in the temple. There is no religious ceremony performed by a bishop that is considered to be “marriage for eternity.”

    Third, “marriage for eternity” and “marriage for time” are two different things. I’m not sure if you meant to put an “and” between those two statements. Nonetheless, the LDS church states that if you are sealed in the temple, you are “married for time and eternity.” You can be married by a bishop. However, this would only be considered to be “marriage for time.”

    • babaroni says:

      shercon, please forgive my oversimplification. I realize that LDS members who marry civilly are not considered by the church to be living in sin, but rather to be married “for time” rather than “for eternity,” which was the point I was attempting to get at with the elaboration about having to wait in order to be sealed in the Temple. Civil marriages are considered, officially, anyway, to be the equivalent of a marriage in the chapel “for time” (though culturally, I would suggest that there is usually a kind of “hierarchy” placed upon marriages among LDS members in which Temple Sealing is above chapel weddings for time, which would still, in this country, anyway, be seen as “better” than purely civil marriages performed by a civil authority). Thanks for your input, and sorry for any confusion. I was attempting to go with relatively simple examples for a wide audience.

    • Dan says:

      Thank you for clearing that up. Otherwise, I would have had to do it.

    • Jenner Black says:

      Thanks for the great explanation of all that. Couldn’t have said it better myself

  2. Steve green says:

    Do you believe in bullying? Because that what the gay’s are doing to get their way. Forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do is alot like rape. If gay’s want to be together that’s fine, but DO NOT force anyone else to take part in it.

    • LDS_StraightAndNarrowIsn'tAboutYourMind says:

      While I respect the argument behind this blog, it’s important when we are talking about an issue that impacts all of us, in one way or another, not to base arguments on outliers. The Colorado judge forcing someone to make a wedding cake for anyone is wrong; but, to then try and extrapolate that to suggest it would be the norm if gay marriage were legal is a bit disingenuous. The vast, vast majority of gay couples would just go to a different baker; and the vast, vast majority of judges wouldn’t even hear the case. It’s unfortunate that a few members of an oppressed group have elected to fight their fight in a counterproductive way, but if we want to resolve the issue correctly, we need to ignore the outliers.

    • gc says:

      Do you believe in proper grammar? What about logic?

  3. rondi says:

    This is a great talk given by an LDS apostle former Supreme Court Justice that relates to the government forcing us not to act upon our religious convictions (no matter the denomination), he also gives some ideas on how to combat it. It is really good. https://video.byui.edu/media/Dallin+H.+Oaks+%22Witnesses+of+God%22/0_n6vr7aeb

    • LDS_StraightAndNarrowIsn'tAboutYourMind says:

      Just to clarify, Dallin H. Oaks was never a Supreme Court Justice. He was on the Utah Supreme Court, but that’s an important distinction to make….unless you are just trying to inflate your facts.

  4. sarah says:

    Is there ANYTHING we CAN do but pray? We’re going to have to suffer through it for a time, if history is any indication. Possibly end up in prison, die, before we’re delivered.

    • rhinnanhr says:

      I don’t think the gay-movement is exactly the signs of the anti-Christ, but prayer is always a good thing. I think zealous gay rights proponents don’t understand the implications of their sweeping reform, and some of them are perhaps confused with where their priorities should lie. But many of them just want to support people who they have seen suffering, those who have been bullied or ostracized because of what they believe about sexuality. I agree that homosexuality is against God’s commandments, but I don’t think the line between proponents and opponents makes them evil and us the persecuted last followers of God.

      • Sherry Lou says:

        It is evil to try to ruin the bakers business. That us not the way a Christian would act. I am a Christian and do no condone same sex marriages and never will. This gay couple wants to be married in the eyes of God…this is what marriage is…a religious covenant between a man and a woman under the eyes of God…this gay couple is simply being vindictive and trying to force someone into doing something for them… the judge is wasting tax payer money….

  5. Stephanie says:

    Isn’t the problem that they see themselves as “born this way” and so it’s as if they are equating it to racism, something that defines them, but is out of their control? I of course, don’t see it that way, but I’m guessing that would be their take? Sorry if this is a point that has already been made, I only scrolled through one page….too many older posts. Let me know if it is, and I’ll read more. Thanks.

    • babaroni says:

      Stephanie, there is strong scientific support for the idea that gay people *are* born that way due to a probably combination of a complex combination of genetics and intra-uterine events at particular stages in fetal development.

      I would ask you to look within yourself and ask yourself at what point you chose to be heterosexual? Or did you just one day come to the realization that you liked boys?

      • pappad says:

        How silly. I don’t know ANY little boy who “likes” girls until he starts interacting with them in school, at least.

        • I was going to make the same observation but you beat me to it. Homosexuals would have us believe that they “always” were attracted to the opposite sex, as if we’re seriously expected to believe that little boys desire to engage in sodomy in the sandbox or some such incredulous nonsense. NO ONE is born “attracted” sexually to anyone. Babies hardly have any awareness of themselves, much less are they interested sexually in others. Even early sexual curiosity is not equivalent to sexual orientation. By the time puberty hits, people follow normal inclinations, or they engage in abnormal behavior for any number of reasons, many of which include sexual abuse or absent/abusive parents.

        • pappad says:

          Quite true. I’ve always suspected that boys (and girls) who claim to be “gay” at an early age have formed their predilections based on being sexually molested in some way before being sexually aware of themselves. I believe the same holds true for a lot of overly-sexualized children.

        • babaroni says:

          Frank, the truth is that different people experience the onset of attractions at different ages, or at least, awareness of those attractions. For some people it might be at 12. For others at 8 or 6. For some it might not be until the teen years. But for homosexual people, just as for heterosexual people, at the point when the individual begins experiencing such attractions, there is no decision made to be attracted to the same sex as opposed to being attracted to the opposite sex. It just happens, because that is what is natural to that individual. Just as heterosexuals do not “decide” to be straight, or to be attracted to the opposite sex, gay people do not decide to be gay or to be attracted to their own sex.

        • pappad says:

          Apparently you don’t read well. Nobody here is claiming that homosexuals “aren’t attracted to those of the same sex.” We’re saying that THAT attraction isn’t “natural” and is caused by something WRONG, very likely mentally, in those who HAVE such feelings towards those of the same sex. It was why, for the first 100 years of psychiatry, homosexuality was considered to be “neurotic,” and, in extreme circumstances, PSYCHOTIC…until the APA was finally pressured around 1977 into removing homosexuality from those lexicons, which the LGBT crowd thought would simply MAKE their particular perversions “normal.”

      • TruthMatters says:

        Funny, I wonder why we don’t use the genetic argument when it comes to pedophilia, zoophilia, and other behaviors like stealing, lying, murder, and rape. Just think, we could start a civil rights revolution for every personality disturbance and destructive behavior under the sun and slap a “I was born this way” label on it. And bam, it’s all just normal behavior that you and I must tolerate. Babaroni, your “strong scientific support for the idea that [pedophiles, rapists, zoophiles, liars, etc...] *are* born that way due to probably combination of a complex combination of genetics and intra-uterine events at particular stages in fetal development” doesn’t hold water with the switch of a few words, does it? I hope not, or we’re in big trouble, and fast.

        I’m not going to tell my children to go and figure out if their genetics made them gay or lesbian. I’m going to nurture them and show them what it means, and looks like, to be and behave like a man. I’m going to show them how to treat a woman (my wife) and show her appropriate love and tenderness and a thousand other things that fathers (and mothers) should strive to do and model (not that we do it perfectly) so my children understand what being male and female is all about. Genetics? Sure. But don’t leave out the importance of mothers and fathers and healthy family structures where dad actually lives at home and hasn’t abandoned his children, leaving mom to do all the work. There’s way more to this thing than generics and “intra-uterine” events.

        • babaroni says:

          “TruthMatters” – the difference between sexual orientation and the things you reference is that being gay and living in a loving, consensual, committed relationship with a person of one’s own sex is no different from or more harmful than being heterosexual and living in a loving, committed, consensual relationship with a person of the opposite sex. The other things you mention: pedophilia, zoophilia, stealing, lying, murder and rape, cause harm to others. They are neither consensual, nor loving.

          As for your claims that you will be able, through good parenting and good modeling, somehow teach your children not to be gay — how very shortsighted you are to assume that all the parents of all the millions of gay and lesbian people in the world have simply somehow failed to do this proper “modeling” and good parenting that you presume you will be able to do to prevent your children from being gay. I sincerely hope you do not end up having any kids who are gay, for their sake, because what they will get from you is good dose of rejection and misunderstanding. God protect them, please.

        • pappad says:

          You posted: “The other things you mention: pedophilia, zoophilia, stealing, lying, murder and rape, cause harm to others. They are neither consensual, nor loving.”
          You’d get a HUGE argument about how pedophiles do what they do out of “love” for the child they use–and not a few children who’d claim that they “love” their abuser. You’d also probably get a big argument from some zoophile about how much she “loves” her Great Dane, too, for that matter.

        • babaroni says:

          But we know, objectively, that child molestation harms children. There are objective measures by which we can determine the level of that harm. And children, by definition, cannot give informed consent. So the distinction is extremely clear. Adult gay and lesbian couples who are both of age, who consent to marry one another do no more harm to themselves, each other or society than do adult heterosexual men and women who are both of age and who consent to marry one another. The same cannot be said of pedophilia.

        • pappad says:

          Really? What “harm” is done to a child who is PHYSICALLY capable of having sex and does so with an adult? NAMBLA is now claiming….none whatsoever…just like YOU are claiming that adult homosexual relationships do no “harm”.

      • Kym says:

        Science has mapped out all genes. We know where cancer genes are, we know that certain thyroid cancers are on the same gene as Hirschsprung Disease which is a GI issue but yet science cannot find the “gay” gene. There is a big difference between theories and proof. Anyone can make a guess but can they prove it, the only scientific support is just a bunch of guessing right now.

        • babaroni says:

          Really, Kym? You believe that science has achieved a complete and total understanding of what every one of our 24,000 genes does and does not do, and how each of them interacts with all the others? Are you a geneticists (pretty sure the answer to that is “no”)?

          The fact is that many traits are a function of the interactions between multiple dominant and recessive alleles. To say that there must be one single gene which independently controls and determines sexual orientation is pretty simplistic and displays a marked lack of understanding of how our genes work. The likelihood is that sexual orientation is governed by a complex set of genetic interactions, some of which may exist at the point of fertilization, while others may be “turned on” or “turned off” by hormonal fluctuations in utero. There is also a strong possibility that epigenetics are involved — an area of genetics which we are only beginning to understand.

        • Jackson says:

          Kym,
          Science is just that guessing, questioning and researching! The problem with organized religion and closed minds is you think you have all the answers already. Be open to ideas and discovery. Understanding each other and respecting our differences is the way to peace. Thanks, Jackson

      • Stephanie says:

        barbaroni, I should clarify. I was trying to convey the logic behind a lawsuit…etc?! I know and understand that we all come to this earth with predispositions and tendencies…I also personally believe that life is a trial and a test. We’re all handed different trials. My children are more prone to be alcoholics…no fault of their own, but choosing to drink alcohol will be a choice they’ll have to make, with what they know. I believe that just because we have tendencies, doesn’t mean that that’s what we were born to do. Maybe that’s a better way of putting it? I do believe homosexuality is a sin, and I feel that each of us face temptations of sin, it’s sad and it’s not fair, but it’s life. I was actually kind of on the other side of this article when I posted…even with what I believe. I think that if this were to be equated to a race, or gender etc…he couldn’t argue the point. But because it’s a moral issue, it’s different. Confusing, I know!

      • babaroni says:

        stephanie, thanks for the clarification, but I’d just like to point out that there is no other (supposed) sin which giving up for life would mean renouncing any possibility of ever having a loving spouse and family with whom to share one’s life. Giving up alcohol forever does not require never falling in love, never marrying, never having children and grandchildren, or living alone in solitude and isolation for the rest of one’s life.

        This comparison in which heterosexual people blithely suggest that, “Hey, we know you were born this way, but it’s just like any other ‘temptation’ — just don’t give in to it and you’ll be just fine!!!” is terribly trivializing and hurtful to gay and lesbian people. If you put yourself in their shoes for a moment, I’m sure you will understand why.

        Listen, you can feel free to renounce all the things in your life which you consider sinful, and you can even feel free to take a lifetime vow of celibacy and give up all hope of an intimate, loving partnership with a spouse, and any hope of having children and grandkids, stephanie. Make all the choices you want for yourself, based upon your own perceptions of what you believe is “sinful,” but please don’t trivialize other people by making blithe prescriptions for what their lives should or should not contain.

        Have you ever wondered why gay and lesbian suicide rates are so high? It’s because they have spent their lives internalizing messages like this one — that there is something intrinsically “wrong” with them, that who they love is inherently “sinful,” and that they either are evil for not being able to stop falling in love with people of their own sex, or must accept a life where they have no hope of love, no one to ever share their lives with, no one who loves them more than anyone else in the world. Do you think you might, under those circumstances, decide that life was not worth living?

        Stephanie, there are lots and lots of Christians who believe that, not only did God make homosexual people the way they are, but that God *loves* them the way they are, and intends for them to live full, loving, responsible, committed, caring lives with someone who, like them, was made by God to fall in love with someone of their own sex. You don’t have to believe that this is true, but just be aware that there is more than one viewpoint on the “sinfulness” (or not) of homosexuality, that there are other valid interpretations of the 8 or so passages in the Bible which refer to same-sex activity, and that attitudes and approaches which treat gay people as “other” and suggest that they sacrifice all happiness and joy in this life because someone told them it was “wrong” for them to be who they are, cause terrible, devastating harm to gay and lesbian people.

