Aaron accused (absurdly):
You expect me to simply sit idly by while you essentially blame me for the beating of a gay man in NYC?

Unless I totally agree with you on every position, I'm responsible for physical violence against gays.

This mini-tantrum was in response to my charge,

"...his beliefs are as much the direct ancestor to such atrocities..."

Your beliefs, not you. Get it? Your beliefs are evil, not you.

I suggest a course in close reading of texts.

Continuing the discussion:

Holiness vs. Love? I guess I'd say there is no conflict when both are properly understood.

I agree, but obviously I think you misunderstand holiness by simply viewing it as subservient to love.

But I DON'T view holiness as subservient to love. I think holiness is DEFINED in terms of love. I claim that's what Jesus was doing when he summed up the law and the prophets as "love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself". I think you think something out of balance follows from my view, but I think you are wrong about my view entails. For example: your belief that homosexuality is sinful could fit within my theology of love, depending on the facts about homosexuality. Now I don't believe that proper biblical understanding DOES show homosexuality to be a sin, and this does derive in part from my "theology of love", combined with other observations I make regarding my gay friends. But that's kind of a more involved discussion.

God is sinless and holy. He displayed both in the crucifixion of Jesus. God demanded a perfect, sinless sacrifice to atone for sins, but He displayed His love for us in sending His Son.

I'm not sure I buy that this was a DEMAND of God, but otherwise I do agree with your comments--it fits perfectly within my theology of love.

That is being both holy and loving. Sin is not ignored or downplayed, but the price is paid on our behalf. I believe we do ourselves and God a disservice by trying to play down our sin as well as sin in the culture.

I don't think my theology does downplay sin--it simply claims that sin is a function of being out of phase at it were with love. IMO the conservative theological frame that suggests that love is different from holiness creates a conflict between the two and makes it logically impossible to obey God's commands. It creates a situation where you sometimes have to choose between obeying love or obeying a legalism. I think Jesus' Gospel of Love explains the error in that view.

your friend
Keith

>>> Holiness vs. Love? I guess I'd say there is no conflict when both are properly understood.

I agree, but obviously I think you misunderstand holiness by simply viewing it as subservient to love. God is sinless and holy. He displayed both in the crucifixion of Jesus. God demanded a perfect, sinless sacrifice to atone for sins, but He displayed His love for us in sending His Son. That is being both holy and loving. Sin is not ignored or downplayed, but the price is paid on our behalf. I believe we do ourselves and God a disservice by trying to play down our sin as well as sin in the culture.

>>> As usual, Aaron deflects criticism back at his critic, thus avoiding the topic entirely. He always does this when cornered. That's why I call it the "Aaron Defense."

There is no tactic here to deflect anything. I'm merely asking you to display the tolerance and understanding that you so loudly demand from others.

You expect me to simply sit idly by while you essentially blame me for the beating of a gay man in NYC? It's funny that the whole stereotype was Southern conservative white men, yet this attack happened in New York.

What specifically would you like for me to respond to that I avoided? It seems when I respond in a way that does not suit your viewpoint, you ignore my response or deem it as the "Aaron Defense."

Unless I totally agree with you on every position, I'm responsible for physical violence against gays. How can I respond to that? What would you do if I did that? How about if I blamed gays for the downturn in the economy or worse, blame you for church shootings? How should you even respond to such absurdity? How am I supposed to do so?

This is what I consider to be "carpet bombing his family": the excessive coverage of the details of the affair, with private e-mails etc being splashed around. I object to that. I agree with you about the hypocrisy of condemning others for failing to live up to family values while doing the same thing yourself. In fact, I KNOW I fail to live up to what's right and yet I frequently condemn others. My bad.

your friend
Keith

I haven't seen anyone "carpet bomb" his family (though I suppose it might have happened somewhere), and I certainly feel sorry for them. However, the point of the story (for me, at least) is that yet another "family values" Christian, a man who made a big deal about it (including anti-gay marriage) in his run for office, didn't practice what he preached and merely used the issue to gain power (trampling gay people in the process). I personally couldn't care less how many women he was bulling on the side (powerful men always have), it's the willingness to scapegoat gays and other social outsiders to gain power which sickens me. "Judge not lest you be judged" is something which doesn't apply to them, apparently - only now, he's getting plenty of judgment thrown his way.

Maybe it's time for social conservatives to just stop picking the specks out of their fellow human beings eyes while ignoring the logs jutting out of their own - and to stop using personal morality for political gain. Maybe they should just shut up for a change!

I couldn't agree with you more. Sanford hurt his family and friends with his behavior, but when we liberals try to play politics with salacious details (excused by saying "it's about the hypocrisy) we are also causing pain to Sanford's family. My political instincts are liberal because I believe in compassion (I'm not saying conservatives aren't compassionate and I'm not saying HERE that liberal policies haven't hurt the people we aim our compassion at although I don't believe they have). Carpet bombing Sanford and his family is decidely uncompassionate as well as unchristian.

your friend
Keith

I do not agree with your reading of the Bible (and we almost certainly don't agree on biblical inerrancy anyway), but that's a separate issue and I am not convinced from your tone that you are interested in dialogue on the issue. But I do note something interesting. You wrote:

8. Since it is clear that God did NOT place homosexuality in anyone, then by whatever claim you make to have "contracted" it, my strong advice is to get rid of it by whatever means necessary. I don't agree with Daniel that the lifestyle can be treated with medicine as it is not a disease. One must confess their sinful condition to God, recognize that Jesus Christ died for our sins and ask Him to rescue you from this most reprehensible condition. Anything else is just a temporary fix.

