Thursday, November 13, 2008

Gay McCarthyism claims a victim

Remember that gay blacklist we pointed out the other day? Well, take a look at it again. Scroll down about five pages and look in the right hand column and you'll see the following name:
Scott Eckern/Artistic Director, California Musical Theatre/Citrus Heights, CA/ $1,000
Eckern, as this indicates, donated $1,000 to support the passage of California's Proposition 8, which wrote the definition of marriage into the state's constitution. But what are blacklists for, anyway? Here is the Sacramento Bee on what then happened to Eckern:

The California Musical Theatre found itself caught in a dramatic conflict between free speech and civil rights, a situation that ultimately led to today's resignation of artistic director Scott Eckern.

Eckern quit this morning. He became the target of strong criticism after it was learned he donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign to ban gay marriage.

Eckern's removal was apparently the result of the blacklist now being used by opponents of Proposition 8:
When Tony Award-winner Marc Shaiman, the composer of "Hairspray," read of Eckern's donation last week, he urged artists and theater workers across the country to boycott the theater.

...The idea of a blacklist and boycott have grown from Shaiman's postings and e-mails. The composer, who is openly gay, said he read about Eckern's contribution to the campaign on the Web site www.datalounge.com, and he felt he had to do something.
Eckern is not without supporters, and they too are now recognizing the new level of intolerance being embraced by gay rights groups in the wake of their surprising defeat in California:
On Tuesday, Kellie Randle and a group of like-minded friends launched www.supportscotteckern.blogspot.com to advocate for Eckern.

"It's everyone's First Amendment right to contribute to the causes they believe in and voice their political choice," Randle said. To show the abuse against Eckern, Randle's site links to the Clyde Fitch Report, one of numerous blogs now weighing in on the debate.

"I'm so enraged at the hypocrisy of the No on 8 community. I could care less how he voted on any issue. It's about what he does in his job. This is persecution," Randle said.

Other community members, including Kitty Wilson of Curtis Park, echoed this sentiment.

"Before any gay person talks about blacklisting anyone in theater, I'll remind them what McCarthy's blacklist did to the entire entertainment industry," Wilson said.

The good news is it looks like there are still a few people willing to stand up for what is right.

55 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm running a poll with my gay friends on this issue. Right now the total is 6 to 3 in support of NOT changing the definition of marriage. As a side note, they voted 8 to 1 for Obama. Hateful Kentucky homosexuals, I suppose?

Anonymous said...

www.divorceattorneysforgaymarriage.com

Jim O'Neal said...

So let me see here ...
A human and civil right has been taken away from a group of people, and you say they should be "more tolerant."
A group of Americans have been reduced to second-class citizens, and you label THEM with the word "McCarthyism."
Up is down, in is out ... heard it before.
No one has forced any beliefs on Scott Eckern. They have rejected his choice to force his beliefs on them. He has no need to accept anything contrary to his beliefs. Most in the theatre are very upset Scott resigned. That need not have happened. But people will no longer sit back and allow discrimination. People are hurt and angry. And for what? A proposition based on lies and fear.
No one is threatening marriage or children, no one is attacking churches. It is the churches actively struggling to deny a group of Americans their civil and human rights.
And don't tell me "the people have spoken." If women's rights had been put up for men to vote on they would still be "property."
If civil rights for African-Americans had been put on a ballot they would have advanced nowhere. Civil rights are not to be voted on. Human rights are not opinion.
This is discrimination. It is unAmerican, unConstitutional.
And NO ONE can yet explain how it is a threat to anyone else. How in the world does it have anything to do with someone else's religion?
Everyone can hold to their beliefs and religious convictions, but you cannot force those beliefs on others - not in America.
This is not about people exercising their religious convictions.
This is about forcing those convictions on others!
 There can be no second-class Americans.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
–Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
-http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

Martin Cothran said...

Jim,

So blacklisting is okay if it's for a good cause?

Also, you seem to be assuming that same-sex marriage is a "civil right". How did this right come about? Are rights just manufactured by groups who want to assert them? Is it in the Constitution or some religious document?

A right isn't a right just because someone says so.

Jim O'Neal said...

Of course blacklisting is not OK - stating the obvious.
And of course the Pursuit of Happiness is a right - stating the obvious.
And the Supreme Court of California made same-sex marriage a legal civil right. Also stating the obvious.
If we could vote down Supreme Court decisions, Al Gore would have been President the last 8 years.

Jim O'Neal said...

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal"
Big enough document?

Anonymous said...

So, if I am gay by nature, then this country should just accept me for who I say I am, let me to the rights I think I deserve, and move on happily?