        Some day someone you love may realize that they are attracted to people of their own sex, and before you ever find out about it, they may well remember the messages you and others have given them, decide that their life is not worth living, and commit suicide. Please be very careful what messages you pass along to your children and loved ones. More than one parent has realized too late that their child was gay, and that their child was listening to them all of those years growing up, and that their child died because of the despair their words instilled in him or her.

        • rhinnanhr says:

          I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to blame parents or any close friends or family members for someone’s suicide. If someone decides their life is not worth living, it might be because of a whole host of reasons, not solely a matter of one’s sexual orientation. Of course, if a homosexual discovers their inclination and feels condemned by those around them, and then because of that rejection kills themselves, I know there is some blame to be given to those doing the condemning. There is nothing more tragic than someone ending their life because they feel worthless. But what should parents do about other matters of sexuality? Should they just encourage whatever their children seem to naturally tend toward? Incest, or sex with immediate family members, is not necessarily hurting anyone, but we believe it is wrong. Should we refrain from teaching children not to have incest if their is a gene discovered that implies some people are “born” with a tendency toward incest? I know this is hypothetical, but I think you have touched on a very important topic here: whether or not we should teach children that all possibilities of a certain inclination is natural and good, just because it has been accepted by many.

          However, I am pondering on your point about homosexuals having to give up a future of marriage, children, and happiness for the sake of avoiding temptation. I think you have a real empathy for them in their struggles, and that is convicting. I, too, cannot reduce their situation to a simple matter of them being born on earth doomed to never marry, never fulfill their love. My only response at this time can be, maybe they could wait or see if there is someone of the opposite sex who they end up falling in love with? It’s hard for me to generalize about sexual orientation, sometimes, because each person is an individual with a different story. This is another reason I have a hard time understanding people (especially young teenagers) who assume that they have to go with what they are feeling right at that moment. I think the act of finding a romantic relationship is pushed too much in general, whether by “bi’s”, “gays” and “lesbians”, or “straights”.

        • pappad says:

          True, but let’s not forget that “gay” couples CANNOT produce children together…period. They CANNOT “naturally” have a baby…again, period. Yes, in some locales they CAN adopt, but, in my opinion, such adoptions aren’t very often in the “best interests of the child” any more than single parenthood is in the child’s best interests. Ideally, a child should have both a father and mother. All children should be ENTITLED to a father and a mother. Some families lose one or the other parent, but that doesn’t mean that having BOTH parents present in one’s home isn’t in the “best interests of the child.” The whole PURPOSE of a “marriage” is to establish the foundations for a FAMILY, and families are the bedrock on which civilization is based. It’s true that civilization has sanctioned marriages that are NOT likely to produce children–elderly couples marrying for “companionship” or “convenience” for one thing. That DOESN’T mean those are “illegitimate” marriages. It simply means that they are “non-traditional,” even though they keep up the MEANING of marriage–a union between one man and one woman…as it’s been throughout human history.

        • Stephanie says:

          Barbaroni, I never said it wasn’t hard and I DO love people of my own that are homosexual. I have never met anyone of my faith that doesn’t believe that God loves all of His children. His love for us doesn’t negate His laws?! My religion teaches me that the fact that we are men and women, means there is something intrinsically “wrong” with all of us, we all struggle with the flesh….that’s why we were provided a plan to follow and a Savior to atone for our shortcomings. I don’t expect you to believe as I do either, but I do feel that you’re throwing a double standard if you don’t see how much you’re trivializing the standards and belief system that others have contrary to your own. And it’s very offensive to suggest that stating what we know and feel to be true is the reason behind anyone’s decision to take their life. This life offers so much strife, but we ALL make our own choices…agency was given to all of us! It’s certainly more concerning for me to ignore the truths that I have been given from my God, than to worry about what the world wants me to adopt as truth. I have a deeper knowledge of who I am, where I came from and where I’m going, to base my worth, and it’s not based on my sexual preferences or desire for lifestyle. My hope would only be for those who face such despair to have the same understanding. Thanks for your thoughts, I respect them, I’m sorry if you don’t feel the same about mine.

        • Manda says:

          Have you ever read the story of Sodom and Gamora in the Bible? God destroys the cities because of their homosexual activities and sins. Abraham pleads with God that if there are 10 believers in the cities he would save them. There were not even 10. So God destroyed the city. You said, “there are lots and lots of Christians who believe that, not only did God make homosexual people the way they are, but that God *loves* them the way they are, and intends for them to live full, loving, responsible, committed, caring lives with someone who, like them, was made by God to fall in love with someone of their own sex.” God doesn’t want anyone to have a terrible life, we choose the bad path ourselves. Yes being gay is a choice! Why do you think God made man and women? If it was correct to be gay, God would have made it possible for two men to reproduce together, or two women for that matter! Man and women are supposed to be together. That’s why our bodies work together. God made us all the way we are supposed to be, and He is loving so he gives us choices. Being gay is one of those choices. Which I believe is the wrong choice.
          Just like with Adam and Eve. My friend once asked me, “Why did God put the tree of ‘The Knowledge of Good and Evil’ in the garden of Eden if it was sinful to eat from it.” It is because He loves us and doesn’t want us to be His slaves. We are to be His servants, His loving servants that choose to serve Him! We tend to make the wrong choices though. But God is always there to guide us on the correct path. He never will leave us nor forsake us. He loves us. In fact, He sent his own son, Jesus, to die for us that our sins would be forgiven. It is because of this that God loves the gay man or lesbian woman. Because His son took the punishment of death and to be separated from God, so that we would not have to be separated from God by our sin. God sees the sin and the man/woman separately. So He can love us but hate our sin! And if we just trust in God and make that right decision of trusting Him, we can go on to live for eternity in heaven with God!!! Now isn’t that wonderful! It’s just a simple choice, of trusting God to be your savior. It’s up to you to make the decision. Because your God loves you and gave you that choice, to love Him!!

        • babaroni says:

          Amanda, you might need to review the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. It’s in Genesis 19. And it says nothing about S&G being destroyed because of homosexuality. The only suggestion it contains of any sexual acts is the desire of the townspeople to commit rape of strangers visiting the city (a grave violation of desert societal norms of extending unfailing hospitality to strangers.

          In fact, the Bible, itself, defines the “sin of Sodom,” and it has nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality. In Ezekiel 16:49, we read, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Again, what is being condemned here is a flagrant violation of desert peoples’ moral codes involving the care of those in need: widows, orphans, strangers. Sodom had plenty, but was proud and arrogant. It refused to share its wealth with those in need, refused to care for those in need, but instead, treated them as enemies vanquished on the battlefield (that’s what the rape was about).

          Now, I’m pretty sure you’ll agree that rape is wrong, no matter who commits it against whom. And the fact is, the city was condemned by God for its pride, arrogance and refusal to care for the poor and needy before the two strangers ever came to visit Lot. But assuming that the townspeople’s threat to rape them played into the destruction which followed, it was certainly not because anyone was engaging in a consensual, loving, monogamous same-sex relationship. It was because of acts of violence, arrogance and selfishness.

          Please don’t try to use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as “Biblical proof” that God hates committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. It proves nothing of the sort. Claiming that it does really diminishes your credibility.

        • pappad says:

          I can never understand how gays can so badly misinterpret the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. WHERE do you think the word “sodomy” comes from?

        • babaroni says:

          Sorry — I said “Amanda,” but that should have been addressed to “Manda.”

          One more thing, Manda — can you please tell me about the day when you first remember being attracted to other girls the same way you were to boys, but made a choice to only be attracted to boys? I’d like to hear how you went about making that choice. How many girls were you attracted to before you decided to be attracted to boys instead? Do you find (assuming you are married) your husband attractive? How many women do you meet whom you find attractive in the way you are attracted to your husband? Was this a one-time choice that you made, to be attracted to men, or do you choose between your attractions to men and women on a daily basis? Just curious, since you said it’s a choice you made.

        • pappad says:

          You’re letting the cat out of the bag, babaroni, by talking about “attraction.” Attraction is sexual and has nothing to do with “love”…merely lust. I assume you’re gay. If that’s so, you are sexually attracted to other women…meaning you want to have sex with them…meaning you LUST after them. “Love” has nothing whatsoever to do with lust. I “love” my best, male friend as I would love a brother, but I don’t LUST for him even slightly, and I CERTAINLY would never consider “marrying” him. My initial attraction to my wife was lust, too, which, as I began to learn who she really was, became love and we decided to spend the rest of our lives together…and have.
          These “attractions” to which you refer are SEXUAL attractions…not love. People don’t fall “in love” at first sight. They may sexually DESIRE someone at first sight and that desire may eventually BECOME true love.

        • Well said, pappad. I’ve made this point to homosexuals as well, but they simply ignore it and refuse to engage it.

        • babaroni says:

          Not even close, pappad. Attraction is about a whole range of things, including (possibly) sexual attraction, but also including emotional attraction, attraction to intellect and a variety of other components. Assuming you are married, are you just attracted to your wife because you want to have sex with her? Is sex the sum total of your relationship? Or were you attracted to her for who she is as a person? For her loving personality, her wit, her talents and gifts? Did you marry her just because you wanted to “have carnal knowledge,” or because you wanted a *relationship* with her which encompassed all that she is?

          I’m hoping the latter, pappad, because if attraction and marriage are simply about the sex act for you, and sexual attractiveness, I feel very, very sorry for your wife.

        • babaroni says:

          pappad, the word “sodomy” comes from about 1300 CE, at which point Aquinas’ theology of “natural law” had come to dominate the church. Prior to the medieval period there was no pervasive anti-homosexual sentiment in the church. In some areas there were actually ritual blessings for same-sex unions. The story of Sodom being associated with homosexuality was a relatively late development.

        • pappad says:

          Astonishing! Have you never READ the Bible at all?

        • @babaroni,

          You asked pappad:
          Assuming you are married, are you just attracted to your wife because you want to have sex with her? Is sex the sum total of your relationship?”

          Do you not bother making an honest attempt to understand what others write? He very clearly wrote:

          “My initial attraction to my wife was lust, too, which, as I began to learn who she really was, became love and we decided to spend the rest of our lives together…and have.”

          Does that sound like a person who got married simply to have sex, without having any other interest in the person whom he married? The point is, if he simply wanted companionship, he could have just been her friend. Clearly, he wanted to consummate that relationship through a sexual union, and that’s his point.

          In other words, your desire to marry someone of the same sex is to satisfy your physical passions, and not primarily for companionship which can otherwise be had with others without engaging in sex.

        • babaroni says:

          That’s not what he said at all, Frank. He said that his relationship with his wife was about more than sex, but that gay people’s attraction to one another is only about sex. Not sure why the double standard, there. You can’t have it both ways. Either marriage is about far more than sex (i.e., it’s about the *relationship* and the person whom you love) or its just about sex. Mine is the former. YMMV. But if so, I don’t know why you would bother.

        • @babaroni,

          You first asked pappad:
          “Assuming you are married, are you just attracted to your wife because you want to have sex with her? Is sex the sum total of your relationship?”

          And now you admit:
          “He said that his relationship with his wife was about more than sex…”

          So why exactly did you bother pretending that he said something different in the first place?

          You wrote that pappad claimed:
          “that gay people’s attraction to one another is only about sex. ”

          It’s rather clear that he was using the term “attraction” in reference to your use of the same term when discussing “orientation”. And let’s be clear about one thing: when the homosexual community refers to “orientation” (a dubious term, to say the least) it is not talking about anything other than sexual desire. After all, no one is claiming to having been born “oriented” toward trivial matters of shared interest, like preferring Taco Bell over Del Taco.

          What’s problematic is that when pappad made his observation, you committed an equivocation fallacy by shifting the use of the term “attraction” from sexual “orientation” to irrelevant matters about emotions, intellect, and things which heterosexuals of the same sex can share without committing homosexual acts.

          Finally, there’s no “double standard” as you claimed. Most people love others of the same sex because doing so has nothing to do with being either a homosexual or heterosexual, nor does it have anything to do with sex at all. So you can love anyone you please because no one is forbidding you from doing so. In fact, God expects us to love everyone. However, when the issue turns to sex, He also prescribes both its appropriate context and the nature of marriage, neither of which allow for homosexual behavior, incest, rape, adultery, beastiality, prostitution, and any number of other illicit sexual behaviors.

        • Jackson says:

          Babaroni,
          I want to thank you for the kind, thoughtful way you express yourself in posts and responses. I greatly respect your calm, logical manner. I’m often too sharp and aggressive here, I will try to follow your example. Jackson

  6. Thank you for your astute and well said words. As I read your powerfully adept post, I wondered (and chuckled in disbelief) if these “frauds of freedom”, or, rather, gay marriage supporters, are really trying to build that tower of Babel to get into heaven…or shoot arrows at God, or whatever …because He, too, according to these activists who disregard moral and virtuous standard, is violating their agenda of glory because certainly it would be discriminating for God to deny entrance into the kingdom of heaven based on someone’s belief to want to steal or murder etc. What they have forgotten to realize is that God is in charge and He sets the rules, not them (regardless of their most tiring and endlessly manipulative intrigues). Truly, we must stand together in and for truth and righteousness!

  7. C.Day says:

    Thank you for this post. I have long held the same belief. I don’t believe this is the new civil rights movement, as others have said. Unfortunately, my husband’s aunt was one of the couples to sue the state of Utah over their constitutional amendment. And if you follow the news, you know they won. As she was congratulating herself I wrote her a letter telling her why I oppose gay marriage. She said she would never be in favor of forcing churches to perform or recognize gay marriages. So even she doesn’t see this coming. How can people NOT see this coming? We are in a fight for our freedoms as this country has never seen. I agree with you. WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!!!