The thing is, I said nothing in my post to indicate my own sexual orientation and I am not gay. It seems (perhaps I am wrong here who knows) that your hostility toward gays has blinded you to the possibility of a straight man defending his gay neighbors from bigoted attack. This is a phenomenon my wife experienced from her students when they discussed California's Prop 8. They simply could not understand why straight people would oppose taking away legal rights from gays. Her students had no problem with the idea that whites could stand up for the civil rights of blacks, but standing up for gays was literally baffling to them.

You later mention my rancor, which you claim is directed not at you but at God. Well, I don't think my post has been particularly rancorous, but more to the point I do NOT have any rancor toward God. I do not believe that God agrees with you about homosexuality.

your friend
Keith

Pigs reenact Stonewall forty years later.

This is what comes from the tripe barfed up by the likes of Barry and seeker. For those of you who think things have really changed, think again. I sincerely hope that these stormtroopers are punished as severely as the law allows. (Of course, this is Texas, after all. They'll probably get medals.)

To Barry:

It is YOUR religious perversion that must be contained and prevented from infecting the young and innocent that so many Christians want to continue to have access to. You have been deceived into believing that the apparent "upper hand" you now have qualifies you to fly in the face of what is decent and morally upright before God.

You will never be able to silence the truth (in the public domain or elsewhere)or force God to accept arrogance and evil in place of good. It is unfortunate that you seem to be so far gone that you actually believe your behavior is normal and should be accepted.

So there...

It is YOUR sexual perversion that must be contained and prevented from infecting the young and innocent that so many homosexuals want to continue to have access to. You have been deceived into believing that the apparent "upper hand" you now have qualifies you to fly in the face of what is decent and morally upright before God.

You will never be able to silence the truth (in the public domain or elsewhere)or force God to accept arrogance and evil in place of good. It is unfortunate that you seem to be so far gone that you actually believe your behaviour is normal and should be accepted.

Let's establish a few fundamentals here guys. 1. Almighty God is The One Who made us and knows what's best for us. 2.The Bible teaches that we are made in His Image and Likeness Gen1:26. God is NOT perverse and cannot sin.

3.He made a man AND a woman for each other and told them to procreate, Gen 1:27&28(not another man to keep the other company). Whatever God does, Satan does the opposite, hence homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, incest and other forms of sexual deviance. Even fornication between heterosexuals will be judged, so what chance could the homosexual have of escaping judgement??

4. It is not His wish that any should perish (go to hell)but that all should come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9b(change our ways & obey Him). God is not evil and does not "set up" mankind to automatically go to hell without recourse. We all must denounce our sins (repentance)and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation John 3:16, Rom 10:9-10 &13, Rom 3:10 &23 (among others). I did and walked away from my sinful ways....so can the homosexual.

5. God hates homosexuality and the Bible refers to it as "abominable" & "wicked", Ezekiel 16:50, Genesis 19:4-14, Leviticus 18:22. God's remedy for homosexuality is ALWAYS punishment by death (nothing has changed).A time is coming when every homosexual (and sinner) will try to hide from God but will not be able to find refuge anywhere. Rev 9.

6. No homosexual will ever enter heaven 1Cor 6:9&10, Gal 5:20-21, 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Bear in mind that heaven belongs to God alone and no man has ever challenged God and won!! Before Sodom + Gomorrah were destroyed remember the earth was destroyed before that in the global flood......whether you believe or not is irrelevant; FACT is, it happened. Huge numbers of people blaspheming against God suddenly become the minority and are eventually destroyed. Gen.6:5-8

7. We all have one life to live and then judgement Hebrews. 9:27 (you don't have a spare). Our lives are merely on loan from God; it is not ours as we have no control over when we came into this world nor do we have any control over when or how we will depart; therefore, we should live our lives to please God not offend Him.

8. Since it is clear that God did NOT place homosexuality in anyone, then by whatever claim you make to have "contracted" it, my strong advice is to get rid of it by whatever means necessary. I don't agree with Daniel that the lifestyle can be treated with medicine as it is not a disease. One must confess their sinful condition to God, recognize that Jesus Christ died for our sins and ask Him to rescue you from this most reprehensible condition. Anything else is just a temporary fix.

It's quite evident that you are neither knowledgeable nor adept at understanding and using God's Word 2 Tim 2:15.
Homosexuals like to use the word "bigot" as a attempt to insult others, but in this instance I will gladly accept that adjective as these are clearly NOT my personal views but rather the Word of God that stands in judgement against all who support such a lifestyle. Research the scripture passages yourself for the truth.

Your rancour is not against me or others who rightly reject this lifestyle; but against God, and I hope that everyone will draw upon God's love and repent while there is still time. There are enough nice girls out there for every man on the planet, so reject the filthy lifestyle (its really nasty & unhealthy) and let us serve God as true men!!

The only perversion or handicap or dysfunction on display here is religious fundamentalism. I pity the poor sufferers of this condition like seeker. I don't know whether it's genetic (ie, "inborn") or a chosen lifestyle or a combination of the two. However, I urge sufferers like seeker to get help for his malady. There much be religious deprogrammers who can be employed to rescue him from this serious and destructive lifestyle. Until we can rescue these poor unfortunates, however, we must seek to keep their influence out of the public sector (eg, schools, media, government, etc.) lest they infect and destroy our beloved country (like such religious fundamentalists have in Iran).