The great thing about having a democratic country is that when an issue like this arises, it is voted on by the affected population and the matter is settled. In this case, a slight majority in California felt strongly enough that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. The "civil right" that you have is to put up your argument and have the people vote on it. A right you do not have is to impose your agenda on the entire population just because you believe it should be that way.

Since I have basically said what you said not to say ("the people have spoken"), I should now say why I said it and why it is valid.

Homosexuality is a threat to the United States of America. How, you ask? Because if people actually believe in the Bible, then they believe that homosexuals are equivalent to "gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless... they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." The threat is that the country will approve of people who practice this obviously sinful behavior.

Also, the Bible says nothing about blacks or women in this manner. In fact, it says quite the opposite: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." The reason blacks and women now have rights is that Christians found that they were wrong in assuming such people were "2nd class". The day that gays can convince Christians that they are wrong to condemn homosexuality is the day that they will have gained their immoral rights.

Go ahead, argue that Christianity shouldn't have such an impact on a religiously "tolerant" country. The fact of the matter is, it does.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Martin Cothran said...

Jim,

And the Supreme Court of California made same-sex marriage a legal civil right.

So something is so just because a court says it is? Are you familiar with the Dred Scott case?

Martin Cothran said...

Jim,

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal"
Big enough document?


What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? Are you saying that because people are equal, they should therefore be able to do whatever they want regardless of what the law or the constitution say?

Jim O'Neal said...

Dear "anonymous" (says it all)
Sorry to tell you we do NOT live in a "christian" nation.
We live in a "freedom of religion" nation.
And if your Bible has the word "homosexual" in it you need one not so blatantly mistranslated. Any Biblical Scholar worth is salt will tell you so. Do you homework before condemning your brothers.
And don't forget the fate of those who twist the Word of God.
The Bible has plenty to say about blacks and women. Good Lord, man! That's how they're defended slavery and women as unequal!
DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

Martin - Yes, familiar with Dred-Scott. Overturned by a Higher Court decision, not voters. And overturned because of the Constitution - just as this ban will be.
Please comment on what I actually say - not what you read into it. Thanks.

Martin Cothran said...

Okay, so a right isn't a right because a court says so, but because the Constitution says so? Where in the Constitution is there a right to same-sex marriage?

Jim O'Neal said...

Martin,
Please let me do you a favor. (I really mean that)
REALLY read this and let it sink in. It has changed the world - and certainly changed me.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
–Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
-http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm

All the best,

Lee said...

> A human and civil right has been taken away from a group of people, and you say they should be "more tolerant."

When were homosexuals ever allowed to marry? To take away a right from someone, doesn't he have to have been granted it at some point?

> A group of Americans have been reduced to second-class citizens, and you label THEM with the word "McCarthyism."

What can gays do as married couples that they can't do as cohabitants? List them all. What if we simply granted all of that (insurance, benefits, inheritance, etc.) but still withheld the designation of a married couple in the eyes of the law. Would that be sufficient?

If not, then the issue has nothing to do with gays' "rights". It has everything to do with making other members of society accept that relationship as a licit relationship, regardless of their personal beliefs.

> A proposition based on lies and fear. No one is threatening marriage or children, no one is attacking churches.

"Threatening?" Maybe. Undermining? Closer. It undermines Biblical truth. Makes it appear optional. This is not about whether gays get to pursue happiness on their own terms. It's about forcing people to grant legitimacy to gay marriage as a valid relationship.

> Civil rights are not to be voted on. Human rights are not opinion.

If we declare something is a civil right, does that make it one?

> This is discrimination. It is unAmerican, unConstitutional.

Which article or amendment of the Constitution promises that gay marriage should be protected as a right?

> And NO ONE can yet explain how it is a threat to anyone else.

I just did.


> Everyone can hold to their beliefs and religious convictions, but you cannot force those beliefs on others - not in America.

Well, if you get your way, apparently you can force your beliefs on those who hold religious convictions to the contrary.

> "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

I had no idea Thomas Jefferson was writing about the right of homosexuals to marry. I bet it would come as a surprise to him, as well.

Jim O'Neal said...

""And NO ONE can yet explain how it is a threat to anyone else.""

"I just did."

No, Lee. You explained your bigotry. And you did it quite well.
May God reach you ... and teach you.

Lee said...

Straight out of the liberal playbook, Jim. "You're wrong because you are a [abusive epithet of choice]." Bigot is in, at the moment.

> "May God reach you ... and teach you."

Well, I believe that God's word is revealed in the Bible, and the Bible appears to take a dim view of such things. By your definition, the Apostle Paul was probably a bigot.