    • babaroni says:

      C.Day, I know you honestly fear that churches will be forced to perform marriages for same-sex couples, but if you look at history and the present, you will see this is not the case. Are you aware that no church has *ever* been forced, or been punished for refusing, to marry an interracial couple? Churches can *and do* refuse to marry interracial couples, even today. The LDS Church (of which I’m guessing you’re a member) refused to marry interracial couples long after the Supreme Court overturned laws against interracial marriage in the court case “Loving v. Virginia.”

      What churches offer couples is a religious blessing, sacrament or ordinance of marriage. It is not civil marriage. While a couple in this country *can* have, if they wish, their minister or priest or bishop or sealer *also* solemnize their civil marriage in the process of conferring upon them their religious blessing of marriage, this is a convenience. It doesn’t mean that civil marriage and religious marriage are the same thing. Churches do not have to recognize *or* perform civil marriages. And they are absolutely free to refuse their religious blessing of marriage to any couple they do not deem qualified to receive it, just as they are free to refuse baptism, communion, ordination, or any other sacrament, ordinance or religious blessing to anyone they do not deem qualified.

      If churches could be forced to marry gay people, churches would also be forced to marry interracial couples, previously divorced people, people who are not members of that church, and anyone else who is eligible for a civil marriage license, but who is currently not eligible to receive this church or that church’s blessing of religious marriage.

      Did you know that Roman Catholic Churches refuse to marry (in many cases) non-Catholics? And refuse to marry people who are divorced from someone else? There are Baptist churches which refuse to marry interracial couples.

      And churches routinely refuse membership to people of whom they disapprove. Churches (such as your own) refuse to ordain women. Civil rights protections to prevent discrimination against people on the basis of race, sex and religion are far stronger, older and more universal in this country than the meager protections granted thus far to gay people. And yet churches can and do refuse membership, ordinances, sacraments, blessings, Temple attendance, etc., to a host of people because of their religion, their sex, their race, their marital status, and for many other reasons, which, were it not a church practicing that discrimination, would be illegal. But churches are not bound by non-discrimination laws when it comes to who they will marry, baptize, give communion to, ordain, or even allow to attend their services or meetings.

      This idea that if gay people are allowed civil marriage equality, churches will be “forced” to grant them religious marriage rites, is a huge red herring meant to drum up support from church members who are afraid of having their churches taken over by gay people. It cannot happen without entirely re-writing the constitution. Civil rights non-discrimination laws *do not* apply to church membership, sacraments, ordinances or blessings. Ask any civil rights attorney.

  8. Moko says:

    So gay couples fight for the choice to marry, and in some states they have it – fine. But, people who disagree with it, DON’T have a choice to not support them? Sounds about right. If I owned a bakery and didn’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple, I shouldn’t have to, because it’s MY store and I can choose to not serve anyone, for any reason at all, if I felt like it.

    Also for the people saying it’s not a choice, just curious – then why do so many gay men try to turn straight men gay? We’ve all seen them try, surely, don’t try to tell me I’m making that up (I’m not saying every single one of them does but I know many do). Also I know a lot of lesbians who were straight, and then after they were raped, turned lesbian. Seriously so many lesbians only turned it after being raped or molested… Had a friend ask one of them, “well what if you were raped by a woman?” and she replied, “I guess I’d go back to being straight”. Sure sounds like a choice to me.

    • babaroni says:

      Moko, first, do you feel you should have the right to refuse to serve a customer because s/he is black or Jewish?

      As to rape or molestation “causing” straight women to become lesbians, this is pure mythology. Millions of girls are victims of molest, most of them by male perpetrators, though some by female perpetrators. Studies have shown that a lesbian sexual orientation is no more common among survivors of child molestation than among women who were not victims of molestation. And while rape survivors may have emotional trauma which makes it difficult for them to trust men or be sexual with men, this is not remotely the same as “changing” their sexual orientation. Rape by a man does not turn a straight woman gay, any more than being raped by a man will turn a lesbian into a heterosexual.

      As for “ex-gay” programs which attempt to change gay and lesbian people’s sexual orientation, they are dismal failures. Rates of supposed “change” from homosexual to heterosexual are less than 1%. This is why programs like Exodus, one of the longest-running, best-known “ex-gay” organizations in the world, have closed their doors and renounced their former efforts at bringing about “change” of sexual orientation. When Exodus closed its doors last year, it made a formal apology to gay and lesbian people everywhere for its misguided attempts and promises to change sexual orientation.

      When “ex-gay” programs publish statistics which purport to show any measurable percentage of “change,” they skew their statistics by not including those participants who have dropped out of their program along the way (which is the vast majority of participants). Of those who do stay in these programs, the tiny percentages of supposed changes are readily accounted for by bisexuals, who are capable of experiencing satisfying relationships with persons of either sex. If you’ve paid attention over the past 20 years or so, large numbers of even the “professional ex-gays” (those who are paid spokespeople or who take leadership positions within the ex-gay industry), have ended up either leaving the industry and finding a relationship with a spouse or partner of the same sex, or have been caught in scandals, visiting same-sex prostitutes or hanging out in gay bars.

      “Ex-gay” therapy has been found to be so fraudulent and damaging that all of the major medical and psych organizations have denounced it, and the state of California has banned its use on minors.

      • @babaroni,

        You wrote:
        “the difference between sexual orientation and the things [truthmatters] reference[d] is that being gay and living in a loving, consensual, committed relationship with a person of one’s own sex is no different from or more harmful than being heterosexual and living in a loving, committed, consensual relationship with a person of the opposite sex”

        Is there an argument or evidence to accompany that claim?

        You wrote:
        “The other things you mention: pedophilia, zoophilia, stealing, lying, murder and rape, cause harm to others. They are neither consensual, nor loving.”

        How are you at all privy to this? How do you know some children do not want to engage in such behavior? How do you know pedophiles are not “in love” or “committed”? Many adulterers are in love with those with whom they engage in consensual adulterous acts. As for animals, I’ve seen plenty of dogs that initiated sex with human legs, so any question about their “consent” is hardly in doubt. More to the point, your objections to such relationships on the basis of consent, love, or commitment are entirely arbitrary. Who is babaroni to dictate criteria by which to judge the behavior of others?

        You objected to TruthMatters’ implication that:
        “…you will be able, through good parenting and good modeling, somehow teach your children not to be gay…”

        We cannot ultimately force a volitional being to make the right choices, no matter how good a job we do training them. However, simply because we cannot ultimately control our children’s choices, that doesn’t logically entail, when raising them in such a way as to model proper conduct to guide them on the right path, that such training is useless. Sure, there’s no guarantee that they will follow that path, but to suggest that proper training has no effect on a child is either ignorant or naive. We can obviously observe the effect of both good parenting and bad parenting on children.

        You wrote:
        “the truth is that different people experience the onset of attractions at different ages, or at least, awareness of those attractions.”

        If you go back and read what I wrote, you’ll note that I was responding to the absurd claim often offered by homosexuals to the effect that “I’ve known I was gay since I was born”. Or, when we’re told that, “Ever since I was a little boy, I liked boys more than girls,”, well – NEWS FLASH – all little boys prefer other boys over “yucky” girls. To suggest that such a near-universal phenomena is equivalent to homosexual desire is ignorant at best and intentionally disingenuous at worst.

        Regarding reparative therapy for homosexuals, you wrote:
        “Of those who do stay in these programs, the tiny percentages of supposed changes are readily accounted for by bisexuals, who are capable of experiencing satisfying relationships with persons of either sex.”

        This is nothing but question-begging. You’ve framed the issue in such a way as to make it definitionally impossible for anyone to have changed. As soon as someone does change, LO AND BEHOLD, they were either never “truly” gay, or they were “bisexual”. Please tell us then, what would it look like if someone did actually change? You see, your canned response is to define any example of change as a failure. And keep in mind that we’re discussing behavior, not the temptations from which people suffer. A thief may choose to stop stealing, but no one is suggesting that he may not suffer temptations to steal. Nor does choosing to stop engaging in homosexuality entail that such persons won’t suffer temptations to repeat such behavior. However, suffering temptations does not invalidate the decision to correct one’s behavior.

        Again, regarding such therapy, you noted:
        “the state of California has banned its use on minors”

        It’s glaringly conspicuous that, while you insist homosexuals should have all kinds of “rights”, you celebrate that they are denied the right to receive help. Another example where your agenda can only advance through tyrannical use of the state’s secular sword.

        You responded to Kym:
        “You believe that science has achieved a complete and total understanding of what every one of our 24,000 genes does and does not do, and how each of them interacts with all the others? Are you a geneticists (pretty sure the answer to that is “no”)?”

        Is babaroni a geneticist? Pretty sure the answer is “no” as well. In fact, your claim about what “The likelihood” is concerning sexual orientation is nothing more than wishful speculation. Moreover, unless you’re affirming biological determinism, as if we’re all robots, without any volitional ability, then genetics cannot exculpate one from his behavioral choices.
        Finally, no one is arguing that homosexual temptations do not exist. The issue is whether a behavior is legitimized by virtue of having temptations/inclinations/fill-in-the-blank, because that’s what your argument logically implies, i.e., “I have homosexual inclinations, therefore I’m justified in my behavior”. Well, adulterers have similar inclinations, so are they excused as well? After all, if your spouse cheated on you and you never found out, did they really do anything wrong? Most men, after all, are not inclined toward monogamy. Many choose to be monogamous because it’s the right thing, regardless of any temptations or inclinations to the contrary.

        You wrote to TruthMatters:
        “Adult gay and lesbian couples who are both of age, who consent to marry one another do no more harm to themselves, each other or society…”

        That’s demonstrably false. Destroying a man’s livelihood is wrong, while refusing to bake a cake causes no harm whatsoever.

        • babaroni says:

          Baking a cake does no harm. If he chooses to stop being a baker rather than bake cakes for customers on an equal basis, that’s his choice, not their fault.

          As for pedophilia “not harming children,” all I can say is that you are one very sick man. Perhaps that comment of yours explains a lot about you.

          There is plenty of psychological research which clearly demonstrates that sexual molestation harms children.

          What is harmful to gay and lesbian people is societal discrimination and attempts to “change” their sexual orientation.

        • pappad says:

          Nonsense. I didn’t SAY that pedophilia doesn’t “harm” children. I said that pedophiles AND some of their victims would gladly tell you that it doesn’t. Please stop putting words into my mouth (fingers?) THEY use the same bogus arguments that gays are using to justify their particular perversion. Secondly, neither I nor anyone of my acquaintance, has ANY desire to “change your sexual orientation.” If YOU choose to be sexually perverse, I couldn’t care less. All we’re asking you to do is STOP trying to convert our children by touting your perversions as “natural and normal.” They aren’t. And STOP demanding that we give you special privileges just because of your sexually perverse persuasions. You live your life and we’ll live ours.

        • @babaroni,

          You wrote:
          “Baking a cake does no harm.”

          No one said that baking a cake does any harm. What was said was that destroying a person’s livelihood *does* do plenty of harm, while not baking a cake does *no* harm at all, nor have you demonstrated any alleged harm.

          You wrote:
          “As for pedophilia “not harming children,” all I can say is that you are one very sick man.”

          Again, no one in this thread wrote that pedophilia is “not harming children”. As for the question put to you (and which you failed to answer):
          (1) how are you privy to the fact that no children, or animals, or adulterers do not engage in their behavior without love or consent? Please explain your omniscience to us.
          (2) why should anyone give babaroni’s criteria (i.e., consent, commitment, love, and the lack of harm) any serious consideration when it’s entirely arbitrary? Who are you to dictate moral criteria to others when you yourself refuse to be held to moral standards?
          Finally, on what objective ground are you assessing the beliefs or behavior of others as “sick”? How is it you can see the tiny splinter in another’s eye, while being incapable of seeing the beam in your own eye?

          You wrote:
          “There is plenty of psychological research which clearly demonstrates that sexual molestation harms children.”

          You continue avoiding the questions, i.e. what justifies your list of criteria (i.e., love, consent, et al.) and on what objective ground you can condemn doing harm to others? Why should the nihilist, anarchist, or sadist render moral judgements based on babaroni’s subjective preferences? Without an objective Lawgiver, doing harm to others is no more unethical than planting tomatoes nor are any sexual acts objectively obligated to meet any criteria for their legitimacy.

          Finally, you wrote:
          “What is harmful to gay and lesbian people is societal discrimination and attempts to “change” their sexual orientation.”

          Not only is that another empty claim offered without argument or evidence, but you didn’t even explain how such discrimination causes society any harm. What worse is this unsupported assumption that we ought to be opposed to discrimination per se. *Everyone* engages in discrimination all the time, so simply shouting, “Discrimination!”, doesn’t help your case. You need to explain precisely why any particular form of discrimination to which you’re opposed should be opposed by others as well, and thus far you’ve failed to do just that. After all, can you imagine a sick person allowing just anyone to operate on them, or people who allow just anyone to babysit their children, or a woman who allows just anyone to be intimate with her? We all apply personal, pragmatic, moral, economic, religious, logistical, and many other criteria by which we discriminate all the time. That’s how a moral and rational society functions.

          Finally, sexual temptations are not equivalent to “orientation”, nor has anyone demonstrated such a notion. A human who has sex with goats certainly was not “oriented” that way. He chose to engage in such behavior to satisfy his own pleasure, and that’s it. And before you accuse me of comparing homosexual behavior to beastiality, please make an attempt to understand the argument. My point is that subjective desires are no indication of an objective telos.