As usual, Aaron deflects criticism back at his critic, thus avoiding the topic entirely. He always does this when cornered. That's why I call it the "Aaron Defense."

After years of this futile roundelay, I have come to the conclusion that it's pointless to argue with him on this topic. As a religiously-motivated person, he looks to the teachings of his version of his religion rather for guidance rather than reason or the experience of others. And there is no arguing with a religiously-motivated person for their source is "God" and therefore unassailable. I'm through.

I wasn't trying to trick our friend Barry (I usually DON'T try to trick people. USUALLY I don't:-). My point was this, really. Barry made the (in my opinion outrageous and unfounded) claim that homosexuality is caused EITHER by (a) being molested or (b) inner perversion--nothing else causes homosexuality, so says Barry. Specifically Barry denies that anyone is born a homosexual--those in category B choose to BE homosexuals, so says Barry. That's what I was trying to understand logically. A non-perverted person does not choose to be perverted (as a matter of logic choosing to be perverted would itself be a sign of perversion). So it seems to me that as a matter of logic, Barry's claim that gays choose to BE gay is logically incoherent. No doubt gays DO choose when they choose to act on their sexual orientation and no gays would disagree.

Barry's comments were unkind as you say--unkind in the extreme I would say. Your description of homosexuality as an illness is certainly kinder. I don't agree with you about it though (as you know:-)

your friend
Keith

Holiness vs. Love? I guess I'd say there is no conflict when both are properly understood. In fact, I'd say that follows from Jesus' summation of the Law and the Prophets: Jesus said that the whole law could be summed up as: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. It seems to me Jesus was defining holiness IN TERMS of love. You might agree with me about this while still not agreeing with me on the theological ramifications of homosexuality.

your friend
Keith

>> KEITH: Are you saying they CHOSE to have this "inner perversion"?

Careful Barry, this is a trick question (though keith might not mean to be trapping you). There are at least two good (biblical) answers to this question.

1. For environmentally-rooted homosexuality, they may not have consciously chosen this coping mechanism any more than people choose, for example, codependence. But the lack of conscious choice does not mean that they lack the ability or responsibility to CHOOSE to get well and address those inner coping mechanisms now that they are adults.

2. For nature-rooted homosexuality, even if I am born with the proclivity for destructive behavior, that does not excuse me from choosing to overcome my handicap. In addition, if there is a biological underpinning to my handicap, I should want to treat it with medicines.

In both cases, though I did not choose my situation consciously (though I did unconsciously in the first scenario, for self-preservation), I still have the opportunity and responsability to choose to help myself to change and overcome my handicap.

>> KEITH: It seems to me that when you talk about their inner perversion you really just mean their inborn sexual orientation which you call "perversion".

"Perversion" would be a strong and negative word if the person had no choice - perhaps 'handicap' or 'illness' would be kinder and less bigoted (I do agree that the consistent use of 'perverse' is unkind, though as a clinical description of the morality of such activities freely chosen, such a term could be applied without pejorative intent).

I guess that's why, for the nature view, I use the term 'handicap,' and for the nurture, 'dysfunction.'

But when discussing the morality of sexual misconduct, such words as immoral, perverse, and in the case of homosexuality, against nature, are both biblical and denotatively correct, I think.

We definitely do disagree on the theological issue you raise. I think you focus on "God is love," without acknowledging and incorporating "God is holy." But I appreciate your generous attitude toward someone with whom you disagree with.

>>> Though he will exclaim with horror at this incident and deny responsibility, his beliefs are as much the direct ancestor to such atrocities as were Christian anti-semitism to Auschwitz.

So I am to blame for every atrocity committed by anyone in the history of mankind and even every act committed by non-Christians who you deem to be influenced by Christian beliefs?

You heap scorn on a Representative for tying gay marriage with economic troubles, yet you see no problem in doing the same to those with whom you disagree.

That's my problem with all these discussions Louis. You want, demand, me to see everything from your perspective. You say unless I answer every question to your liking and acquiesce to all of your public policy request that I must be hateful and a bigot. You say I have no understanding for those that disagree with you and ultimately my beliefs lead to violence against others.

I have constantly tried to go past stereotypes and explain my positions rationally. I have spoken out against Christians who participated in unfair discrimination and harassment of gay individuals. But yet, you see no need to understand me or my positions. You see no need to extend the same tolerance to me that you demand from me.

Of course not, you answer. Because you really KNOW me, better than I know myself. You know that secretly I hate gay people. You know that I really want to participate in the physical harm of gay individuals. You know that I would abort all unborn babies with a "gay gene" if I had the chance. You KNOW that I really fit the stereotype you have in your mind and you KNOW that I think of you in the same way - the gay stereotype.

It all seems to be a bit of projectionism. You refuse to see me as an individual apart from the stereotypes you have formed in your mind, so you accuse me of the same thing.

I have not been shown that my beliefs are immoral. I have been told my beliefs are immoral. There is a difference. You believe that what I believe is immoral. What makes your belief right and mine wrong? How it effects you? Then what if your belief causes me harm, does that make your belief wrong as well?