What's your moral authority? The Bible, as somehow oddly interpreted? Or just what you feel? And if the latter, aren't you really setting yourself up as the authority?

Jim O'Neal said...

"Straight out of the liberal playbook"
Now THAT's funny. Where ever did you find that phrase, Lee?
You attempt to change the Constitution to discriminate against a particular group of people because your opinion is superior.
What is your definition of bigoted?
You believe same-sex marriage is wrong. So what?
I believe using tens of millions of dollars to attack people who have nothing to do with you, while people are starving and homeless and without health-care is not only wrong but a crime against God and humanity. So what? Who cares?
It is your Bible that is blatantly misinterpreted. Do your homework before condemning people.
What is my moral authority?
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
–Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
-

Jim O'Neal said...

Lee asked: "When were homosexuals ever allowed to marry? To take away a right from someone, doesn't he have to have been granted it at some point?"
The Supreme Court of California gave them the right! Good Lord, Lee! Does your church give you ANY of the facts? Only the lies?

Lee said...

> You attempt to change the Constitution to discriminate against a particular group of people because your opinion is superior.

Well, somebody is trying to change the Constitution. Is it really me?

First, you'd have to make the case that I'd be changing the Constitution, wouldn't you? You haven't done that. I've asked which clause in the Constitution protects the right of gay marriage. Still waiting. For extra points, show some evidence that the clause you select was intended to protect gay marriage by those who wrote it.

Secondly, the way I would characterize this discussion is that a) each of us believes his opinion is superior, and b) each of us wants to impose it on the other. I want common sense to prevail and any claims that the Constitution defends gay marriage be scuttled; you want folks who see homosexuality as a sin be forced to accept it as legitimate.

I just think that if you believe gay marriage is a constitutional right, it is only fair to ask what part of the Constitution establishes this. Darn, there's that word again. "Fair."

>> "Straight out of the liberal playbook"

> Now THAT's funny. Where ever did you find that phrase, Lee?

Glad you liked it, Jim. We aim to please.

> What is your definition of bigoted?

I can run with these:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigoted

> You believe same-sex marriage is wrong. So what?

That's me, the Apostle Paul, and a couple millenia of Christian thought and tradition. And you believe it is right. So what?

> I believe using tens of millions of dollars to attack people who have nothing to do with you, while people are starving and homeless and without health-care is not only wrong but a crime against God and humanity.

So why are you agitating to force your view of marriage down our throats while those people are starving and homeless? Shame on you.

> So what? Who cares? It is your Bible that is blatantly misinterpreted.

Well, Jim, I'm happy to read here that you do seem to care whether the Bible is correctly interpreted. We share that in common. So, please read the first chapter of Romans, particular verses 24 thru 27, and then see if you can find a way to spin that as Christian approval, or even indifference, towards homosexual relationships. I'm all ears, bud. Let me know what you think.

> Do your homework before condemning people.

Good advice for us all, I think. But who said I was condemning anyone? That's not my place, pal. Assuming you are a Christian, if you were lying, or stealing, or engaging in adultery, or having committing adultery, it would be imperative on your brothers in Christ to point that you need to repent, not to humor you and act like your sin is no big deal. Sin is a big deal, that's why Christ had to die for it. Your brothers in Christ would be doing you no favors by refusing to confront you with your sin. It isn't a question of condemning you; it's a question of being the Lord's tool in rescuing you.

> What is my moral authority?
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

So, is Thomas Jefferson an unimpeachable moral authority? Do his words carry the same weight as Moses's, or Jesus's, or Paul's?

As long as someone is pursuing happiness, does absolutely anything go? Was John Wayne Gacy pursuing happiness? Or are there any limits that need to be observed?

And is it okay to place obligations on third parties when two people pursue their own happiness by calling themselves "married." I mean, it's okay with me if two gay fellows want to refer to themselves as husband and wife, or husband and husband, or wife and wife, or whatever.

Oh, that's not enough, you say? I have to be forced to recognize that relationship as valid?

Well, now whose rights are being violated?

Lee said...

> The Supreme Court of California gave them the right! Good Lord, Lee! Does your church give you ANY of the facts? Only the lies?

Supreme Courts do not give rights. They are supposed to interpret the documents that recognize rights, as rights themeselves are not "given" by men but rather granted by God. If the California Supreme Court is manufacturing rights out of thin air, then there is already a problem.

But I live in Virginia, so who cares what they think?

Jim O'Neal said...