        • babaroni says:

          pappad, no one can “convert” your children to become homosexual, any more than the “Reparative Therapy” advocates and the “Ex-gay” industry can actually convert gay people into straight people. Sexual orientation is innate. Equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples doesn’t “turn” anyone gay. Does my ability to legally marry my wife make you start pining after men and falling in love with the guy next door? I think not.

          As for pedophilia “not harming” children, as I said before, there is plenty of *evidence* that it does. You have yet to provide one single *shred* of evidence that loving, committed, monogamous relationships between gay people harm *anyone*. Since it is you who is advocating that gay people be deprived of equal rights as citizens of this country, it is up to you to provide proof as to why this should be so. You keep tossing out ideas like “YOU’LL MAKE ALL THE CHILDREN TURN GAAAAAAY!” in hopes that something will stick. Sorry, dude, but it doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to deny people equal civil rights in society for no reason other than prejudice, false statements and your personal religious beliefs.

        • pappad says:

          So you’re insisting that gays AREN’T “recruiting” kids in our school system by demanding access to them (over the objections–or despite the objections) of parents and encouraging them to “try it, you’ll like it?”
          The “harm” you do is by bastardizing the institution of marriage. Hopefully for the LAST time, you aren’t being “illegally discriminated against” by being forced to adhere to the SAME LAWS regarding marriage that everyone else is. I’ve said it before, too. You don’t want EQUAL treatment. You want SPECIAL treatment. Why? Because of how and with whom (or what) you CHOOSE to engage in sexual recreation. It has NOTHING to do with “love.” Otherwise you wouldn’t self-describe according to how you have sex…and, by doing so, invite everyone into your bedroom.

        • @babaroni,

          You wrote:
          “Sexual orientation is innate.”

          A claim for which not an iota of evidence has been provided.
          From the perspective of science, there’s no way in principle to empirically observe one’s telos. And it’s not that we can’t observe design, it’s just that defects from genetic entropy are not themselves examples of teleology. From a theological perspective, aberrant desires represent temptations to sin, not “orientation”. That’s not “Frank’s” interpretation. That’s what is clearly taught in scripture, which is why everyone has understood it that way for thousands of years. Johnny-come-lately revisionists cannot alter history merely because they have an axe to grind.

          You wrote:
          “Equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples doesn’t “turn” anyone gay.”

          1. No one issued the claim to which you are responding, so you’re again attacking straw men.

          2. You’ve always had equal treatment. You want *special* treatment, and we’ve not seen any reason why you deserve such special treatment, especially while you want to deny the same special treatment to those who practice polygamy, incest, adultery, pedastry, beastiality, or any other behavior to which you are arbitrarily opposed. Forgive me if such comparisons offend, but you’ve not yet explained why such comparisons are not valid. You insist that those behaviors are harmful, but one can easily offer examples where those behaviors harmed no one, while conversely offer examples where homosexual behavior has been harmful. And while we can go through that exercise, the more fundamental problem with your position is that you can’t even explain why anyone has any objective moral duty to do no harm to others. On what objective ground is “harm” a criteria for judging behavior? You’ve not yet told us.

        • babaroni says:

          Not true, Frank. There is significant scientific evidence that sexual orientation is innate and genetically linked. But the fact is that even if it were not, this would not be sufficient reason for restricting the civil rights of homosexual persons. Religion is not innate, either, and yet we protect the rights of individuals to believe as they wish, and we do not restrict their civil rights on the basis of their religious choices.

          No one issued the claim to which you are responding, so you’re again attacking straw men.

          March 4, 2014 – 5:21PM – pappad.

          Just because you didn’t bother to read it, Frank, doesn’t mean it wasn’t said.

          As to the rest of your post, it’s already been thoroughly addressed in other posts. Not going round in circles with you. Go back and read more thoroughly.

        • babaroni says:

          As for your claim, Frank, that any sexual molestation committed by pedophiles could be “loving” or “consensual,” you neglect two important points:

          1. Harming children is *never* loving. And there is more than sufficient evidence that sexual molestation of children is harmful. It makes me ill that you continue suggesting otherwise, and I can only repeat that this suggests a great deal more about your personal morals and motivations than anything else in this thread, and,

          2. No sexual relations between adults and children are *ever* consensual — by definition — because children are incapable of giving informed consent. The fact that you are apparently unaware of this disturbs me deeply.

          I suggest that you stop speaking in defense of sexual molestation of children. I’m guessing that your doing so, particularly under your own real name, as you do here, puts you at significant legal risk. I sincerely hope you are not actually committing harmful acts against children. If you are, I hope someone with the ability to intervene reads your comments here and stops you.

        • @babaroni,

          You wrote:
          “There is significant scientific evidence that sexual orientation is innate and genetically linked.”

          That’s easy to claim. It is impossible to demonstrate.

          You wrote:
          “But the fact is that even if it were not, this would not be sufficient reason for restricting the civil rights of homosexual persons.”

          I completely agree. That’s why I have no problem that homosexuals have always had the same rights as anyone else. My only opposition is to the *special* rights which you allege to have and demand at the point of the state’s bayonet.

          You wrote:
          “Religion is not innate, either, and yet we protect the rights of individuals to believe as they wish…”

          First, religious propositions are neither biological entities nor physical objects which exhibit behavior, so you’re comparing apples to oranges.

          You continued:
          “…and we do not restrict their civil rights on the basis of their religious choices.”

          Clearly you’re wrong, because the baker’s 1st Amendment right (and others who share his worldview) is, in fact, being restricted because of a religious choice.

          You attacked a straw man, and when it was pointed out, you responded with

          “Just because you didn’t bother to read it, Frank, doesn’t mean it wasn’t said.” and referenced the comment from “March 4, 2014 – 5:21PM – pappad”.

          I invite everyone to read the comment referenced and they’ll note that nowhere does it state that “equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples” will turn anyone gay.

          And then you had the hubris to claim:
          “As to the rest of your post, it’s already been thoroughly addressed in other posts. Not going round in circles with you. Go back and read more thoroughly.”

          Goodness, you couldn’t even read pappad’s comment correctly, and you seriously believe you’ve responded to the questions put to you? Well, I don’t blame you for continuing to avoid having to engage points which expose the emperor’s lack of clothes.

          You wrote:
          “Harming children is *never* loving.”

          No matter how many times you’re asked, you continue to avoid the question. However, I’m going to continue asking the question because it demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of your position. On what objective ground is doing harm morally prohibited? Since when does babaroni get to dictate to others what they should or should not do?

          You wrote:
          “2. No sexual relations between adults and children are *ever* consensual — by definition — because children are incapable of giving informed consent. The fact that you are apparently unaware of this disturbs me deeply.”

          Yes, it’s clear that you’re deeply disturbed. That’s why we’re here to help you.

          All jesting aside, the “definition” you offered was a legal one, not an ontological one. Citing civil law amounts to question-begging, because the prior fundamental issue is whether there is any objective ground for ethics which the civil authorities have a moral duty to observe. The fact is, children are perfectly capable of consenting to all sorts of things you find disagreeable.

          You wrote:
          “I suggest that you stop speaking in defense of sexual molestation of children.”

          Again, you’re either failing to read what others write, or you’re being intentionally obtuse. Nowhere did I defend the molestation of children. Quite the contrary. You see, I can ground a moral objection to evil on an objective Lawgiver which you’ve abandoned in favor of the vacillating whims of secular bureaucrats. That’s why you’re incapable of justifying any appeal to civil law. You’ve embraced relativism and subjectivity, neither of which can provide you with an objective ground for rendering all of the moral judgements you continue to issue arbitrarily.

        • gc says:

          FG, I hate to break it to you, but we don’t live in a theocracy.

        • gc,

          First, we’re also not under an atheistic, marxist dictatorship. And second, this country was founded under theistic principles (i.e., the proposition that inalienable rights are endowed by God), as well as recognizing our freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment. Finally, there’s nothing either in our founding or in the Constitution which grants a right to perversion.

        • Jackson says:

          frankgrauillustrator,
          The perverts are the idiots trying to write the bible into the Constitution and re-write history…Our forefathers clearly did not want our society to be church based. The same fears that drive this alarmist blog, wrote the Bible and convince you the world will implode if all are treated equally under the law. FEAR is the problem. FEAR is the driving force behind every human tragedy. As Americans we have inalienable rights, not subject to the restraints of religion or prejudice. The responsibility of all citizens is to protect our rights and freedoms. Thanks, Jackson

        • Jackson,

          You ignorantly use the term, “perverts”, as a mere pejorative, ignorantly believing that it can be applied randomly to whomever or whatever you find disagreeable. In fact, the term has a more precise meaning, and its application to distorted views of marriage is entirely appropriate and not an exercise in name-calling. You should learn to use language more judiciously.

          You wrote:
          “Our forefathers clearly did not want our society to be church based.”

          You’re attacking a straw man. No one suggested society needs to be “church based”.

          You wrote:
          “The same fears that drive this alarmist blog…”

          Anyone can read through the comments and see that the only ones displaying fear are those who shiver at the suggestion that there are such things as objective moral standards to which society ought to be held.

          You wrote:
          “As Americans we have inalienable rights, not subject to the restraints of religion or prejudice.”

          Yes, we do have inalienable rights, and if you bothered learning your history you’d find that the Founders recognized that such rights are endowed to us by God; nor do such rights include engaging in a perverse form of marriage.

          You wrote:
          “The responsibility of all citizens is to protect our rights and freedoms.”

          So why are you trying so hard to deny the baker his inalienable 1st Amendment rights and freedoms?

        • Jackson says:

          frankgrauillustrator,
          Consult a dictionary about the meaning of pervert…not the narrow meaning that simpleton’s favor but the verb “to alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended” or the synonyms : distort, corrupt, misuse, misrepresent, misinterpret, falsify… Matt is brilliant at teaching Latin phrases to apes. I don’t want to change your faith or beliefs. Draw cute little cartoons, spout hate and religious ignorance, but do NOT pervert the Constitution to suit your own purposes. This isn’t a theocracy, but a democracy. Thanks, Jackson

        • It’s rather unfortunate that you continue to misapply the term, “pervert”, even after having consulted a dictionary.

          Furthermore, had you taken time to actually read the definition you quoted, you would have seen that your view of marriage is a perversion of “its original course, meaning … of what was first intended”.

          As for perverting the Constitution, you were obviously engaging in an act of projection when you issued that accusation, because the 1st Amendment of the Constitution certainly recognizes freedom of religion while nowhere recognizing a fictional right to pervert marriage.

          Finally, this government is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Didn’t you ever recite the pledge of allegiance? It states, “…and to the REPUBLIC for which we stand…”, not “and to the democracy for which we stand”.

          Perhaps you ought to do a little studying before displaying ignorance and then later, after being embarrassed by your own folly, attempting to cover it up by regressing to the sandbox and calling others “apes” and “simpletons”. By behaving so childishly, you’re only digging your own grave.

          “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein… – Proverbs 26:27a

      • Almost Not Quite says:

        Hmm, so not counting people who drop out is a statistical fallacy. What about drug rehabs? Where people drop out because they don’t want to give up drugs. Those stats are not used because you cant help people who dont want your help.

        Additionally there are health hazards to gay sex. We wont mention the higher average number of partners and the increase STD risk that brings. So how about increased rates colon/rectal cancer? Yeah sure you can white wash that somehow babaroni, but white wash this.

        I myself would have been “born that way” but I saw the fact that it was a choice. Do I find some men attractive? Yes I still do, but I love my WIFE fully. You will never convince me that its not a CHOICE because I made a choice to not walk that road. Through the grace of God I didnt walk that path. Would have been very very easy to do so. Probably would have enjoyed myself greatly, but been much much sadder for it.

        Homosexuality is a choice, just like sleeping with barflies is a choice. Both are wrong and hazardous to your health.

        Oh and we all know the cure for AIDS already. DONT SLEEP AROUND. monogamy is the cure for AIDS.

        • Hazel Motes says:

          OK, so you’re a bisexual. Congratulations. You are aware that some gay people feel no attraction whatsoever to the opposite sex? So saying that they should “choose” is ludicrous.

          And if gay men have a higher incidence of AIDS, you should also point out that lesbians have a lower incidence than the heterosexual population. And since the Bible contains no prohibition against lesbians, maybe they are “God’s chosen” and your wife should ditch you and take up with another woman. It doesn’t matter if she’s not sexually attracted to women since she can just “choose” to be.

        • FG says:

          Hazel,

          Defenders of homosexual behavior like yourself attempt to redefine the issue so as to make your position impervious to falsification, i.e., any homosexual who actually chooses to live a normal, heterosexual lifestyle are suddenly “bisexual”. Please explain, how are you at all privy to that?

          Furthermore, the Bible clearly limits sexual behavior to the context of marriage, and it also clearly presents the ontology of marriage as being between one man and one woman, so your allowance for lesbian behavior is a fiction ground in Biblical illiteracy.

        • gc says:

          FG, I hate to break it to you, but we don’t live in a theocracy.

      • Jackson says:

        frankgrauillustrator,
        This is the most difficult thing for you to grasp, I do not live by a poorly written ancient fairy tale that has been manipulated by kings and dilettantes for several centuries. Moreover the United States of America was not founded on any religion and our Constitution isn’t Bible based either. The mention of a creator in the Declaration of Independence is purposely vague as not suggest any God in particular. Live a superstitious and ignorant of facts life as you wish, but do not try and force that tripe on the rest of us. Sweet little cartoons of melting snowmen are your talent, not life coaching. If my calling people who refuse to look at scientific and historical facts and choose ignorance instead, simpleton and ape really do fit those choices. Thanks, Jackson

        • Jackson,

          I hope everyone takes the time to read your comment, because it’s a perfect example of the vacuous arguments in favor of the homosexual agenda.