You say that it only matters what the other person thinks, not what was intended. How in the world does that make sense? If I feel your comments about Christianity and Christians are hurtful does that automatically make you wrong? Obviously, people hide behind "jokes," but there has to be some standard outside of people's feelings or everything could be determined to be discriminatory. Or does it only matter who the target is? Certain people can be attacked, while other people cannot be? Who gets to decide that? I feel certain that I will fall under the category of someone who can safely be attacked without it being wrong.

You constantly champion ideals that others should live up to in the way they relate to you, yet you either refuse to judge yourself by the same standard or you are unaware of the hypocrisy. Repeatedly here, you have stated some type of desire for physical violence against Christians. I take it as hyperbole and move on, yet you would not afford me the same. You would take it as proof of my real intentions. That's my point. If you want to be treated by a certain standard, then start applying it to everyone, including yourself.

No human being was ever "born" a homosexual, and if these persons were ever honest with themselves, they would all admit that they were either molested at some point in their lives OR chose that lifestyle out of their own inner perversion. In short, this is learned behaviour.

My comment is on the logic of the above bigoted statement. One reason a person might be homosexual (you suggest) is because of his "inner perversion". Are you saying they CHOSE to have this "inner perversion"? If so then prior to their choice they were not perverted so why would they CHOOSE to be? If they were born with this "inner perversion", then are you suggesting that those very people HAPPENED to choose homosexuality as their sin but they could have just as likely chosen, oh, burglery or cannibalism? It seems to me that when you talk about their inner perversion you really just mean their inborn sexual orientation which you call "perversion". It doesn't seem to me that you are denhying the factual claim about inate homosexuality at all.

>> BARRY: demonic and repugnant lifestyle;

I don't know if I'd say demonic, but to each his own.

>> BARRY: the solid historical and Biblical account of God's absolute judgement upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have seemingly done nothing to cause sexually deviant homosexuals to sober up and change their ways.

Yes, I agree. You might enjoy these related posts:
The Sin of Sodom - Inhospitality or Homosexuality?
The Wrath of God II - How God abandons a nation

>>BARRY: No human being was ever "born" a homosexual, and if these persons were ever honest with themselves, they would all admit that they were either molested at some point in their lives OR chose that lifestyle out of their own inner perversion. In short, this is learned behaviour.

I would agree that the majority of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, but genetic factors could play a part. That does not make it any more natural than, for example, a genetic predisposition to aggression or alcoholism. See:
Homosexuality - Genetic or Environmental?
Root Causes of Male Homosexuality
Causes of same-sex attraction

You make great points and I want to address them. Not in the order they were raised:

All this matters because it is very easy to con yourself into believing that your actions are benign or beneficial when they are actually harmful. We used to call it an ego-trip. You have to constantly check your perceptions with reality by consulting with other people and ruthless self-examination.

I agree with this completely. I often try (not frequently enough no doubt) to apply such honest appraisal of my own behvavior and attitudes precisely BECAUSE it is so easy to fool yourself. For example, it is my instinct to give people benefit of the doubt in personal encounters. Is this my Quaker "Looking for that of God in all people" (sometimes I KNOW it is) or is it my not liking confrontation (sometimes I KNOW it is)? Rationalizations are very easy.

Religious homophobes refuse to do this because they believe already they know the answer: the Bible, God, church, whatever. If they have God on their side, how can they be wrong? How do their victims challenge that?

I suspect that SOME of the anti-gay religious alsio refuse to do this because they don't want to confront the fact that their antipathy toward homosexiality is born of malice not a sincere desire to obey God. Their biblical literalism is itself a rationalization. But for those who are literalists first, it STILL may not be possible for you to rationally challenge their belief. Sometimes not even honest and respectful discussion can resolve a dispute--rationality has it's limits.

Your surgeon analogy is false: he performs his "harmful" actions on a patient - a willing victim, if you will - while the bigot, while perhaps well-meaning, inflicts pain on an unwilling person.

Then change the analogy to a child receiving surgery. Sometimes compassion and love is perfectly consistent with causing short term pain. Therefore the mere fact that pain is caused doesn't imply the cause of thr pain is malicious. Still, pain was caused and if the pain wasn't a necessary to help the victim of the pain then the victim is perfectly justified in not being consoled by the well-wishes of his ignorant "benifactor". The religious anti-gay SAYS they love you enough to warn you of your sin. Oftentimes I think they are lying to themselves abut their true motivations. But MAYBE sometimes (I am sure of it actually, I beieve I KNOW some people just like this) they are just wrong about the fact. They do in fact "love the sinner" and they recognize that all of us ARE sinners. I'd say you are within your rights to call them on their belief, you are within your rights to demand that they see the pain they cause and not hide from the reality their anti-gay laws cause you. I just don't know that you can accurately read their minds enough to know their true MOTIVATION. And if you give them benefit of the doubt about MOTIVATION, you might find that some are persuadable, at least enough so that society will no longer actually steal from you the minimum amount of decent treatment that you as a human being should be able to expect.

your friend
Keith

>> KEITH: but in every case the cure is increased spending.

The question is, by whom? The government who borrows money from the taxpayer and other nations, or individual investors who can stand to fail?

>> KEITH: I would not agree that big government is the problem.

That 'blindness' is part of the problem. The reason we created the Bill of Rights, and the reason that our founders, esp. Jefferson, would disagree with you is that they recognized that
(a) big government by its nature usurps individual freedom
(b) can lead from soft tyranny to hard
(c) subverts the REAL engines of social progress, which are individual character, responsibility, and individual industry, as well as the success of the family unit.

