One stupid sponsor at a time. Honestly, how in the world can you be so at best politically inept at worst morally hypocritical? Stupid GOP!
If you are not a Christian, you should understand the basics of the message. These two videos are short, enjoyable, and helpful. Please watch them.
Browse by Category
- * Best of WR (132)
- 500 Words (4)
- Alcohol & Drugs (2)
- Amazon.com (4)
- Anarchism (1)
- Apologetics (115)
- Arminianism (17)
- Art (3)
- Atheism (118)
- Augustine (2)
- Baptism (1)
- Basics (3)
- Bible (22)
- Bible Studies (1)
- Bios (5)
- Black America (45)
- Books (242)
- Born Again (3)
- Buddhism (12)
- Calvinism (18)
- Capitalism (1)
- Catholocism (20)
- China (10)
- Church Life (153)
- Church Planting (2)
- Community (1)
- Complementarian (8)
- Cool Stuff (22)
- Creationism (193)
- Cults (1)
- Current Affairs (3)
- Dale (3)
- Death (3)
- Debates (17)
- Discipleship (2)
- Dreams (1)
- Economics (30)
- Education (38)
- Egalitarian (4)
- Entertainment (136)
- Environment (41)
- Ethics (20)
- Evangelical Center (8)
- Evangelism (11)
- Events (6)
- Feminism (12)
- G12 (2)
- Gamification (6)
- Gaming (2)
- Giants (1)
- God and Work (1)
- Government (3)
- Guidance (2)
- Guides (39)
- Gun Control (3)
- Health (39)
- Heaven & Hell (36)
- History (27)
- Holidays (1)
- Homeschool (3)
- Hope (2)
- Humor (129)
- Immigration (4)
- Inerrancy (10)
- Islam (151)
- Jazz (3)
- Judaism (2)
- Latino (10)
- Leadership (1)
- LGBT (162)
- Listomania (67)
- Love (2)
- Marriage & Family (27)
- Maths (5)
- Memes (7)
- Men's Issues (8)
- Mentoring (2)
- Missions (14)
- Molinism (11)
- Mormonism (5)
- Movies (5)
- My Two Cents (78)
- Narcisism (5)
- Neo-fundamentalism (22)
- News (138)
- Obama (65)
- Orphans (1)
- Pacifism (7)
- Paradox (2)
- Paul (1)
- Peeves (7)
- Philosophy (9)
- Pneumatology (1)
- Podcasting (10)
- Poetry (3)
- Politics (295)
- Prayer (18)
- Preaching (6)
- Priorities (4)
- Pro-Life (102)
- Productivity (9)
- Progressivism (2)
- Public Policy (43)
- Quote of the Day (17)
- Reason (7)
- Sanctification (1)
- Satire (12)
- Science and Technology (80)
- Seasons of Life (4)
- Seminar (1)
- Seminary (4)
- Series (44)
- Shopping (2)
- Sikhism (1)
- Skepticism (3)
- Slavery (5)
- Spam (20)
- Sports (23)
- Suffering (1)
- Tea Party (1)
- The Media (86)
- Theology (81)
- Throwback (1)
- Tripartite (5)
- Trump (10)
- Vegetarianism (1)
- Voting (1)
- War (7)
- Welfare (2)
- Words (1)
- Worldview (97)
- Worship (8)
- Writing (2)
- WWJD (2)
- Yoga (2)
mccain's argument makes little sense. i mean, why do we have an amendment to extend rights to blacks and women? Abortion is extending rights (the right to life) to the unborn, it's that simple.
Who cares about people who want the choice to own slaves or kill their children? They don't HAVE that right.
The FMA is a little more cloudy as far as whether or not there should be a federal amendment. I mean, does that fall within The Five Functions of Civil Government?
1. To establish justice – Nope. Not unless you think it is justice to ALLOW gays (and other love relationships) to be called 'marriage.' But to prohibit it? Probably not.
2. To insure domestic tranquility – You *might* be able to justify the FMA under this principle, in arguing that gay marriage destabilizes the family by forcing us to teach it to our children as normative. But you then have to also assume (correctly) that the traditional family unit is what produces healthy citizens (children). So also a weak argument.
3. To provide for the common defense – Nope.
4. To promote the general welfare – the key here is the word 'general.' It means extending rights to all for the good of all. If anything, you would argue AGAINST the FMA based on this.