          Your comment was, as always, an infantile string of ad hominem attacks which offer not a whit of rational support for the perversion you wish to impose on society. For example, can you please explain to all of us how attacking my personal vocation justifies a perversion of marriage?

          You issued ignorant claims about the Bible without offering anything by way of argument or evidence; then again, when your position suffers for want of evidence or argument, resorting to making false claims and name-calling is really all you have, isn’t it?

          You opined:
          “The mention of a creator in the Declaration of Independence is purposely vague as not suggest any God in particular.”

          First, thank you for admitting that this country was founded on the Biblical principle of inalienable rights being endowed by God.

          Second, are we really to believe that the majority of signers, being Christian, would have signed their name to a document which promoted some pagan or nebulous deity? It’s rather obvious to anyone who isn’t obtuse that the only reason they signed that document was because they understood it referred to the God of the Bible. They didn’t need to write, “the God of the Bible” because it was already understood amongst them. Perhaps you ought to read Franklin’s (a deistic theist) statements at the Constitutional Convention making a Biblical appeal for government sanctioned prayer in congressional proceedings. Only modern secularists like yourself fail to understand the context of the Founders’ words. Whether you do so out of blind ignorance or because you’re being intentionally deceptive is anyone’s guess.

          Finally, the issue of what any particular government legislates is a red herring. You ignorantly believe that an appeal to a secular state somehow supports your views. The fact is, secularism can offer no objective ground for moral imperatives and inalienable rights whatsoever. As such, you have no ground for moral complaint against anything the state wishes to impose. The real questions are, do objective moral imperatives (and subsequent rights) exist, on what are they ground, and what kinds of laws are legislators morally obligated to enact? The real issue is one of prescriptive ethics, not descriptive behavior. Your secularism can’t even begin to address such issues on any objective ground, hence your failure and inability to offer a cogent comment on the matter.

          Frankly, you’re convincing no one with your childish manner and empty arguments. Perhaps you should troll elsewhere and return when you have something of substance to offer.

        • Jackson says:

          Frank,
          Draw your cartoons, believe in complete nonsense… Bless your heart, Jackson

        • Monte Harmon says:

          Jackson, It’s easy enough to grasp, as long as one accepts alternate realities. Your’s has no epistemological basis and is no better than Franks, indeed it is much less satisfying. However, you do seem rather pedantic in refusing to believe that the writers of the founding documents actually meant something beyond “on Tuesdays 5 might equal 5, if I have not had to much pig fat in the previous 24 hours.”

          Your superstition has you believing that randomly assembled particles can lead to something meaningful, like a moral belief that one reality might be more true than another. Frank’s reality is a great deal more compelling. And as for the simpleton and ape labels, they apply far better to the consequent results of randomly assembled particles than to the creative product of an eternally existing Creator.

        • Jackson says:

          Monte Harmon,
          Bless your heart. Thanks, Jackson

        • Boy, oh, boy, Jackson, you really got me there. Did you learn that one in the sandbox, too?

          Come back when you’ve grown out of your intellectual diapers.

        • Jackson says:

          frankgrauillustrator,
          Intellectual diapers? That’s cute, coming from a man who draws cute little cartoons for a living and bases his ‘life’ on beating other citizens down with ancient literature. You have the intellectual depth of your melting snowman. A nice parallel for the way Christianity is melting away. Thanks, Jackson

        • Jackson,

          Attacking my vocation provided no support for your perverse position the first time you tried it. What on earth made you think your infantile comment would somehow aid your desperate cause the second time around? (What was that definition of “insanity” again? Something about repeating your failed attempts over and over…)

          As for having the “intellectual depth” of a melting snowman, you’ve once again demonstrated your mastery at projecting your own mental failings on others. Too bad it’s not a marketable skill.

          …Yes, I know, “Bless my little heart”. Thanks. I will.

  9. Stella & Bow: the go-to site for dainty necklaces, rings, and bracelets will offer a 25 percent discount sitewide.

    For me, I’m ready to take on the world when I love what I’m wearing.

    Available in navy blue and hot pink the bike comes complete with
    a wicker basket perfectly crafted to hold a bottle of Clos du
    Bois wine, two Go – Vino reusable wine glasses,
    and a corkscrew.

  10. aaron says:

    You hit the nail on the head Matt!

  11. Becky says:

    I was recently thinking about this and tried to think of other situations where such legal action would offend. Say, if one was made, by law, made to give service to any organization/person who wants it, where will it stop. Under this way of thinking, and precedence, if a KKK meeting wanted to hire a black woman to cater one of their meetings, for whatever reason, she would have to do it no matter how offensive it might be to her. All situations of restricting freedoms under law, must take in the bigger picture, not just one’s own minute stake in it.

    • babaroni says:

      Becky, it’s a kind thought, but you apparently misunderstand how civil rights legislation (which includes the laws which protect from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations) works. The reason this baker was not permitted to discriminate is because his discrimination was based upon the customer’s sexual orientation, which is a “suspect class” in Colorado’s non-discrimination laws. He would have been equally in trouble if he had discriminated against a customer because of the customer’s religion or race. And in fact, he would have been equally in trouble if he (the baker) had been gay, and had refused to bake a cake for a heterosexual couple because he didn’t want to provide a cake for a heterosexual wedding.

      In your example, there is no “suspect class” which includes members of hate groups such as the KKK. There is no law in any state or at the federal level which prohibits people from refusing service to someone on the basis of their membership in the KKK or any other hate-group. A black woman who refused to work for a KKK event would not be in any way legally at risk for doing so.

      • The reason this baker was not permitted to discriminate is because his discrimination was based upon the customer’s sexual orientation, which is a “suspect class” in Colorado’s non-discrimination laws.

      • I don’t know what happened with that last post, so disregard it. Here’s what should have been posted…

        @babaroni,

        That’s a blatant falsehood and you know it because you’ve been corrected repeatedly on this point.

        The baker was in no way opposed to anyone’s sexual escapades. His refusal to bake a cake was predicated on a distorted view of marriage which he would not support, and he would have still refused had the couple been two heterosexual males, a incestuous couple, a polygamist marrying a harem, or a pedophile. Moreover, he already indicated he would have baked the cake for this couple for any normal event.

        You intentionally misrepresent the issue and the baker’s motive in order to justify destroying this man’s livelihood and force society to genuflect to the homosexual agenda. As has already been noted, that kind of tyranny is simply evil.

        • babaroni says:

          The facts of the case are perfectly clear and are represented in detail in the court record. *Your* attempts to reframe them are pointless and make you appear extremely disingenuous.

        • @babaroni,

          You wrote
          “Exactly. No argument, there.”

          For the record, you responded to a post in which I accidentally cut and pasted your own comment, so you’re only agreeing with yourself (and it’s conspicuous that you didn’t recognize your own comment).

          You wrote:
          “The facts of the case are perfectly clear and are represented in detail in the court record. *Your* attempts to reframe them are pointless and make you appear extremely disingenuous.”

          You’re obviously engaging in projection when issuing an accusation of being disingenuous, because anyone can go back and read for themselves that I made no reference to any court record.

          Furthermore, you continue to be under the delusion that running into the arms of the state settles all issue, as if the state is your god, whose decisions are infallible. You appear blind to the fact that we’ve all witnessed you do this over and over every time your position stands refuted. Well, I hate to rain on your parade, but the declarations of the state don’t even begin to settle the issue. The facts are plain and clear. It is the state that reframed the issued in an attempt to destroy this man for not bowing to your agenda. The engine of tyranny hard at work.

  12. Shawn R. says:

    I really enjoyed this article because it shows a double standard that both sides of the argument are guilty of. If you are going to use the constitution to validify gay marriage; you MUST also use the constitution to validify the rights of Christians and their beliefs. To me, gay marriage is, in fact, a religious issue. Therefor denying gay marriage is a slap to the constitution, yet its just as big of a slap to the constitution to force a particular religion to behave in a certain manner. I think that’s an even BIGGER slap to the face of the constitution than denying gays to be married, and I personally believe they should have the right to be married, BUT THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO INVADE CHRISTIANITY IN AN IMPERIALISTIC FASHON. Progressive religions such as Unitarian universalists would be more than happy to perform a gay marriage, and there are plenty of “gay friendly” bakeries. When it boils down to it, you just have to respect everyone’s personal beliefs rather than forcing them down peoples throats. Gays and Christians are both guilty of this.

    • Hazel Motes says:

      There are no gays attempting to force unwilling churches to marry them, any more than there are Jews attempting to force churches to stop talking about Jesus. “Freedom of religion” means you are free to worship in the way you choose. It doesn’t mean that society must be careful to never allow anything to happen that might offend your delicate religious sensibilities. If you can’t bear the thought that homosexuals exist and deserve the same rights you have, you should move to a country like Uganda or Saudi Arabia where they are fully oppressed and you won’t have to worry about being exposed to them.

      • FG says:

        Homosexuals have always had the same rights. What you want them to have are *special* rights which oppress the 1st Amendment of citizens. Perhaps it is YOU who should consider a new address in Uganda or Arabia.

        • Hazel Motes says:

          What “special rights” are those? I know, it’s the new “right” to marry someone of the same sex when they could marry someone of the opposite sex right now. But don’t worry, once marriage equality is legalized, you will also be able to marry someone of the same sex as yourself. So it will be a win-win for you, too.

        • pappad says:

          Wrong! The only way you can get what you want is change the very definition of the word “marriage.” Give us ONE reason why we should sit still for it? So you can feel more “equal?” Not good enough. No. The REAL motive behind all this is to destroy the CONCEPT of marriage so they can destroy the concept of family and make all of us–and our children–wards of the STATE.

        • FG says:

          Hazel,

          You wrote:
          “…it’s the NEW “right” to marry someone of the same sex…” [emphasis mine]

          Thank you for admitting what we’ve been saying all along. This is not a “right” that ever existed any time in history. It’s a political fiction imposed upon society by an activist group. Unfortunately, you cannot simply concoct a “right” by ignoring the ontology of marriage. At best, you can only exercise tyranny over the rest of society and force them at the end of a bayonet to accept a distorted view of marriage.

        • gc says:

          There are no “special rights” here, just civil rights. Get over it.

        • gc says:

          Also, nobody is “forcing” you to “accept” anything, just stop exercising tyranny over the minority.

        • gc,

          Asking society to allow one to violate the ontology of marriage is clearly a “special” right. Perhaps you’d like to “get over it” yourself.

        • gc,

          In other words, you want to exercise tyranny over the majority?

  13. Demi says:

    I’m sorry, but to me the arguments expressed in this article are laughable. First off, the goal of the gay marriage rights movement is not to force religions to allow gay marriage. The goal is to allow gay marriage to be recognized by the secular state – like it should be due to separation of church and state as established by the founding fathers! To me, it is the religious people who are trying to influence secular law based off their religious beliefs that are the true hypocrites here. As for the baker denying a gay couple service based on their sexual orientation, to me that is just as outrageous as the baker denying a black couple service – I’m mean come on, this is the 21st century! Yes, he has the right to hold his individual prejudices, but under the Unruh Civil Rights Act he cannot refuse service based on something so arbitrary. I’m glad the couple took it to court! As for the future of gay marriage being performed in religious ceremonies – well they already are in some religions. Why? Because people are waking up to the realization that gay people are nice normal people who want to form a loving family and positively contribute to the community. So as society continues to dispel biblical myths, then I think eventually most religions (except for extreme deniers of reason and humanism) will allow gay marriage.

    • @Demi,

      You wrote:
      “the goal of the gay marriage rights movement is not to force religions to allow gay marriage.”

      You’re right. The goal is to force everyone to accept homosexual behavior.

      You wrote:
      “The goal is to allow gay marriage to be recognized by the secular state – like it should be due to separation of church and state as established by the founding fathers!”

      You’ve obviously been conditioned to believe this mythical “separation of church and state” is to be found anywhere in our Founding documents. Well, you can search in vain, because that locution was in a private letter, not a Founding document. What more ironic is that that locution in Jefferson’s personal letter was referring to the church being protected from any intrusion by the state, not the other way around. Finally, the Declaration explicitly predicates inalienable rights on God, not on a secular state.

      You wrote:
      “To me, it is the religious people who are trying to influence secular law based off their religious beliefs that are the true hypocrites here.”

      If you bothered to read the Declaration, you’d see that source of rights upon which law is predicated is not “secular”, it is God. Were the law secular, it would be subject to the vacillating, arbitrary whims of bureaucrats (which, ironically, it has decayed into, realizing the Founders’ worst fears).

      You wrote:
      “As for the baker denying a gay couple service based on their sexual orientation, to me that is just as outrageous as the baker denying a black couple service”

      First, he didn’t deny service based on sexual “orientation”. He denied it based on a his rejection of a distorted view of marriage.
      Second, there is no such thing as a homosexual “orientation”. Temptations to engage in perverse behavior is not an “orientation”. Do you actually believe that adultery, beastiality, pedastry, and polygamy are “orientations” as well? If not, why not?

      You wrote:
      “Yes, he has the right to hold his individual prejudices, but under the Unruh Civil Rights Act he cannot refuse service based on something so arbitrary … I’m glad the couple took it to court!”

      It’s clear from your own bigoted comments and joy at ruining a man’s livelihood that the only prejudiced person is yourself. Why are you bigoted against God, the Bible, or Christians & Jews so much?
      Furthermore, God-based morality is the only form of ethics that is not “arbitrary”, precisely because it’s the only ethic with an objective ground. It is your own secularism which is arbitrary, because it can provide no objective ground for your moral pronouncements.

      Concerning the acceptance by some of same-sex marriage, you wrote:
      “Because people are waking up to the realization that gay people are nice normal people who want to form a loving family and positively contribute to the community.”