When part (c) above goes bad, liberals want the government to usurp the responsibilities of the individual (they say it's 'short term' but it NEVER is), while conservatives want to help restore the individual and family to health, which is not govt dependence, but personal strength and independence.

Same w/ the economy.

>> KEITH: If it For example, Norway, whose welfare state is per capita much larger than ours, actually has a higher per capita GDP that we do.

Actually, as per the NYT article below, Norway is succeeding because it did the OPPOSITE of what Obama is doing - saving instead of spending. Instead of spending its oil riches, Norway saved, and it is now growing in the midst of the global recession.

We agree, people will spend more when they have more money - but FROM EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE MONEY TO INVEST, not from the GOVERNMENT which is taking money from the PEOPLE. We don't build an economy by taking from the people we want to spend money.

We build it by LOWERING their expenses so that they invest, it's that simple.

As far as needing to jump-start the economy, it seems much smarter to me to LOWER the cost of investment rather than UP IT and try to offset that problem by BORROWING MONEY from other countries and the taxpayer in order to GIVE or LOAN the needed money back to the investor community.

That's more like one giant ponzi scheme rather than sound principle. I think it's crazy. It's like legalizing drugs to raise money to fight the drug problem. I'm sure liberals think that would work too. There is a huge difference between something that sounds counterintuitive, but works, and things that are just plain illogical - illogical is beyond 'counter-intuitive.'

I think that the problem with liberal thinking in general, esp. clear in the drunken spending of the Obama admin, is that they correctly identify problems, but not root causes, and not proper solutions. In the end, they make the problems worse, or they shift the problem somewhere else rather than seeing that the solution to MOST problems is restoring individual responsibility and freedom, the former of which involves accountability and consequences, rather then shielding people or the economy from such.

And here's why I refuse to buckle under to Aaron's position. Though he will exclaim with horror at this incident and deny responsibility, his beliefs are as much the direct ancestor to such atrocities as were Christian anti-semitism to Auschwitz. J'Accuse!

Your surgeon analogy is false: he performs his "harmful" actions on a patient - a willing victim, if you will - while the bigot, while perhaps well-meaning, inflicts pain on an unwilling person.

This reminds me of a sexual harassment seminar I had to take for work. We learned that it doesn't matter what's in the harassers mind (ie, his intention) but how his victim perceives the action. The harasser can believe his actions to be mere "kidding around" or benign or even beneficial, it doesn't matter. All that matters is how the recipient of his attentions experiences the actions.

All this matters because it is very easy to con yourself into believing that your actions are benign or beneficial when they are actually harmful. We used to call it an ego-trip. You have to constantly check your perceptions with reality by consulting with other people and ruthless self-examination. Religious homophobes refuse to do this because they believe already they know the answer: the Bible, God, church, whatever. If they have God on their side, how can they be wrong? How do their victims challenge that?

Sorry, Keith, though I admire your desire to go the extra mile to find the good in everybody, sometimes you have to call them out and demand change.

To this I can only reply that believing hx to be a "sin" is evidence of malice towards gays, and that their supposed compassion is self-delusion. I can tell you this because I see it from the other side, as the object of their "compassion." I know malice when I feel it. It doesn't matter what they think they are doing at all: what matters is what they are actually doing. I recall reading about the Inquisitors using torture and fire on "heretics" thinking they were being compassionate because they were saving their victims' souls. How could anyone in their right minds judge this as anything but self-delusion and repressed malice?

Definitely, what matters to the victim is what actually is done, not what the person doing the deed thinks he is doing. But I think I can sum up what I am saying by answering your last question. Consider the Inquisitor who tortures heretics to (supposedly) save their souls. How could their actions be anything but self-delusion AND repressed malice? By being NON- self delusions brought about by a wrong belief about a fact. The mere fact that an action causes pain doesn't mean the inflicter harbors malice toward the victim, otherwise all surgeons would be malicious. You point out that a healthy tree doesn't produce poisonous fruit and that the fruit anti-gay theology has caused suffering and death. I agree; I do not agree with anti-gay theology, the same as I don't agree with racist theology.

your friend
Keith

Keith:"...it seems to me that a person could (wrongly) believe that homosexuality was a sin while at the same time having a compassionate ATTITUDE toward gays--explicitly NOT being malicious toward gays."

To this I can only reply that believing hx to be a "sin" is evidence of malice towards gays, and that their supposed compassion is self-delusion. I can tell you this because I see it from the other side, as the object of their "compassion." I know malice when I feel it. It doesn't matter what they think they are doing at all: what matters is what they are actually doing. I recall reading about the Inquisitors using torture and fire on "heretics" thinking they were being compassionate because they were saving their victims' souls. How could anyone in their right minds judge this as anything but self-delusion and repressed malice?

Keith: "How would you SHOW the immorality of his belief?"

The answer is so obvious that I'm stunned that I need to point it out. I would show it by pointing out the results of his belief. A healthy tree doesn't produce poisonous fruit. And the fruit of homophobia, no matter how innocently held, is suffering and death to its victims. To me, this is the bottom line where morality is concerned. I suppose a true believer (or a fanatic absolutist) would say that God decides what is moral, but since religions constantly produce conflicting ideas of God's will, I prefer a more pragmatic approach.

You wrote: He is if he has been shown, time and again, that his belief are immoral and malicious.