Lee says:
"Supreme Courts do not give rights."
WHAT?!!! Do your parents know you're using the computer?
Time to shake the dust from my sandals and move on.
But please, please do your homework on Romans.
It is not God condemning - in this case it is indeed you.
May the Lord reach you ... and teach you.
God Bless

Martin Cothran said...

Uh, Jim, there's this document that has this phrase, "endowed by their Creator" in reference to where rights come from.

It's called the Declaration of Independence. Check it out some time.

Jim O'Neal said...

Hi Martin,
Actually, I posted that many comments ago.
I know we are all equal in the eyes of God.
And I firmly believe we should all be equal under the law.


"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
–Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
-http://www.ushistory.org/Decl

God bless ...

Jim O'Neal said...

What I'm trying to say is:
As a Christian, I know we are all equal in the eyes of God.
And as an American, I firmly believe we should all be equal under the law.

Stevo said...

I'm sorry Jim, I didn't even realize I was posting as "anonymous". I don't know how this changes anything, but oh, well...

First of all, please comment on what I actually say, not what you read into it.

>>Sorry to tell you we do NOT live in a christian nation.
I never said we live in a Christian nation. I was suggesting that since around 75% of Americans at least profess in being Christian, that might explain why things like Prop. 8 get passed. No, we may not be a Christian nation, but we are largely a nation of people who call themselves Christians.

>>And if your Bible has the word 'homosexual' in it...
I also never said that the word "homosexual" was in the Bible. How else would you like me to interpret the passage about men who "abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another... men committed indecent acts with other men"? Sounds a bit like homosexuality to me.

>>Do your homework before condemning your brothers.
I did not condemn anyone. I, along with many Christians, condemn homosexuality, just as many homosexuals condemn Christianity. Also, by the way you seem to think you know the Bible quite well, I thought you would have understood what I said at first, but apparently you may need to do some more homework.

Oh, and since the Declaration of Independence is your moral authority, remind me about who endows us with our rights.

Stevo said...

and what do you mean when you say, "we are all equal in the eyes of God"?

Lee said...

>> "Supreme Courts do not give rights."

> WHAT?!!! Do your parents know you're using the computer?

Well. Somebody's parents are certainly going to be surprised. I guess it's a good thing we have a U.S. Supreme Court, or we wouldn't have any rights at all.

Excuse me, Mommy's talking. What's that, Mommy Oh, right. The Constitution recognizes rights, and what? The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution? Well, Mommy, don't tell me. Tell Jim.

> Time to shake the dust from my sandals and move on.

Sigh. The life of an apostle of homosexual marriage is such a heartbreaking one.

> But please, please do your homework on Romans.

Well, I did give you an opportunity to explain to me how, e.g., the following could be construed as somehow supporting of gay marriage, or at least neutral towards it:

Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

You can say that Paul wrong, in which case there goes the Bible as an authority -- in which case, I would need to know the source of your authority about what instruction I need. But if you agree that Paul was an apostle and must be onto something, I'd be very interested to know what that something was. Like I say, it's hard to construe it as an appreciation of diverse lifestyles.

> It is not God condemning - in this case it is indeed you.

I haven't condemned anyone or anything. The scriptures have something to tell us about homosexual relationships. If it's incumbent on the scriptures to get right with us, then by all means, pursue a pagan lifestyle. But if it is incumbent on us to get right with the scriptures, then it matters what they are trying to tell us.

What am I supposed to do, Jim? Ignore what the Bible says everytime Jim calls me a bigot for noticing what it says?

> What I'm trying to say is:
As a Christian, I know we are all equal in the eyes of God.
And as an American, I firmly believe we should all be equal under the law.

We are indeed equal in the eyes of God: depraved. It so happens all of us sin, and none of us wants to face that sin, recognize it for what it is, and repent it. We need God's help even to see our own condition for what it is.

Jesus forgives sin, but then He charges, "Go, and sin no more." And we all blow it regardless, every day. I and every other Christian needs to repent sin on a daily basis, and every non-Christian needs to bow the knee and recognize the Lord as sovereign in their lives.

And part of that is learning what it is that you do that is sinful. He shows us, but we do not necessarily see all at once. But the solution is not to go around pretending that we are not sinning when the scriptures are clear about it.

Jim O'Neal said...

Stevo - you said:
"A right you do not have is to impose your agenda on the entire population just because you believe it should be that way."
This is exactly what I said. The churches cannot impose their agendas and beliefs on others. Gay Americans want only equality - no agenda.