      That does’t even begin to address the ethical status of homosexual behavior. Please offer something resembling a cogent argument in favor of your position.

      You wrote:
      “So as society continues to dispel biblical myths, then I think eventually most religions (except for extreme deniers of reason and humanism) will allow gay marriage.”

      Thus far, society has dispelled nothing in the Bible. The only “myth” is your belief that you hold any moral high ground when your worldview cannot even provide the preconditions necessary to make ethics intelligible. In fact, it cannot even make contingent existence, life, sentience, intelligence, volition, and continuity or personal identity intelligible. Your worldview is nothing but a bundle of contradictions, and yet you fail to see the irrationality of your own secularism.

    • pappad says:

      Nonsense. The “goal” of the LGBT crowd is to be granted “rights” that are superior to anyone else’s…period. There is NO SUCH THING as a “right” to marry whomever (or whatever) you choose to marry–not for straights OR for gays. The institution of marriage has ALWAYS had restrictions.

  14. Hazel Motes says:

    The author is engaging in chicken-little panic. There is a difference between requiring a business to adhere to civil rights laws, and forcing a relligious institution to perform activities contrary to the beliefs of its members. No judge would allow a lawsuit attempting to force a church to perform same-sex weddings to proceed. It would open a can of worms. A Christian could sue a synagogue to require them to include prayers to Jesus. A Jewish or Muslim plaintiff could sue a church to prevent them from mentioning Jesus. A Catholic man and a Baptist woman could sue a rabbi to force him to marry them in a Hindu ceremony.

    The “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment has been understood to refer to the right of religious institutions to conduct their ceremonies without government interference. Whether it will be expanded to mean that a person will be allowed to ignore whatever law they wish for “religious reasons” remains to be seen.

    • @Motes,

      While I tend to agree with your assumption that churches won’t be forced to perform same-sex weddings, you seem to have missed the author’s point. It wasn’t primarily about what churches do, but about what those who hold to any particular worldview are forced to do against their beliefs; forced by the state at the end of a bayonet (i.e., or else suffer some considerable penalty).

      Which further raises an even more fundamental issue, i.e., asking about the rights and duties of both the state and the individual. Going further still, what is the ground of rights and duties?

      The Declaration clearly ground inalienable human rights on God, not the state. Insofar as they did so, the Founders demonstrated their intentions were not to construct some secular, anti-God government which proceeded under a Hericlitian notion that man is the measure of all things, allowing bureaucrats to dictate laws according to their arbitrary whims. The fact is, if they ground inalienable rights (and by logical relation, duty) on God, then any human who serves in government must also consider those objective duties when legislating, ruling on, or enforcing laws. After all, one isn’t freed from ethical responsibility when entering public service (even if politicians believe and behave otherwise). That’s because objective rights and duties precede the state. They do not issue from the state.

      Furthermore, the “free exercise” clause is not in any way limited to religious institutions as you claimed. The Bill of Rights extends to citizens primarily, which they are free to exercise throughout their daily lives, whether that be church, school, or work. This notion that people are to set aside their religious views when entering school or work is utter nonsense, and the Founders would have balked at such a suggestion. If one is not free in his daily life, then he is not free at all.

      Finally, while you might retreat into the arms of the state and insist that this law or the other does not allow for such religious freedom, please take note that such an argument begs the question. The issue is not a question about what current bureaucrats have imposed on society. The issue is about what civil law *ought* to reflect.

      • Hazel Motes says:

        I disagree. The laws of the United States are based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. In any case, the “creator” referred to in the DOI is the deistic “God of nature,” and not the Christian God or any other theistic being.

        If someone is going to open up their business to the public, they shouldn’t be allowed to violate civil rights laws, or any other laws, just because it’s against what they say are “sincerely held religious beliefs.” This opens the door to chaos. What if you were brought unconscious into the ER, and the one doctor on duty refused to treat you because he mistakenly thought you were gay, and his “religion” prohibits him from treating someone he thinks is a “sinner?” Should a Muslim be allowed to violate a business contract with a Jew or a Christian, if he believes that his religion allows him to ignore contracts with them? In order for society to function, people have to do things that are against their “beliefs” all the time.

        If someone despises homosexuals so bitterly that they cannot bear to treat them as human beings, whether for “religious” reasons or any other, maybe they should go into a line of work where that won’t ever be put into that position – like digging ditches in the desert. These bigots want it both ways – on one hand, they want to be free to discriminate against anyone they don’t like for any reason, and on the other, they want the state to protect them from the consequences of their disgusting behavior by shielding them from the disapproval of the community they operate in.

        Gay hatred is rapidly going the way of racial hatred, which was also defended on “religious” grounds.

        And before you accuse me of “hating religion” or “Christophobia,” my problem isn’t with any religion or its practitioners, but with bigots who use religion as an excuse to oppress their fellow men.

        • FG says:

          Hazel,

          You wrote:
          “The laws of the United States are based on the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence.”

          You’re ignoring the distinction between law and the foundations of law. Without an objective foundation, civil law would have no objective authority, nor would the state be obligated to recognize the inalienable rights of the citizen as something which it, the state, ought not violate. In other words, without God, those rights enumerated in the Constitution could just as easily be taken from you, and you would have no objective basis to issue any moral objection.

          You wrote:
          “…the ‘creator’ referred to in the DOI is the deistic ‘God of nature,’ and not the Christian God or any other theistic being.”

          First, the Declaration does not refer to a deistic God of nature. Rather, its reference to nature has to do with the God which created nature itself, i.e., “nature’s God”.
          Second, most of the signers of the DOI were Christians, and you’d be hard-pressed to convince anyone that a bunch of devout Christians would sign their name to a document which promotes any deity other than the One they worship.

          You wrote:
          “If someone is going to open up their business to the public, they shouldn’t be allowed to violate civil rights laws, or any other laws, just because it’s against what they say are ‘sincerely held religious beliefs.’”

          It’s already been pointed out more than once that the issue is not “what does the law state”, but rather, “what should the law state”. If you’re going to defend things based on enacted legislation, you’re going to find yourself siding with nazis, communists, and all sorts of regimes which impose tyranny merely because they can pass legislation and have the bayonets to enforce their will. The fact is, propriety is not determined by civil law. Rather, propriety precedes and therefore should direct the law.

          You wrote:
          “This opens the door to chaos. What if you were brought unconscious into the ER, and the one doctor on duty refused to treat you because he mistakenly thought you were gay, and his ‘religion’ prohibits him from treating someone he thinks is a ‘sinner?’”

          You should avail yourself of earlier comments because this argument of yours has already been refuted. You see, the baker did not deny service based on the customers being homosexual. He refused to bake a cake which promoted a distorted view of marriage. Had the homosexual customers asked for a birthday cake, the baker would have happily served them. And had a heterosexual customer asked for a wedding cake for an incestual marriage between he and his mother, the baker would have objected to baking that as well. In other words, this fabricated nonsense about the baker refusing service based on sexual habits is nothing but a straw man. The baker’s only objection was to a distorted view of marriage.

          You wrote:
          “In order for society to function, people have to do things that are against their “beliefs” all the time.”

          Society has functioned with the normal understanding of marriage throughout all of history, nor has anyone demonstrated how society will cease to function if the normal understanding of marriage is preserved. Moreover, homosexual behavior has done absolutely nothing to build and/or contribute to society.

          You wrote:
          “If someone despises homosexuals so bitterly that they cannot bear to treat them as human beings, whether for “religious” reasons or any other, maybe they should go into a line of work where that won’t ever be put into that position – like digging ditches in the desert.”

          First, the issue has nothing to do with despising homosexuals.

          Second, your non-argument is entirely reversible. Here, I’ll show you as I’ve had to show others:

          “If someone despises Biblical theists so bitterly that they cannot bear to treat them as human beings, whether for ‘secular’ reasons or any other, maybe they should go live in a place where they can engage in whatever perversity they please — like an island in the middle of nowhere.”

          See? You’ve done nothing but show us how bigoted you are against religious people.

          You wrote:
          “Gay hatred is rapidly going the way of racial hatred, which was also defended on “religious” grounds.”

          Is there an argument to accompany that, or are we supposed to take your word for it? The fact is, while no one here is endorsing people-hatred (other than, ostensibly, yourself), neither you nor anyone else will manage to ever legitimize distorted views of marriage. Oh, yes, you may oppress society by using the sword of the state to force perversion on the rest of us. But propriety is not determined by the vacillating whims of bureaucrats.

          You wrote:
          “And before you accuse me of “hating religion” or “Christophobia,” my problem isn’t with any religion or its practitioners, but with bigots who use religion as an excuse to oppress their fellow men.”

          This disclaimer notwithstanding, your words and your position reveal your animus toward those with whom you disingenuously feign peace.

  15. Jackson says:

    Matt,
    This is wrong, wrong, wrong! Why would gay people want to be married in a church by a narrow-minded, pious, self-righteous pastor? I’ve heard of gay churches, but a civil marriage free of superstitious bigotry makes more sense. Unfortunately my wife and I were married in a church wedding with all the fundamentalist trimming and none of the legal details. We should adopt the custom of a civil ceremony to be legally married and the religious ceremony as an optional add-on for those who need it. Recognizing all of the different versions of religious marriage shouldn’t be allowed. This is a good and useful topic for this normally alarmist and sensational blog. Who thinks churches should be free of being forced into kindness to all people? I definitely think it’s better for religion to be as exclusive as possible (and quiet as well)… Keep out anyone who looks different, doesn’t agree with you and definitely anyone who isn’t producing at least 3 new Christians that you teach at home yourself so they will be narrow and submissive (as long as the procreation method is approved by the minister/pastor/shaman and no pleasure is involved). Thanks, Jackson

    • FG says:

      Jackson,

      You’re apparently unaware that civil marriages can already be performed sans a church wedding. Then again, nothing in your emotive polemic corresponded to anything like “facts”, so perhaps what appeared to be bigoted ignorance was merely a performance to impress yourself.

      • Jackson says:

        FG,
        I’m quite aware thanks….the post was to point out to Matt’s followers how inane and stupid this fear of change is….I’m impressed you can be this naive and backwards, while smirking at reality and getting your ‘facts’ from the Bible. Drink Matt’s kool-aid, it matters not to me. Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson,
          Your empty claims are entirely reversible. Here, I’ll show you:

          You’re refusal to accept the ontology of marriage is itself “stupid” and “inane”, and I’m surprised you can be so backwards and naive as to believe that marriage can be three men and a goat in a bathtub, while smirking at reality and getting your “facts” from nowhere at all. Drink your own kook-aid, it matters not to me. Thanks.

          You see how easy that was? Your style of polemic takes no effort whatsoever. It’s clear, however, that you’re forced into such a corner because your position suffers for want of a valid argument or evidence. When your entire position is built on subjective feelings, any attempt at argumentation reduces to nothing more than an emotive rant.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          Your words are just as meaningless as your hate. The nice thing is you have lost and you will continue to lose. Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson,

          You were obviously engaging in an act of projection and looking in a mirror when you issued your ad hominem fallacy.

          As for continuing “to lose”, you must be under the delusional notion that successfully instituting tyrannical policies is a victory. On the contrary, tyrants never go down in history as ‘winners’. That’s because succeeding at evil is really no success at all.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          Why do all of Matt’s special-ed followers enjoy Latin phrases so much? I propose that we save your churches by having civil marriages, this started you defining marriage biblically. Then I tried to suggest we all live our lives as we wish… You can’t have that either. The only alternative is living by biblical ideology? That’s tyrannical and delusional….you are either a Phelps nut-job or a KKK Grand Dragon, enjoy the institution (mental or penal). Maybe you could use ‘Non Compos Mentis’ at your hearing? Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson,

          Wow, another impressive round of name-calling. Is this your idea of a rational argument? Call your opponent names and you’ve somehow successfully proven your claims?

          You wrote:
          “I propose that we save your churches by having civil marriages”

          Yes, and it was pointed out to you that civil marriages already exist, and you simply ignored that fact.

          You wrote:
          “Then I tried to suggest we all live our lives as we wish”

          And it was pointed out to you that no one anywhere gets to live any way he wishes. That’s simply “wishful thinking”, and it’s often indicative of a sociopath and/or the insane. Again, you simply ignored that obvious fact.

          You asked:
          “The only alternative is living by biblical ideology?”

          First, the only reason you even have any rights at all is because the Founders recognized that inalienable rights were endowed by the God, without whom a state can act as tyrannically as it likes without any moral restraints.
          Second, civil law will always reflect some world view. Would you prefer that our laws reflect the atheistic worldview of, say, marxist regimes? If so, why don’t you go move to Cuba or China? Ironically, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that once you’ve successfully secularized the state, that same government will have nothing which morally prohibits it from doing anything it likes to you. There’s a reason marxism was built on atheism. It was the only way a totalitarian government could excuse itself for oppressing the inalienable rights of the individual.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          I love the USA….you want a totalitarian state based on a loosely translated and manipulated text… Try Iran, they kill and mutilate their enemies, no thinking allowed, bigotry is encouraged. All your favorites bullying, intimidation, control and division for a ‘loving’ deity…. I like freedom and choice. Thanks, but no thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson calls the historical understanding of the Bible:

          “…a loosely translated and manipulated text.”

          And yet, Jackson will never manage to muster a shred of evidence for such an historically ignorant claim, demonstrating he has no regard for the facts.