But Louis how do you show his moral belief is IMMORAL? Presumably you'd be applying some OTHER moral principle, but how would you show him that his different moral principle is wrong? IMO, moral principles are about compassion and love, and it seems to me that a person could (wrongly) believe that homosexuality was a sin while at the same time having a compassionate ATTITUDE toward gays--explicitly NOT being malicious toward gays. How would you SHOW the immorality of his belief? To use an analogy: suppose a person thinks that the blue car over there is his but suppose he's wrong on the fact. Acting on his belief, the person drives off in the car. Technically he stole the car and his taking of the car damages the real owner. But he was not acting immorally, he just made a mistake.

This idea that there's some kind of pristine innocents out there who haven't heard anything about real, live gay people and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for these evil beliefs is absurd.

I honestly don't get your point here. What observation should he have made to show that God didn't divinely reveal that homosexuality was a sin? I do want to reiterate: I don't agree that homosexuality is a sin. The Bible declares that God is love and that wherever love is, God is also. The gay relationships I have personally encountered seem to me to be every bit as loving as heterosexual relationships that I know of. So whatever it is the Bible means when it refers to what is translated as "homosexual" in modern translations, I do not believe it is referring to gay marriages. But it seems to me that for a person who for whatever reason believes that those anti-gay interpretations are God's own words, it's not ignorance of homosexuals that is the problem. It is a mistaken theology (they would no doubt disagree with my theology).

And, in the case of Aaron, after years of contact with my opinions, certainly doesn't qualify. His beliefs concerning gay people and our rights to equal treatment are evil. End.

His beliefs lead him to oppose marriage equality, and that leads to your rights being denied. So I can certainly understand your saying his BELIEFS are evil--his beliefs take away your rights. But IMO beliefs (that is, thinking X is true rather than false) are neither moral nor immoral. They are either correct or incorrect, they are head things. But morality is a heart thing. At least that's how I see it.

your friend
Keith

btw: A new axis of evil to worry about.

I really am getting sick of the idiots (speaking of which, I wonder if Rep. Sally is joining?).

(Sorry a little more commentary got lost because I ran out of time to edit.)

This is one reason why I am so suspicious of certain types of Christianity: it enables its adherent to clothe his evil in righteousness and inoculates him against reason. Thus, he can tell himself that he's not committing an evil act when he is clearly doing so because it's "the will of God" (especially when the type of religion is legalistic as we see here). Aaron and seeker and Rep. Sally Kern of Oklahoma (southern, white, Republican, "Christian") do so with a clean conscience because their religion tells them so.

btw: Why Sally Kern? Read the proclamation she introduced and weep (or cheer, I suppose):

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national
moral crisis; and
WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion,
pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and
many other forms of debauchery; and
WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking
the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and
WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused
to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of
Prayer; and
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States
disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to
an immoral behavior;

What caused the economic crisis? Gay People!

I really have tried to reach out to the likes of Aaron (I've long since given up on stinker), but it's a fool's errand.

What you oppose of what you think is my opinion is not stereotypes. It is not a stereotype of gays to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is an attitude and position on marriage, not on gay individuals. The idea that people can change is one born out by individuals (both who have become straight and those who have become gay).

Oh, please! This kind of hypocritical misinformation just makes me want to gag! What else can your marriage position be but about gays? If there were no gays who wanted to get married, would it even be an issue. Of course, it's about gay individuals! Everything comes down to individuals; every issue, every political/social/religion is about individuals. If it isn't, it involves the abuse and destruction of the individual. Your attempt to excuse yourself from the ramifications of your beliefs concerning hx is, at best, self-delusion and, at worst, participation in evil. As far as I'm concerned, the belief that gay people can be turned straight by your "therapy" is, ipso facto, proof of stereotyping and bigotry. I'm sorry, but a hard, bright line must finally be drawn on this issue: the entire legitimate psychological field has agreed that such "therapy" is impossible and extremely harmful to the individuals bullied into it. Too, it betrays a swamp of assumptions about hx and hx persons that are, in and of themselves, bigoted. Why else promote "conversion" if you didn't believe the negative stereotypes and fallacious theories re: hx? The fact that you cannot or will not see this has forced me to conclude that you inhabit a totally different, alien weltanshauung which precludes understanding or communication.

Keith: ...IMO the good-willed bigot is not IMMORAL for his erroneous belief.

He is if he has been shown, time and again, that his belief are immoral and malicious. This idea that there's some kind of pristine innocents out there who haven't heard anything about real, live gay people and therefore cannot be held morally responsible for these evil beliefs is absurd. And, in the case of Aaron, after years of contact with my opinions, certainly doesn't qualify. His beliefs concerning gay people and our rights to equal treatment are evil. End.

>>> Stings, doesn't it? Stereotyping and prejudice always does when you're the victim of it.

How often have I spoke here about the need for conservative and Christians to move past the stereotypes of gays. You know I have, so don't pin those on me.

What you oppose of what you think is my opinion is not stereotypes. It is not a stereotype of gays to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is an attitude and position on marriage, not on gay individuals. The idea that people can change is one born out by individuals (both who have become straight and those who have become gay).

>>> You may think you are exempt from criticism because you are sincere in your beliefs, but you aren't. If you don't want to be labeled unjustly, stop doing it to others.