"Homosexuality is a threat to the United States of America."
That is totally false. That is fear-mongering.
Galileo was a threat to the church for claiming the earth revolved around the sun. They "proved" him wrong with Scripture. Blacks were a threat fighting along white soldiers. Women were a threat to society if they ever got the vote.
Tony & Bill are not asking to get married in your church. They have no affect on you or your beliefs.
You claim you do not condemn gay Americans and yet you say they're a threat to the nation?

"The reason blacks and women now have rights is that Christians found that they were wrong"
Again - do your homework. Some actual Christians were very instrumental, but virtually every "church" fought it tooth and nail.

Many excellent studies have been done on Romans. Read some. Who was talking, who was he talking to, what was going on at the time, what was he trying to get across, etc. etc. Their is no condemnation of homosexuality.

I'll say it again:
As a Christian, I KNOW we are all equal in the eyes of God.
And as an American, I firmly believe we should all be equal in the eyes of the law.
Wishing you the best,

Stevo said...

I am not imposing any agenda. I am simply not supporting something I consider a sin by upholding a traditional viewpoint. Like I said before, true Christians will never look back at homosexuality and say that they were wrong to disapprove of it. Don't give me baloney about Galileo and blacks, because they are very different issues.

I believe that homosexuality is a result and manifestation of sin, and I believe that sin is a threat to this country. I never said any people were a threat. Homosexuals are all lost children of God, but the sin they live in is certainly to be condemned.

>>Some actual Christians were very instrumental, but virtually every "church" fought it tooth and nail.

My point was that Christians generally agree today that it was wrong to treat blacks and women as lesser people. I do not treat or support others who treat homosexuals as lesser people. They need God as much as I need God - they just might not accept that fact.

>>Their is no condemnation of homosexuality.

I don't know whose studies you have been reading, but I suggest reading the book of Romans itself. It is often quite self-explanatory. If you don't believe homosexuality is a result of sin, I would hesitate to call you a Christian.

Jim O'Neal said...

Hi Steveo
Of course the church is forcing it's agenda on others. That is what this is all about.
Gay Americans are not looking for you to accept them. They don't want your blessings or your approval or for you to change your beliefs. No one cares. They simply want to be left alone in their "Pursuit of Happiness."
Yes, slavery, women's rights, Galileo - all completely different. But each was supported by the church and their "at the time" interpretation of Scripture. The church is not infallible.
No, I do not believe being born gay is a sin. Many Christians (along with ALL serious psychologists and psychiatrists) agree.
I read Romans often. But with a much better understanding after reading the works of so many Biblical scholars. The setting of when these words were written and what was happening at the time are so important. As is the having best translation of the original script as possible.
I don't mind your questioning my Christianity. I too am praying for you to be touched.
I wish you ALL the best in Christ.

Martin Cothran said...

Everyone has an agenda, the question is how we settle our disputes. The problem with the supporters of same-sex marriage is that they have a very cavalier view of the processes by which we are supposed to settle our differences, and they use Devil language to smear people who disagree with them.

They try to go around elected lawmakers by using the courts to pursue their policy goals, which is an abuse of the court system which is supposed to interpret the law, not make it.

Then they portray everyone they disagree with as not just wrong, but evil.

If they would simply play fair and be civil, they wouldn't alienate so many people.

Jim O'Neal said...

Martin,
Gay Americans "portray everyone they disagree with as not just wrong, but evil?" Are you kidding?
They're being portrayed as destroying the fabric of society! They're called pure evil! They're even accused of abusing the courts! Do we also deny them use of our courts?
How could possibly in good faith turn that around?

Lee said...

> Their is no condemnation of homosexuality.

Classic denial. The language seems pretty clear.

Stevo said...

PLEASE stop trying to refute things I didn't even say.

I never said the church was infallible. However, God is infallible, and the church learns from it's mistakes. I still stand by my statement that true Christians will never look back and say they were wrong to condemn homosexuality.

I also never said being born gay was a sin. I said I believe it is a result of sin, but ether way it is not worthy of my support. In Romans, Paul never speaks of people choosing to be homosexual or being born into a life of sin. It simply states that since they worshiped and served created things instead of God, He gave them over to shameful lusts.

I have studied Romans in both the original Greek and the Latin Vulgate. I have also read many studies and commentaries on the letter. If you can direct me to a more original source, I would gladly take a look.

I don't like to question someone's Christianity, but at times I must. I do appreciate your prayers, and I will pray for you as well, that hopefully we can both hear from God on this matter.

Jim O'Neal said...

Hello again, Steveo.
"PLEASE stop trying to refute things I didn't even say."
I never implied you said things you didn't. I merely brought up points to help explain what I was saying. I'm afraid you were reading things into that.
But enough going around in circles.
Thank you for your discussion. I pray we both move on in a truer direction.