          Jackson tells us that in Iran they:

          “kill and mutilate their enemies, no thinking allowed, bigotry is encouraged”

          — As if that somehow legitimizes his support of perverse sexual behavior. This is a non sequitur of gigantic proportions to which Jackson’s own bigotry has blinded him. Moreover, he fails to recognize that he has more in common with his dictator counterparts in secular, marxist, totalitarian regimes than Christians and Jews have with islamic regimes (the latter in no way resembling Israel or the USA as the Founders had intended).

          Jackson disingenuously tell us that he:

          “like[s] freedom and choice”

          And yet Jackson wants to deny the baker’s 1st Amendment freedom and choice. What Jackson really means is he likes the freedom and choice to oppress others.

      • Hazel Motes says:

        That’s all that LGBT want – a civil marriage. They can already have a wedding in a gay-friendly church if they want.

        • pappad says:

          No. What the “LGBT” WANTS is to subvert the entire concept of marriage…mostly because the very term is a religious sacrament. If the LGBT crowd would simply settle for civil UNIONS without trying to call it a “marriage,” they’d get a LOT less opposition…because a marriage, by definition, is a union between one man and one woman…period.

        • Jackson says:

          pappad,
          You’ve watched too many 700 Clubs, Bill O’Reilly/Rush Limbaugh scare the conservatives shows…all the LGBT wants is fair and equal rights as every other citizen of the United States of America has period. Special rights are the ones given to churches who take in billions while paying no taxes and funding political campaigns. Religion has no place in our government, nor do your ‘definitions’ in our laws…. Freedom of (and from) religion is one of our most precious rights… Be as religious as you want, just allow the rest of us to live as we want. Thanks, Jackson

        • pappad says:

          Obviously you’ve never READ the Constitution–or if you did, you obviously didn’t understand what you were reading. You don’t HAVE any such thing as “freedom from religion” enshrined in that document. If you think you DO, you’ve badly misread what it says. I suggest you get yourself a copy of “The Federalist” and READ it without the pre-conceived notions some left-wing moron taught you in elementary school.

        • Hazel Motes says:

          Nonsense, you want “freedom from religion” when the religion is Islam, or Wicca, or Scientology, or any other religion other than the one you have selected as your own. You would be screaming the loudest if an Iman was leading prayers at your children’s public school. Be honest, the only “freedom of religion” you want is for your own religion, that you hypocritically want to impose on others, but want as much “freedom from religion” as any atheist if another religion is involved.

        • Jackson says:

          pappad,
          The problem with most of the assumptions made on this alarmist sensational blog are completely erroneous. I was taught the Constitution by my teacher, not a left-wing moron, not a right-wing half witted creationist…a TEACHER. We read the material and discussed the concepts with our teacher, it’s called learning. You obviously have been taught to recite without thinking about the meaning most likely from a pulpit. This country was founded on freedom of religion (and yes Ape that includes from not just of…), because of oppressive tyrannical idiots like you who want a church based government. So change that pad, and get a clue. Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson,

          You wrote:
          “all the LGBT wants is fair and equal rights as every other citizen of the United States of America has period.”

          As has been repeatedly made plain, they already have equal rights. They now want *special* rights.

          You wrote:
          “Special rights are the ones given to churches who take in billions while paying no taxes and funding political campaigns.”

          On the contrary, religious freedom is an inalienable right which precedes government, which is why it was recognized by the 1st Amendment.

          You wrote:
          “Religion has no place in our government, nor do your ‘definitions’ in our laws”

          Is there an argument or evidence to accompany that historically ignorant claim?

          You wrote:
          “Freedom of (and from) religion is one of our most precious rights”

          You will search in vain for anything in either the Declaration or Constitution that either grants or acknowledges this fiction of “freedom from religion”.

          You wrote:
          “Be as religious as you want, just allow the rest of us to live as we want.”

          Uh, no, one does not get to live as they “want”. There are objective moral principles upon which civil law is to be predicated which restricts your behavior. You cannot simply run around killing, stealing, or marrying your goat as you please.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          You have a talent for rhetoric. Superstitions are a stupid basis for living. You need an invisible father figure’s threat of retribution to live…that makes you a characterless, pathetic moron. You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy not religion. Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson,

          And you have a talent for avoiding the issues and replacing rational dialogue with name-calling. But you see, that’s all your side has to offer. When suffering for want of a cogent argument, you simply call your opponent names. Unfortunately for you, everyone can take note for themselves that you haven’t bothered engaging the arguments at all. Instead, you’ve resorted to infantile tactics, as if you were a child in a schoolyard sticking his tongue out at anyone with whom he disagrees.

          You wrote:
          “You don’t need religion to have morals.”

          Can you please explain to all of us how you ground your moral notions? Ever noticed that objective moral imperatives don’t grow on trees? I’d like for you to explain to all of us “superstitious”, “characterless, pathetic moron[s]” (of whom most of the world must consist, since most people are theists of one sort or another), how it is that we have any objective, obligatory moral prohibition from hunting you down and killing you? On what objective ground are such duties predicated? Or are we all simply supposed to do whatever Jackson likes? “If Jackson likes it, it’s good.” “If Jackson doesn’t like it, it’s bad.” Is that how we’re to judge moral propriety?

          You wrote:
          “If you can’t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy not religion.”

          You’re confusing moral epistemology with moral grounding. An atheist can clearly know that he should help the little old lady cross the road rather than running her down with his vehicle. He can also make the right choice to help her cross the road. What atheists and skeptics like you cannot do is objectively ground your moral notions and explain to us precisely why we should help the little old lady cross the road instead of running her down. You see, apart from an objective lawgiver, you lack any moral grounds for objecting to the nihilist, the anarchist, and the sadist if they choose to run you down.

          As for “empathy”, that provides zero ground for ethics. Why, after all, is the sadist morally obligated to have empathy? You see, your worldview is morally bankrupt and can provide no objective ground for moral duty.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          I’m not the one demanding the world change to suit me! You are the one living by absolutes and basing your arguments on the Bible. Keep fighting the change that’s coming through rhetoric, bible verses and prayer. We’ll fight you through legal channels and use common sense. Jackson

        • FG says:

          It’s obvious to everyone that Jackson is so blinded by his emotions that he fails to see the logical absurdity of his own claims. On the one hand, he claims:

          “I’m not the one demanding the world change to suit me!”

          … Implying that he doesn’t want the world to change. And then, as ideological leftists always do, he contradicts himself by stating:

          “Keep fighting the change that’s coming”

          … Implying that he does want the world to change to suit himself.

          In other words, Jackson wants whatever Jackson wants, with no regard for truth or morality.

          What’s ironic is that Jackson tells us:

          “We’ll fight you through legal channels and use common sense.”

          And yet Jackson’s irrational arguments exhibit no common sense at all. Nor does his side fight using legal channels. Quite the contrary. Jackson’s side must necessarily fight dirty using judicial activism, overturning the will of the people every time. But that’s par for the course for dictators and tyrants.

  16. Hazel Motes says:

    What a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites. The history of their own religion includes same-sex marriage:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/ancient-christian-church-gay-marriages_n_3678315.html

    • Jackson says:

      Hazel Motes,
      Very interesting article, thanks for linking facts! Jackson

    • FG says:

      Hazel,

      Apparently you and Jackson are ignorant of the distinction between “facts” and the biased conjecture of an openly homosexual academic. Yes, that’s right, what the “historian” is offering is mere conjecture based on alleged “ritualistic unions”, AS IF any and all “rituals” are marriages.

      This is the same sloppy thinking that leads homosexuals to conclude that any love between men is equivalent to sex between men, as if there were no distinction between emotions and physical behavior.

      I don’t blame you and Jackson for grabbing at straws like these dubious speculations by prejudiced “scholars”. It’s clearly an act of desperation.

      • Hazel Motes says:

        Since same-sex marriage is legal in 17 states and will probably be legal in all 50 within a few years, I’d say you are the “desperate” one.

        • FG says:

          On the contrary Hazel, I’m not the one reduced to quoting ignorant conjecture by a biased academic as if it were “fact”. Nor does “legal” logically entail “moral”. Were that so, you would clearly be on the side of nazis and the like, since their laws had allowed for the atrocities in which they engaged. You’ve clearly not bothered giving any thoughtful analysis to your emotion-driven position.

      • Jackson says:

        FG,
        I could care less about “ritualistic unions”, what constitutes sex between men in your spiteful pea brain. It’s none of my business and certainly none of yours….The feelings of progressives, religious nuts, atheists, regressives, Westboro Baptists or Matt Walsh do not enter into this. As citizens of this country homosexuals are free to do as they wish. As long as they follow the law and pay their taxes, why should you care? You are guaranteed a place in heaven, you feel morally superior… What more could you need? All of your superstitions are in tact, full of empty pointless affirmations and an enormous ego. The “regressive mob” needs to get real and understand Jim Crow laws cannot stand in a free society. Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Oh, look at this. Another round of infantile name-calling from the Jackson, again demonstrating his position suffers for want of evidence or argument.

          Jackson writes:
          “As citizens of this country homosexuals are free to do as they wish.”

          Uh, NOT. No one gets to do “as they wish”, and it’s conspicuous that Jackson has to be made aware of this, as if he’s ignorant of the fact that there are both moral laws and civil laws which proscribe a litany of behavior in which he and his homosexual cabal are forbidden to engage.

          Jackson write:
          “As long as they follow the law and pay their taxes, why should you care?”

          Apparently Jackson is ignorant of history and unaware that marxist dictators also follow their communist laws when they oppress and tyrannize their citizenry. It seems that any legislation passed by bureaucrats defines moral propriety for Jackson, though he’s still not explained the ground of such authority.

          Jackson writes:
          “You are guaranteed a place in heaven, you feel morally superior… What more could you need?”

          Jackson apparently believes that Christians are not citizens of Earth and have no say in political discourse. Is there an argument or evidence to accompany his belief? Apparently not.

          Jackson opines:
          “All of your superstitions are in tact, full of empty pointless affirmations and an enormous ego.”

          Clearly Jackson was looking in the mirror when he wrote this, because he has yet to offer anything resembling a cogent argument. Thus far, all we’ve gotten from Jackson is infantile tongue wagging.

          Jackson writes:
          “The “regressive mob” needs to get real and understand Jim Crow laws cannot stand in a free society.”

          Jackson wants to regress back to Sodom and then has the hubris to call others “regressive”. How historically ignorant.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          Reasoning with you is futile… You are the Ape (not really fair to the Ape) that learned sign language but has no idea what the words mean. Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson writes:

          “Reasoning with you is futile”

          This is a curious accusation, since Jackson has yet to exhibit any logical reasoning whatsoever. Perhaps what he really means is that I’m unwilling to capitulate to his iterative series of pejoratives, of which his comments mostly consist. In fact, his remaining comments about apes and whatnot are typical of those on the ideological left. Jackson has demonstrated time and again, when he simply has no cogent argument or evidence to support his arbitrary, emotion-based opinions, he must necessarily regress to the sandbox and engage in infantile name-calling. How typical of him.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          You are very amusing…. Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Another irrelevant comment from Jackson. Perhaps one day he’ll actually engage the issues set before him.

        • Jackson says:

          FG (sheabernard?),
          You are a scamp….you don’t want to discuss issues, you want to babble about the bible. Any solution offered you ignore and start with Christian rhetoric. My nephew is challenged like you (he was born that way…), I cheer for him as he crosses the finishing line 15th at Special Olympics… I can do it for you too. Yea FG! You’re number 15! Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson never tires of issuing derogatory comments in order to hide the intellectual bankruptcy of his position. He avoids dealing with the issues and then engages in projection when stating that others “don’t want to discuss issues”. Clearly he’s an internet troll who has nothing of substance to add to a serious dialogue.

        • Jackson says:

          FG,
          Intellectual bankruptcy? You are using a poorly edited piece of literature as basis for your arguments and life. Serious discussion? Quote the Jim Crow laws instead at least they pertain to this context. Bigotry isn’t just for breakfast anymore! Thanks, Jackson

        • FG says:

          Jackson pooh-poohs the Bible, but as is his case against normal marriage and everything else, he offers nothing resembling evidence or a cogent argument in support of his ignorant beliefs.

          Jackson then ignorantly claims that Jim Crow laws pertain to this discussion, but he again fails to explain the relevance, seeing as Jim Crow laws were an action by government, which are in no way analogous to a private citizen exercising his inalienable right as recognized by the 1st Amendment.

          Finally, Jackson informs us that “Bigotry isn’t just for breakfast anymore!”, indicating his bigotry toward the baker and others like him. But we already were aware of Jackson’s bigotry, so there was little need for him to proclaim it further.

  17. Barry Aldridge says:

    Marriage equality is about equal treatment under the law for all citizens. That’s it. Simple. Easy. If any of you are worried that this will force you to give up your hate, you will still be free to wallow in your bigotry. No one can take away that freedom.

    • FG says:

      As has been repeatedly pointed out here, homosexuals have ALWAYS had the equal right to marry as long as they follow the rules like everyone else, e.g., you can’t marry your dog, your lawnmower, your sister, a corpse, a minor, more than one person, an already married person, an unwilling person, or someone of the same sex. You see, no one has this imagined “freedom” of which you speak to revise the ontology of marriage. NO ONE gets to marry just anyone or anything they like. Heterosexuals have no such freedom and neither do homosexuals.

      What you want is to break one of the rules enumerated above and allow for *special* rights, not equal rights. However, if we break the rules to allow same-sex marriage, neither you nor anyone else can explain why we ought not break the rules for everyone else. The reason you can offer no such reason is because once you abandon the origin of marriage and dispense with the very ground of ethics, you no longer have any objective moral imperatives to which you can appeal for forbidding all others to marry anything they wish.

      • Hazel Motes says:

        How is it “special rights” when you, as a straight person, will also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex? Under marriage equality, you will have exactly the same rights as a gay person. So stop calling it “special” rights because it’s not.