You are sorely mistaken if you think I hold myself exempt from criticism because of sincerity. Sincerity doesn't mean much apart from truth to me. I have no problem with you criticizing me or my positions, as long as I believe you are doing it fairly. But even if you do it unfairly, that is your right as it is mine to challenge you on it.

You may believe that I label you unjustly, but I don't believe I have ascribed gay stereotypes to you. If you can find places I have done so, please bring those to my attention.

I do think we (everyone) could have much better dialogue on issues if we dropped thinking of the other person in terms of what stereotype they belong. That goes for all of us.

This is where the rubber meets the road as it were. Here's my take. A person might believe that God has revealed that homosexual behavior is sinful WITHOUT that person holding any stereotypes about gays at al. He could easily have no idea WHAT is sinful about homosexuality and hold no malice toward gays. You would (understandably and quite properly IMO) disagree with that religious belief and even consider such a theology to be the moral equivalent to the racist belief that some other person's race is inferior. It seems to me that such a person COULD be a person of good WILL with a bad BELIEF. Your reaction might be (and maybe this reaction is perfectly proper): it doesn't matter if the person IS of good will, his loathsome belief hurts me and lots of decent people and is worthy of condemnation. But (this is my opinion mind you) morality is a FUNCTION of will--good will or bad will--and IMO the good-willed bigot is not IMMORAL for his erronious belief.

your friend
Keith

>>> On the other hand what Louis is saying about true Christians seems pretty true--he is saying that bigotry and judgmentalism is NOT the mark of a true Christian, sacrificial love is.

Agreed very much. We are just going to disagree who that is manifest in the lives of individuals. Christianity is not a faith of bigotry, but of love. But often love is tough as it does not shy from calling a sin a sin. It does not discriminate either in calling out the sins of others or of the sins of oneself.

However, as a southern, white Conservative, I have to say that he does not speak for me anymore than idiot stereotypes speak for Californians or gays or minorities or Democrats or liberals, etc.

Stings, doesn't it? Stereotyping and prejudice always does when you're the victim of it. You might think about that next time you advocate "conversion therapy" for gays, or espouse certain "Biblical" attitudes towards hx, or oppose equal treatment in issues like marriage or military service. These positions you hold are based on inaccurate and unjust stereotypes of hx, and when you voice them I get the same feeling you describe above. You may think you are exempt from criticism because you are sincere in your beliefs, but you aren't. If you don't want to be labeled unjustly, stop doing it to others.

Yuo wrote (about Louis calling Obama a true Christian):

Don't I get in trouble when I try to say who is a "true Christian?" How do you, someone who admittedly no longer considers himself a Christian, get to determine that?

You make a great point here. Honestly, who's true and who's not is pretty much something visible only to God. On the other hand what Louis is saying about true Christians seems pretty true--he is saying that bigotry and judgmentalism is NOT the mark of a true Christian, sacrificial love is. You and he might disagree on a lot of issues (even deeply fundamental issues) but I know you agree about the supremacy of love over bigotry. That's one of the reasons I like you so much:-)

your friend
Keith

>>> He is a man who truly understands the struggles and suffering of his fellow human beings, and who puts this understanding ahead of ideological dogmas (in this, he is a true Christian).

Don't I get in trouble when I try to say who is a "true Christian?" How do you, someone who admittedly no longer considers himself a Christian, get to determine that?

I agree, from your perspective, that Obama gave a good speech. But what will happen beyond that in terms of action. That has been the case against him since the beginning. He is a man of unquestionable charisma, charm and eloquence, but his actions rarely if ever live up to his rhetoric.

He has said that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He won't overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He is defending DOMA in court. How is that so much different, in terms of results, from Bush or a Republican. Again, I agree the speech sounds great for gay rights. He even said, "We’ve been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

Does that seem to indicate that he will only seek to pursue action on those issues that are important to you if he is elected to a second term and does not have to face the electorate again?

I think Obama, like virtually every other politician (Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal), wants to SAY as much as possible in support of their voting blocs while DOING as little as possible.

>>> Of course, consider the source, southern, white, Republican.

Can northern, minority, Democrats not say and do stupid things? I doesn't excuse the idiot in SC for the stupid remark. He is a moron who should lose any political job or influence he has. It was an offensive statement. He shouldn't have to say, "If I offended anyone," it was offensive.

However, as a southern, white Conservative, I have to say that he does not speak for me anymore than idiot stereotypes speak for Californians or gays or minorities or Democrats or liberals, etc.

I can go pull up a horrific, derogatory image of Sarah Palin done by some Democrats. I can even do the same for one that a Democrat activist and state party blogger did distorting the face of her down's syndrome baby, Trig. I can pull some images that Democrats did putting black face on Republicans. The ones with Condi Rice were horrible. Do those speak to the same ills being present within every Democrat or liberal? Of course not.

I could have posted links to all those in a post and made some statement about how could liberal Democrats look at themselves in the mirror, let alone lecture anyone else on tolerance.

None of that changes who's a moron and who's not. I'm not going to use their sins and idiocy to tar and slime you. But what you do with the stereotypes of Republicans is up to you.

your friend
Keith

Yesterday was the anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, generally recognized as the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. President Obama spoke to a group of gay people and our supporters in a moving tribute to those who began and continue this movement for liberty and justice for all. This is why, though disappointed at the pace of his actions, I still support him. He is a man who truly understands the struggles and suffering of his fellow human beings, and who puts this understanding ahead of ideological dogmas (in this, he is a true Christian). All I hear from Republicans and other conservatives is NO! in every form it is possible to speak that monosyllable. Well, they have had their time in power and have failed (miserably). Obama speaks for the future, and for those of us who seek true justice.