And Lee - please take your gifts out of that hole. God gave you a brain to be used. Use it.
God Bless to both.
Shakin' the old dust from these sandals ...

Lee said...

You're a piece of work, Jim. I might suggest, however, that you save the victory dance for after you've won the argument. If Muhammad Ali had boxed the way you argue, he'd have been dancing around the ring with his arms up before the first bell had rung.

I've asked you to specify where in the Constitution the concept of gay marriage was supported. You ignore the question.

I've asked you to explain how Paul, in Romans I, could be construed in any way other than a rebuke against homosexual practices, and you wave your hand.

You've insisted that courts create rights, when I and the rest of the educated world realize that the role of the courts is to interpret laws and constitutions, not manufacture rights.

And as a lagniappe, you hurl epithets at anyone who asks you to defend your wild assertions.

You're the one hurling epithets and calling ugly names, but people like me are the intolerant ones. Go figure.

> And Lee - please take your gifts out of that hole.

Case in point.

Jim O'Neal said...

"You're a piece of work, Jim."
Thank you.
"I might suggest, however, that you save the victory dance"
What victory dance? There can be no victory when you're butting your head against the wall.
"I've asked you to specify where in the Constitution the concept of gay marriage was supported. You ignore the question."
I answered the question - twice. You seem blinded to the concept of equality.
"I've asked you to explain how Paul, in Romans I, could be construed in any way other than a rebuke against homosexual practices"
Books have been written about that. Please read one or two. I can't explain on a blog.
"You've insisted that courts create rights"
Courts interpret the law and then grant the rights.
"And as a lagniappe, you hurl epithets at anyone who asks you to defend your wild assertions."
You bear false witness.

May God bless

Lee said...

>> "I've asked you to specify where in the Constitution the concept of gay marriage was supported. You ignore the question."

> I answered the question - twice. You seem blinded to the concept of equality.

You quoted the Declaration of Independence, several times -- out of context, unless you have some evidence to offer suggesting that Jefferson was defending the concept of gay marriage when he wrote that. But if you quoted the Constitution at all, I must have missed it.

My concept of equality is the same as the Constitution's, (as the Fourteenth Amendment states) equality under the law. It doesn't say the law has to change its definition of marriage.

>> "I've asked you to explain how Paul, in Romans I, could be construed in any way other than a rebuke against homosexual practices"

> Books have been written about that. Please read one or two. I can't explain on a blog.

Hand-waving again. I'm questioning whether you, or anyone, can explain it at all.

> Courts interpret the law and then grant the rights.

Well, at least you're half-right, finally, after I've had to badger you about it. Yes, courts interpret the law.

Now, let's look at the other half: the assertion that courts grant rights. The whole idea of a Constitution is to enforce a rule of law, not a rule of man. Even the Declaration of Independence, which you are otherwise fond of, proposes that rights are given by God. In fact, it's right after the part you quote about men being created equal. This being the case, the courts grant no rights; they simply rule whether or not rights already stipulated in the law or in the Constitution apply to a given situation. They interpret; they do not grant.

>> "And as a lagniappe, you hurl epithets at anyone who asks you to defend your wild assertions."

> You bear false witness.

Really? You don't consider accusations of bigotry to qualify? They're right here on this thread, do I really need to quote?

Stevo said...

Sorry I had to pick this thread up again, but...

"Books have been written about that."

That kinda grabbed my attention. Books have also been written about how Jesus was married and had children, about how extraterrestrials have come in contact with humans, and about how it is an undoubtable fact that God does not exist. The simple fact that there is a lot of information (and even "evidence") published about a subject has nothing to do with how preposterous or false the information may be.

Jim O'Neal said...

Dear Lee,
I did not call you a bigot. I DID point out that several of your statements were bigoted.
No one is threatening you. No one is undermining your beliefs, and no one wants you to accept anything you don't wish to accept. I'm sorry to tell you but no one cares.
I can tend to be a smart alec. Your words are very heavy with anger, a touch of nasty, and a big dose of superiority. All of which bring out the worst in me.
Sorry for that.
Point is ... you don't like me, I don't like you. Let's both move on and pray for each other.

Hi steveo,
Yes, but there are wonderful studies out there by scholars and Christians. Trust me, it's worth a look.
I wish you both the best.

Lee said...

> No one is threatening you. No one is undermining your beliefs, and no one wants you to accept anything you don't wish to accept. I'm sorry to tell you but no one cares.

Nonsense, Jim. That's the whole point of gay marriage.

As I asked you earlier, if we were to take all the advantages that marriage confers (legally) and grant those to homosexual couples, but we don't call it marriage, would that be enough?