5. To secure the blessings of liberty – Same as #4.
So, based on the five basic functions of government, it may be a good argument to NOT pass the FMA, but rather, *approve* of gay marriage.
But there is a problem. Since gay marriage is clearly in a moral and ethical gray zone (esp. in how it affects children), the best approach, I think, is government NEUTRALITY.
Which I interpret to mean, we should neither criminalize nor legitimize gay marriage legally. Let them have marriage ceremonies in their churches if they want, but I think that the FMA, rather than keeping rights from gays, establishes the norm, from a state position.
That way, they are neither caught approving or disapproving of gay marriage.
I think those who want to ban gay marriage, or make it civilly binding, are both wrong. And I think you could argue that the FMA is a neutral approach (in that it does not criminalize gay marriage), not a restrictive one.
But I'm sure gays would scoff at this. So be it.
Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone
Does this mean it won't be an the ballot as a wedge issue to turn out the conservative vote this year?
It is in California, Cineaste.
As to the reintroductino of FMA, Sullivan had a great comment:
The Federal Marriage Amendment is reintroduced. And with perfect symbolism, its sponsors are Larry Craig, whose own marriage is based on a lie, and prostitute-client and foe of HIV-positive tourists, David Vitter. But it's committed gay couples who threaten marriage! And people wonder why some of us are sick of the Republican party.
I agree with Aaron: Stupid GOP!
I also agree with seeker: the federal gov't. should be neutral re: marriage rights. It should do as it has always done, leave it to the states. And the states should do as they have always done, recognize the marriages performed in other states.
Opponents of the FMA are missing the boat on the claims of conservatives. We do not claim that homosexual marriage is ruining hetero marriages, that's a straw man.
What we claim is that social and legal *approval* of gay marriages
1. erodes and dilutes both the meaning and value of marriage, thereby weakening marriage and the family unit, which is the foundation of healthy society (NOTE: other legal and social actions like no-fault divorce, the promotion of promiscuity, and the sexualization of our culture and children, have also contributed to the weakening of the family).
2. forces public schools to teach it as normative to our kids
3. allows pro-gay individuals and organizations to legally sue and persecute organizations that disapprove of homosexuality, including taking fines, imprisonment, and taking away tax-exempt status.
So next time someone asks "how does gay marriage threaten hetero marriage?" Say "it doesn't, but approving of it threatens the nuclear family, since it approves of dysfunction and weakens the meaning of marriage."
It should do as it has always done, leave it to the states.
So if California voters ban gay marriage, that's ok with you, from a standpoint of legal principle? As I said, I think that, unless an item clearly falls within those five areas of responsibility, the feds should stay out.
UNLESS (there has to be an unless) you can argue that by staying out, the states could vote to violate the federal civil rights of others. Of course, I don't think that marriage is a civil right for any kind of human relationship. And quite honestly, most all of the rights accorded to hetero marriages are available to gays.
They are really more interested, it seems, in getting social and legal acceptance through redefining the meaning of marriage to include them – it's not really a legal need, but an emotional and social one. And I think that it oversteps the bounds of decency, and should be denied. The governments, both fed and state, should remain neutral on gay marriage, and neither approve nor criminalize it.
Let gays get married in their gay churches, but don't wound our culture by making it normative, legally speaking. It's a sickness.
And the states should do as they have always done, recognize the marriages performed in other states.
Actually, they have only done that because they all recognize hetero marriage. If a state does NOT recognize such, then I would say allowing them to do what they want means they would NOT recognize marriages from other states.
What all this blather boils down to can be summed up in two way:
1. Hetero privilege is being threatened.
2. Religion (particularly Christianity) is being threatened.
Of course, they are part and parcel of the same "sickness": patriarchal hegemony. What is this "nuclear family" seeker is so exercised about but the principle of male domination. Hetero marriage and all the rest seeker and his ilk is so concerned about means the male lording it over his little kingdom and, by extension, the rest of society. This is what the "pro-straight-marriage" crowd means when they talk about history and cultural tradition: as far back as we can trace, men have dominated the women and children (and weaker men) in their cultures. The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, even the Asians, treated women and children as possessions. The monotheistic religions grew out of this ideology, of course, and both bolster and defend it. Big daddy at home equals Big Daddy in the sky: the male sky god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continues to haunt and dominate us all. Altering the "traditional" definition of marriage strikes at the root of this ideology, and gays represent its most evil enemy because we insist that men can submit sexually to other men and remain men. We can be women while remaining men. We don't need the ideology of domination and submission; we can love on the basis of equality. We sympathize with women and children – also victims of the patriarchy. We are the perfect scapegoat because we are the patriarchal god's worst nightmare, the one group of humans he can't define or dominate. I once heard a radio minister raving about the end times and declaring that the Anti-Christ would be a homosexual. Of course! The whole axis of evil that is patriarchy/religion depends on hetero privilege and domination to continue its reign of terror. And what else but the patriarchal institutions are so adamantly opposed to gay equality – the churches and the armed forces.
It may be that the patriarchal hegemony will yet win. Bad times require scapegoats. I'm hoping it will be the Republican party – the true evil here – but I'm keeping my powder dry.
What is this "nuclear family" seeker is so exercised about but the principle of male domination.
Who's talking about domination? What we're really talking about is respecting the laws of nature and nature's God. Honoring principles that lead to health and wellness, both individually and corporately.
This is what the "pro-straight-marriage" crowd means when they talk about history and cultural tradition: as far back as we can trace, men have dominated the women and children (and weaker men) in their cultures.
Appealing to history and tradition is problematic, since it reflects both the accumulated wisdom of men, as well as their selfish abuses of power and principle.
I and most others in the xian camp are not using the history or patriarchal oversteps to justify continuing in them (no one is pushing to repeal voting rights for women, for instance). We are attempting to refer to the valid wisdom contained in such traditions.
But I don't have to rely on the accumulated wisdom of history and tradition, to oppose gay marriage. I can merely point to the obvious unnaturalness of homosexuality, the growing scientific argument against it (though the evidence is still incomplete, and often clouded by pro-gay scientists promoting often bogus theories defending homosexuality as good and natural), and the witness of conscience for those who have not hardened their consciences into submission to such dysfunction.
The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, even the Asians, treated women and children as possessions. The monotheistic religions grew out of this ideology, of course, and both bolster and defend it. Big daddy at home equals Big Daddy in the sky: the male sky god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continues to haunt and dominate us all.
Very interesting speculative pseudo-history. I would say that monotheism grew out of reality, and out of the experience of the first humans. Abusive views arose later. Also, I understand why you group all of these cultures into one, but I think you weaken your argument by combining them into a monolith.
Altering the "traditional" definition of marriage strikes at the root of this ideology, and gays represent its most evil enemy because we insist that men can submit sexually to other men and remain men.
I agree, altering the natural definition of marriage is at the root of this conflict – it is NOT about wanting to limit civil rights, or hurt gays, or promote male dominance. What conservatives are trying to protect is TRUTH and HEALTH from unhealthy zealots.
We can be women while remaining men.
While we can all develop both our feminine and masculine personality traits, men being women is a sickness. When a man begins to act sexually towards men, you have gone from health to disease, from healthy development into abuse and perversion. Such abuses of nature are abhorrent and repulsive, just like those who push the masculine too far the other way using steroids.
We don't need the ideology of domination and submission; we can love on the basis of equality.
Like the lesbian anti-male feminists, I think you have confused legal equality with sameness. Asserting the differences between male and female is not about domination, it is about respecting the natural order. And btw, I am NOT saying that the natural order reveals that men are superior or should be in authority ubiquitously.
The problem with sexual submission of men to men has nothing to do with authority and submission, and all to do with violating nature. And making it legal has all kinds of ramifications for society, it's not just some simple extension of rights. It affects children, religious freedoms, social structure, economics, and many other things.
We are the perfect scapegoat because we are the patriarchal god's worst nightmare, the one group of humans he can't define or dominate.
I suppose that conservatives could be using gays as scapegoats for all that is wrong in society, or for the dissolution of marriage, which is really a disservice to the truth. The truth is much more sinister, in that most so-called Christians have stopped being salt and light in society, and live just as sinfully as their un-redeemed neighbors, being filled with greed, sexual immorality, etc.
But to some extent, I think you are correct that homosexuality reflects the biblical God's 'worst nightmare.' It is pretty clear from scripture that rampant homosexuality represents a society at the depth of depravity, as seen in the story of Sodom and Lot, and clearly outlined in Romans 1 (see Does Romans 1 Condemn Homosexuality? and The Wrath of God II – How God abandons a nation).