        And in case you’re not aware, animals and minors do not have legal standing and cannot enter into contracts. Marriage equality applies only to consenting adults. Your chicken little panicking that every conceivable union will suddenly be allowed is like saying that we cannot allow Christian church services to take place, or pretty soon the Aztecs will want to conduct human sacrifice.

        And you can try to argue “ontology,” but it’s obvious to anyone reading your posts that you hate LGBT passionately. That’s your motivation, and not any concern over “the very ground of ethics.” So stop lying.

        • FG says:

          Hazel,

          You speciously asked:
          “How is it “special rights” when you, as a straight person, will also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?”

          It’s a “special” right because it (1) violates the ontology of marriage, and (2) it makes an exception for same-sex couples while not making the same exception for all others (i.e., incestuous couples, polygamists, pedophiles, etc.).

          You wrote:
          “And in case you’re not aware, animals and minors do not have legal standing and cannot enter into contracts.”

          Yes, and in case you were not aware, never in history have same-sex couples had a legal standing to marry in this country. Since you now want to change the laws for one group, you’ve not demonstrated on what objective ground you deny every other group the same exceptions.

          You opined:
          “Marriage equality applies only to consenting adults.”

          Only to consenting adults of opposite sex. Again, since you seek to change that, why not allow changes for every other possible form of marriage as well? Your exception for one group and not others is entirely arbitrary.

          You wrote:
          “Your chicken little panicking that every conceivable union will suddenly be allowed…”

          Clearly you don’t even understand the challenge set before you. I never claimed that every conceivable union will be allowed. What you were asked is: On what objective ground can YOU deny all conceivable unions? You’ve yet to provide an answer. Furthermore, you’d be ignorant and naive if you believed that there are not plenty of people who would be willing to engage in polygamy and pedophilia and other perversions were it legal.

          You offered the irrelevant comment:
          “And you can try to argue “ontology,” but it’s obvious to anyone reading your posts that you hate LGBT passionately.”

          It would be nice if you actually engaged the ontology of marriage, but clearly you’re either unwilling or incapable of doing so. As for a “hate”, one’s personal feelings are entirely irrelevant to the veracity of his position. Be that as it may, if holding a differing position is indicative of hatred, then your discrimination against marriage for polygamists, pedophiles, and incestuous relationships must indicate your hatred and ignorant bigotry toward them. So please tell us, why are you such a bigot?

        • pappad says:

          As has been pointed out before, Gays ALREADY have “equal rights”…always have. The definition of marriage is a civil or religious union between a man and a woman. Gays have NEVER been prevented from marrying any adult of the opposite sex, who is not a close relative, that will consent to marry THEM…just like heterosexuals. What you’re asking for is a “special right” to “marry” whomever or whatever you lust for instead of confining yourselves to the MEANING of the word “marry.” Live together and pretend to be married all you like and nobody cares. Try to change the meaning of the institution of marriage and you’ll always get an argument.

  18. FG says:

    Hazel,

    You speciously asked:
    “How is it “special rights” when you, as a straight person, will also be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?”

    It’s a “special” right because it (1) violates the ontology of marriage, and (2) it makes an exception for same-sex couples while not making the same exception for all others (i.e., incestuous couples, polygamists, pedophiles, etc.).

    You wrote:
    “And in case you’re not aware, animals and minors do not have legal standing and cannot enter into contracts.”

    Yes, and in case you were not aware, never in history have same-sex couples had a legal standing to marry in this country. Since you now want to change the laws for one group, you’ve not demonstrated on what objective ground you deny every other group the same exceptions.

    You opined:
    “Marriage equality applies only to consenting adults.”

    Only to consenting adults of opposite sex. Again, since you seek to change that, why not allow changes for every other possible form of marriage as well? Your exception for one group and not others is entirely arbitrary.

    You wrote:
    “Your chicken little panicking that every conceivable union will suddenly be allowed…”

    Clearly you don’t even understand the challenge set before you. I never claimed that every conceivable union will be allowed. What you were asked is: On what objective ground can YOU deny all conceivable unions? You’ve yet to provide an answer. Furthermore, you’d be ignorant and naive if you believed that there are not plenty of people who would be willing to engage in polygamy and pedophilia and other perversions were it legal.

    You offered the irrelevant comment:
    “And you can try to argue “ontology,” but it’s obvious to anyone reading your posts that you hate LGBT passionately.”

    It would be nice if you actually engaged the ontology of marriage, but clearly you’re either unwilling or incapable of doing so. As for a “hate”, one’s personal feelings are entirely irrelevant to the veracity of his position. Be that as it may, if holding a differing position is indicative of hatred, then your discrimination against marriage for polygamists, pedophiles, and incestuous relationships must indicate your hatred and ignorant bigotry toward them. So please tell us, why are you such a bigot?

    • Hazel Motes says:

      How is an arbitrary definition of marriage “ontological?” People have gotten married throughout history for many different reasons. Even the Bible describes eight different kinds of marriage, including one where a rapist must marry his victim if she’s a virgin. Do you agree with that one as an “ontological” definition of marriage? And just saying “but we’ve always done it this way” was an argument in favor of slavery. Society changes and morals change along with it. You’re just as much of a moral relativist as I am; the only difference is you won’t admit it.

      If someone said “I don’t hate black people; I just think they shouldn’t be allowed to hold certain jobs” or “I don’t hate Jews; I only think they should not be allowed to own property,” would you believe them? You can’t say “I don’t hate LGBT; I just think they shouldn’t have the same rights I have.” That makes you either a hypocrite or a liar.

      • FG says:

        Hazel,

        You asked:
        “How is an arbitrary definition of marriage ‘ontological?’”

        I never said your arbitrary definitions were ontological. I’m referring to the origin of marriage de re.

        You wrote:
        “People have gotten married throughout history for many different reasons. Even the Bible describes eight different kinds of marriage, including one where a rapist must marry his victim if she’s a virgin. Do you agree with that one as an “ontological” definition of marriage?”

        Kangaroos may have different reasons for doing what they do, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are kangaroos. And citing people’s reasons for marrying doesn’t alter the ontological nature of marriage. In the case that you cite, that has zero to do with the origin of marriage de re.

        You wrote:
        “And just saying “but we’ve always done it this way” was an argument in favor of slavery.”

        First, arguments in favor of slavery has zero relevance to the nature of marriage. Second, I didn’t say the nature of marriage was predicated on some status quo. I was responding to your specious argument when referring to the legal status of animals and minors. Nevertheless, with respect to historical practices, each must be examined individually, whether it be based on the arbitrary predilections of men or predicated on an objective telos.

        You claimed:
        “Society changes and morals change along with it.”

        You obviously don’t know the difference between social mores and morality. The former is descriptive of vaccillating cultural practices while the latter are objective imperatives which everyone has an obligatory duty to observe, regardless of whether or not they agree with such duties. Given your operating premise, nazi behavior was good, since their culture “changed” to allow for what you believe to be their “morals”. But you see, the very reason we could denounce nazi atrocities is because governments and cultures are obligated to observe objective moral imperatives, even if they pass laws ignoring such imperatives. And governments which ignore the nature of marriage and allow for perverted unions are just as guilty as nazis who believed they could redefine Jews as people unworthy of life.

        You opined:
        “You’re just as much of a moral relativist as I am; the only difference is you won’t admit it.”

        Is there an argument or evidence to accompany your ignorant claim?

        You asked:
        “If someone said “I don’t hate black people; I just think they shouldn’t be allowed to hold certain jobs” or “I don’t hate Jews; I only think they should not be allowed to own property,” would you believe them?”

        Your question has no logical relevance to the issue, since we’re not discussing matters of employment. Nevertheless, I suspect you didn’t really mean to ask is not whether I would “believe them” (since there’s no reason to think they would lie about the content of their beliefs), but rather, whether I would concur with them, and of course I would not. That’s not to say people shouldn’t be free to hire whomever they please. I simply think that there’s no good reason not to hire a black or Jew if they were up to the task of the job, since being either black or Jewish are not moral issues.

        You opined:
        “You can’t say “I don’t hate LGBT; I just think they shouldn’t have the same rights I have.” That makes you either a hypocrite or a liar.”

        It’s rather obvious that, since they’ve always had “the same rights”, your fallacious argument is irrelevant.

        • Hazel Motes says:

          The “nature’s God” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is the Deistic God of its author, Thomas Jefferson, not the God of the Bible. Jefferson believed in a creator who set the universe in motion, then took no further interest in it. He is famous for taking a razor to his Bible and excising the supernatural references. Jefferson admired Jesus as a teacher and guide, but did not believe he was a deity as such involvement on the part of “nature’s God” was inimical to his philosophy.

          Claims that the U.S. is based on any interpretation of Christianity is a self-serving lie by those who crassly wish to impose their religion where it doesn’t belong – in secular society.

        • Hazel,

          Your attempt to revise history fails any test of rational consideration.

          1. You ignorantly assume that Jefferson was writing for himself, when he was really writing the Declaration, as he himself expressed in a letter to Henry Lee, “to be an expression of the American Mind”, which was overwhelmingly Christian. This notion that Jefferson was writing his own personal deistic opinions to which Christian Founding Fathers then staked their lives and fortunes by signing is a modern fiction of the secular mind which has no basis in reality. In fact, very little, if anything at all, in the Declaration was original to Jefferson.

          2. If, as you claim, the Declaration were not referring to the God of the Bible, you’ve not explained why Christians would sign their name to any document which proclaims any deity other than the One in whom they believed.

          3. You’re ignorantly using a modern understanding of “deist”, because Franklin, also a self-proclaimed deist, claimed belief that the God of the Bible was active in the affairs of men and appealed to the Bible to institute government-sanctioned prayer in further congressional meetings, which you either conveniently ignore or of which you are ignorant. Furthermore, Jefferson wrote at the close of the Declaration, “…with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence…”, which hardly comports with, as you ignorantly claimed, one who believes that God “took no further interest” in His creation.

          4. You’re assuming that Jefferson’s motives for editing his own Bible were based in some form of naturalism. However, deism is a form of theism (i.e., a supernatural worldview) and, hence, does not rationally comport with philosophical naturalism.

          Finally, you ignorantly opined:
          “Claims that the U.S. is based on any interpretation of Christianity is a self-serving lie by those who crassly wish to impose their religion where it doesn’t belong – in secular society.”

          Is there argument or evidence to support such a delusional belief?

        • Hazel Motes says:

          Regardless, the government of the United States is based on the Constitution, not the DOI. Interestingly, the Confederate Constitution invokes “Almighty God,” while the U.S. Constitution does not mention “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.”

          If you think the U.S. is supposed to be a Christian theocracy, file a lawsuit or start organizing to add an amendment to that effect so there will be no doubt. Good luck with that.

          Your entire point is based on an arbitrary interpretation, by the way. These people are reading the same Bible you are, yet have come to a completely different conclusion. So who gets to provide the “official” interpretation? The Pope? Fred Phelps? You? The reason the framers were careful to separate church and state is because they were aware of the potential strife that commingling ecclesiastical and secular authority would lead to, having witnessed it in Europe.

          http://notalllikethat.org

        • Jackson says:

          Hazel Motes,
          I love you, but I’m afraid you will have to get out some crayons and puppets for Frank. Thanks, Jackson

        • Hazel,

          Thanks for admitting your error regarding the Declaration. Moving on…

          You wrote:
          “the government of the United States is based on the Constitution”

          While laws may be based on the Constitution, the Constitution was predicated on that principle expressed in our founding document, the Declaration, in which inalienable rights were endowed by God. Without the Declaration, inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution would be mere gifts of the state rather than rights with which we are endowed inalienably by our Creator. And what the state gives it can also take away. The very reason the Founders ground rights in the God of the Bible was to declare that no state has a right to deprive its citizens of such rights.

          You wrote:
          “If you think the U.S. is supposed to be a Christian theocracy…”

          No one has argued for a theocracy, and your ignorant comment makes it quite apparent that you don’t even know what a theocracy is.

          You opined:
          “Your entire point is based on an arbitrary interpretation, by the way.”

          On the contrary, my position is the historical position. You are the Johnny-come-lately with the arbitrary, revisionist interpretation; a fringe, theological fiction predicated on a desire to further a perversion which no serious scholar would adopt. Yours is the position void of evidence or argument.

          I’ve already pointed this out before, but it bears repeating: If you truly want a secular government, why don’t you move to Russia, Cuba, or China? Oh, that’s right. It’s because secularism can provide no objective ground for human rights, without which you would have no way of promoting your perverse views. In the grandest of ironies, you use the freedom God has given you to undermine the very freedom you’ve been given. Once again we see that evil eventually bites the hand that feeds it.

    • Jackson says:

      FG,
      You do understand this bill was vetoed?….Gay marriage is going to be law in every state. This is just your anger and frustration. Your mentor Fred Phelps died today also, sad times for the FG. Regressives have lost a valuable ally. :( Bless your heart FG, Jackson

      • FG says:

        First, it’s not clear to which bill you refer.

        Second, your appeal to law doesn’t even begin to offer a justification for your position. Before you pat yourself on the back, keep in mind that dictators and tyrants also appeal to their laws for their atrocities. However, civil laws provide no ground for objective moral imperatives, which precede government and are themselves to be reflected by civil law. In others words, the issue is not about what immoral bureaucrats legislate, but about what they have a moral duty to legislate.

        As for anger and frustration, it’s rather obvious to everyone that your uncontrollable habit of name-calling is indicative of your own anger and frustration due to your inability to offer a rational defense for your perverse ideology.

        You wrote:
        “Regressives have lost a valuable ally.”

        Sorry to hear about your loss.

Comments are closed.