If it would be, then of course you would be right. Gays would then have their benefits, and Christians would not have to recognize their relationship as valid. Everyone would be happy. You would be right, and that would be the end of the argument.

But it isn't enough, is it? No, it has to be a marriage license. It has to be not like marriage, but the same as marriage.

And the only practical difference would be that marriage compels the recognition from others, i.e., legitimacy. "What God has joined together, let no man separate."

> I can tend to be a smart alec. Your words are very heavy with anger, a touch of nasty, and a big dose of superiority. All of which bring out the worst in me.

Absolutely classic. When I'm being ill-mannered, it's because I'm being angry, nasty, and arrogant. When you're being ill-mannered, it's also because I'm being angry, nasty and arrogant. Beautiful.

> Point is ... you don't like me, I don't like you.

I don't know you well enough to dislike you. There are a lot of people I like, but don't like the way they argue.

> Let's both move on and pray for each other.

You keep saying that, but you keep responding to my posts. There's the door, big guy.

Jim O'Neal said...

I'm confused, Lee. Do you want me to leave or answer your questions? I'm happy to do both.
You asked "If" a civil union granted all the rights of marriage ...
That's a mythical "if." California was bombarded with ads saying rights were already equal. Not true - they are not. And no, I see no way there can be legal equality without the word marriage. A marriage recognized by the State - not by any church.
My ill-mannered smart-alecness is all mine. You get no credit for that. Never meant to imply you did.

Feel free to comment, insult, and do your "victory dance" as you call it.
But I really do need to move on. Like most of us, I have to work long and hard to make a living.
I continue to pray and wish you a beautiful life in Christ.

Lee said...

>I'm confused, Lee.

Agreed.

> Do you want me to leave or answer your questions? I'm happy to do both.

I'm happy either way, Jim. I am interested in your responses, on the one hand. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like you enjoy having your viewpoints challenged, and far be it from me to enjoy making anyone uncomfortable. So it's your call. I only bring it up because you keep saying you're going to brush the dust from your sandals and move on, and of course I get the Biblical reference: your statement casts you in the role of an apostle, and therefore I must be one of the stubborn yokels for whom the good news is simply not accessible.

And as the old country song suggests: I can't miss you if you don't go away. So stick around and debate, or brush the dust off your sandals and leave. Whatever floats your boat. But please do one or the other, don't keep threatening to leave in a huff but then stick around. You want a debate? I'm here. You want to leave? There's the door.

> You asked "If" a civil union granted all the rights of marriage ... That's a mythical "if."

Is it? No one can possibly specify all the (legal) rights enjoyed by married couples that you believe gays ought to be entitled to receive? I don't think it's so "mythical". I think it can be done, if not in one or two iterations, certainly in three or four. Right of inheritance? Check. Right of hospital visitation? Check. Right of benefits received from an employer? Check. How many more of those questions are there?

> California was bombarded with ads saying rights were already equal. Not true - they are not.

Fine, for the sake of argument I will grant that.

> And no, I see no way there can be legal equality without the word marriage.

Aha. So I was right.

> A marriage recognized by the State - not by any church.

Thank you!!! That's the point I've been trying to make. It only took several posts to pull that out of you, but you finally did fess up.

And if the State recognizes a gay marriage, how can I or anyone else refuse to recognize it?

Right: we can't.

Therefore, gay marriage is not about the "rights" enjoyed by married couples -- that's a red herring. The real issue is making society accept gay marriage as a legitimate expression of the institute of marriage.

In other words, it's about forcing *your* beliefs on people like *me*.

I'm glad we finally agree on that.

> My ill-mannered smart-alecness is all mine. You get no credit for that. Never meant to imply you did.

We've all got our moments. No problem. No offense taken.

> Feel free to comment, insult, and do your "victory dance" as you call it.

Not my style. I just like to ask questions when I watch denial in action.

> But I really do need to move on.

Your choice, guy. There's the door.

frankieb said...

lee & jim if ur still there
u2r very entertaining
when i can follow
I liked lees therefore followed by a magic leap
but u2 will never agree
jim wants complete separation of church & state
lee goes back & forth from church to society like theres no difference
lee wants a theocracy
both need to get over it
we have neither

Lee said...

> I liked lees therefore followed by a magic leap

Specify...?

> lee wants a theocracy

Talk about magic leaps. Please specify what I said that gave you that idea.

The U.S. Constitution is about as theocratic as I think we need to get, until the Lord returns.

And when the Lord returns, it will be hard to say no to theocracy.