Not much new here. Pitiful, in fact:
…respecting the laws of nature and nature's God.
Where are these "laws" to be found? Did nature publish them in a book, in marble, or somewhere in seeker's imagination? Nature has a god?
Appealing to history and tradition is problematic, since it reflects both the accumulated wisdom of men, as well as their selfish abuses of power and principle.
Maybe so, but it's all we've got.
We are attempting to refer to the valid wisdom contained in such traditions.
Attempting, but failing. Wisdom, there is, but not the heterosexual privilege or the patriarchalist oppression carried forth by current christianist dogma.
I can merely point to the obvious unnaturalness of homosexuality
Obvious to no one except died-in-the-wool bigots. "Unnatural" only according to the patriarchalist hegemony. If one doesn't swallow its premises (which I, and a growing number of people, don't), it's pure absurdity.
the growing scientific argument against it (though the evidence is still incomplete, and often clouded by pro-gay scientists promoting often bogus theories defending homosexuality as good and natural)
?! If there's a "growing scientific argument," it's for the normalcy of hx. Your anti-gay "scientists" (ie, christianist apologists) are increasingly being shunted to the fringes. The entire scientific establishment and all scientific professions disagree with you. Oh, right: they're politically motivated and "pro-gay" (only in your steamy paranoid mind, that is).
I would say that monotheism grew out of reality, and out of the experience of the first humans.
Really? What reality was that? The garden of Eden? The experience of the first humans moved them towards some variation of nature/spirit/ancestor worship – usually animism. Monotheism developed much later. Abusive views abound, but are concentrated in the highly organized, monotheistic/patriarchal sky-god. What He stands for is power and the will to use it. Domination, oppression, violence, dictatorship, absolutism, machismo – all flow from the brutish patriarchy.
altering the natural definition of marriage is at the root of this conflict
There you go again: you drop the word "natural" as if it had some kind of objective meaning. Where is this "natural definition of marriage" to be found? Nope, it's merely another assertion you patriarchalistas love to fling around as if it were some kind of self-evident truth. Maybe within your distorted meme, but not outside it. I see no reason to grant you this at all. Provide evidence for your "natural law" theory, please.
What conservatives are trying to protect is TRUTH and HEALTH from unhealthy zealots.
Again, meaningless rhetoric unless you can provide some kind of proof that you possess the "TRUTH." The only unhealthy zealot I see around here is you with your perverse imagination and hitlerian rhetoric and goals.
Such abuses of nature are abhorrent and repulsive,
[sigh] More empty rhetoric. Unless I were to buy into your hegemonic ideology (which I don't) this is meaningless. I think the the god of the hegemony is abhorrent and repulsive, and has led to untold destruction, distortion, and suffering. He's also a bore.
natural order
all to do with violating nature
You have a touching faith in this "natural" concept considering you have no basis on which to assert it. I realize it (or at least your version of it) has a central role in your heterosexual hegemony, but I see no reason to just grant you your definition. In fact, the whole purpose of my post was to challenge and destroy it. It's like the emperor with no clothes: once you're called on your fantasy, it disappears, and you become an object of ridicule and contempt. And you, sir, are quite naked.
It affects children, religious freedoms, social structure, economics, and many other things.
Yep, I agree. Your evil hegemony has had disastrous effects on all those things (I would add the environment, btw).
But to some extent, I think you are correct that homosexuality reflects the biblical God's 'worst nightmare.'
I'm glad you agree. I would only add that your "biblical god" is only one interpretation, and that he is a brutish idol as well as a figment of your imagination. It's high time people awoke to this elementary fact. This impostor must be deposed. We must tear away the curtain and reveal the humbug behind the show. For the real God has nothing to do with the dictator associated with the heterosexual/patriarchal hegemony. He's found, here and there, hidden away in the Bible, but He's also to be found throughout history – underground, quiet, subversive, soft, compassionate (kind of like Jesus in His better moments). But, mainly, in the beating heart of life.
Yet another area where the type of homophobia seeker espouses has devastating effects: Gay seniors.
And, please, don't give me this tripe about not approving of mistreatment of individual gays. The homophobia trumpeted here, religious or not, has effects in the real world. It's disgusting, and any decent human being should have the same reaction and take appropriate action.