In the meantime, we don't have God running things. Just Republicans and Democrats. Lord help us, for sure, but please let's not make any of them the head of the Christian Church.

There is a religious element to all political ideologies -- a little theology, if you will. It was certainly true of Marx, who believed by faith in an imminent labor-inspired eschaton ("Workers, arise and lose your chains!") Liberals speak of morality all the time, and base their proposed policies on it, but only complain about it when it comes out of the Bible. Why their morality is better than the Bible's is never specified.

Lee said...

Correction: I said:

> "In the meantime, we don't have God running things."

Time to throw the bad Reformed theology flag on me.

Of course, the Creator of the Universe runs things.

But he is not the elected head of state in the U.S. nor a member of Congress or the Courts.

So from a human perspective, He is doing His work in a much more subtle way.

frankieb said...

lol
this is not about churches losing their rights -- that's a red herring. the real issue is churches losing their rule
In other words, it's about forcing *your* beliefs on non-christians
therefore lee wants a theocracy

conservatives speak of morality all the time, and base their proposed policies on it, but only complain about it when it when it goes against their narrow interpretation of the Bible. Why their interpretations are better than the spirit of christ professed in the Bible is never specified
jesus only got angry with the pharisees and the moneychangers the guys who wanted a say on how to get to heaven

Lee said...

> this is not about churches losing their rights -- that's a red herring.

Speaking of red herrings, who said anything about churches losing their rights? I said individuals would lose their right to disapprove of these relationships.

> the real issue is churches losing their rule

If churches are ruling, somebody forgot to tell them abortion is still legal and prayer is still prohibited in many public venues.

> In other words, it's about forcing *your* beliefs on non-christians

Let's try explaining this again:

What is the essence of marriage? That is, what's the difference between two people who share their lives, have sex, etc. who are married to each other, and two other people who do the same things, behave in an identical fashion with each other, but are not married (whether man-woman, man-man, or woman-woman)?

The difference is how other people see the relationship. Marriage confers official legitimacy to the relationship from society at large.

Therefore, any new obligations or impositions arising from the proposed arrangement of gay marriage will land on those outside the relationship.

On the flip side, in a society where gays are not allowed to marry, no one is forcing anything on gays; they are simply being denied the approval of their relationship. They are still free to cohabit, free to spend time together, free to engage in sex, free to do anything else they want to do with regards to their relationship. The only difference is that folks like me won't be forced to recognize that relationship.

And where there *are* legal differences between married folks and gay relationships, these could be addressed piecemeal through the law. Benefits. Visitations. Inheritance. There is no need to drag marriage into these fixes.

> therefore lee wants a theocracy

You need to work a little on your sequiturs. Lee simply doesn't want to be forced to recognize a particular kind of relationship as a valid one. For religious reasons? Mostly. But that's irrelevant. What if I just found it repugnant?

frankieb said...

yo lee

What if I just found it repugnant?

roflmao

the truth at last
where are those other dweebs at a moment like this

Lee said...

> where are those other dweebs at a moment like this

You aren't denying that there are those who find homosexuality repugnant, are you? There can be as many reasons as there are people why someone would not want to recognize homosexual marriage as legitimate.

The point is that being tolerant is not the same thing as being indulgent.

For millenia, the definition of marriage has meant man joined with woman. But to make homosexuals happy, everybody around them has to change the way they view marriage, the way they have always viewed marriage.

And the point is also that if society decides to respect that relationship, gays will be no freer than they were before. They will still be able to have the kind of relationships they seek. Nobody is stopping them.

The only difference is, folks like me will be forced to respect that relationship.

And forcing folks who do not respect homosexuality for whatever reason (e.g., it's a sin, it's repugnant, it has nothing to do with "real" marriage, etc.) to respect their relationships is what this entire issue is all about. It has nothing to do with equal rights; it has everything to do with inventing obligations to a favored political minority.

frankieb said...

You aren't denying that there are those who find homosexuality repugnant, are you?

nope
not denying there are those who find ugly people repugnant.
or foreigners
or mixed races
or scientologists
or even mimes
tons of people are superior to others
they even have a special name
hmmmm
what was that again?
not spigot
not frigate
hmmmm
don't worry it will come to me

give it up lee
you blew your cover

Lee said...

> give it up lee
you blew your cover

Whether or not I find homosexuality repugnant on a personal level is irrelevant to my argument. You must understand that as well as I do, as you have not even tried cracking them.

frankieb said...

everything you have said has been debunked to death
you don't like gays
no big deal
i hate cats

Lee said...

> everything you have said has been debunked to death

Handwaving.

frankieb said...

lol