It's IMO very simple IMO. If people save more (and consequently save less) this sends a signal to each business that is no longer selling as much of its product as before: reduce your output because demand for your product is decreasing. People lose work, spend less, and this spiral continues. That's how a certain class of recessions happen (this is different from the Carter/Reagan recession deliberately induced by the Fed to squeeze inflation from the economy). The depth of the recession depends on circumstances, but in every case the cure is increased spending. In the present conditions only the government is in the position TO spend more. Government spending is what ultimately got us out of the Great Depression (we called that stimulus package WW II).

I would not agree that big government is the problem. If it For example, Norway, whose welfare state is per capita much larger than ours, actually has a higher per capita GDP that we do. But that's actually a separate issue from fiscal stimulus. We can debate at some other point the optimum size and proper role of government in general. But right now we are in a fiscal emergency and the question of how much economic stimulus the economy needs is a technical matter and ought not be an ideological question. Paul Krugman has not been an ideologue on economic matters, which is why he has under other circumstances opposed the left position on free trade (actually he still supports free trade) on fiscal stimulus ( agrees with conservatives that monetary policy is the better stabilization tool, but that tool isn't available in the crisis we have now). Krugman is definitely a liberal, but he approaches his economics like a scientist.

your friend
Keith

EL:

You have been misinformed:

1. Hitler was not a Christian - he claimed to be, but his religious ideas were far from Christian, and he actually shut down Christian churches and persecuted them. His private conversations show that he was merely being a propagandist, and despised biblical Christianity. You should not take hitler at his word, but look at the facts. Look up Dietrich Bonhoeffer. See Atheist Atrocities.

2. The Dark Ages - that term was a fabrication of anti-Catholic enlightenment historians. The Middle ages were anything but dark, and despite the abuses of the sick Catholic Church, Christianity from the end of the first millenium set the stage for the rise of science during and after the reformation, and there were many scientific advances during that time. See The biblical origins of science.

3. The Inquisition, though related to religion, was really a political action by the King and Queen of Spain. See Answering the 'crimes' of Christianity. Also see The Real History of the Crusades.

4. Witch trials - a sad outlier in Christian history, not a mainstay. See the above reference to The biblical origins of science for some perspective on that.

5. Gay Bashing - while such has happened, gay bashing happens as much as, say, adultery bashing - they are both sinful in Christian eyes, though bashing is not encouraged, moral clarity on such sins is.

6. Racism and Slavery - actually, the vaunted 'secular' and pagan Roman and Greek societies were some of the worst, and I remind you that, though some bible thumpers did try to support racism and slavery with scripture, it was Christianity that conquered slavery and racism in the west. No other ideolgy did so - in fact, Darwinism supported it heartily, as well as eugenics.

If those are you vanguard, you are doing much worse than Christianity. And don't forget that Hitler's eugenics were given scientific validity by Darwinism, as were Marx's. Such murderous ideas all hang together, imo.

You see, most of these problems you outline above are artifacts, not of Christianity, but of fallen man.

You will note that even today the freest, most humanistic socities in the world are the ones affected by Protestantism, while the most cruel and poor are those that have histories of strong atheism, Darwinism, not to mention Hinduism and Buddhism (the latter of which I respect in some ways).

The fact is, most of the positive morality, science, and intellectual rigor we have in the west is due to Protestant Christianity. Christianity not only led in abolitionism, but in the creation of hospitals, and Universities. Most of the Universities in America, including the eight Ivy League schools, were all started as Protestant missionary training schools. Of course, most have gone secular since then.

My point is that atheism is intellectually and morally bankrupt, creates havoc in society, and fails utlimately to give meaning or objective value. It is the worldview of those who reject anything outside of their own reason and intellect. Poor indeed!

Keith, if nothing else, I am glad that those like Krugman take the liberal economic insanity to its logical conclusion rather than playing coy.

'We don't need to just get 4x as in debt as the Bush admin, we need to get many more times in debt! Economies are simple - they work by over leveraged companies with negative net worths - hey, Ponzi schemes work great!' (Madof reference).

I'm not really saying that socialist liberal economics are ponzi schemes per se, but they not only sound non-intuitive, I think that they are largely ludicrous, except where they share common principles with the same basic economics as conservative economics.

To say that conservative economics have failed is just a ploy, not based on real data. Most of the European economies are failing for other reasons, chief of which I suspect is their Socialist welfare systems which run out of other peoples' money in two generations.

While macro economics is both simple AND complex, and not just individual economics scaled up, it boggles my mind that anyone could, with a straight face, say 'we need to spend WAY more!' It seems totally bass ackwards! And I am far from convinced that it is sound rather than bewitchingly stupid.

1.In WW II our national debt was 120% of GDP. For Obama's plan to be 3 times as expensive we'd have to have a debt that nearly 4 times our GDP. No CREDIBLE economist thinks that.

2. If most of the borrowed money will be used to finance the regular budget, that means that without the money we could not come close to financing the regular budget. That would indicate just HOW much stimulating the economy needs, and just how bad it would be to refuse to stimulate.

3. Social Security would be the (small)problem it is even if we had not needed to stimulate the economy. Medicare would be the same (big) problem it is even if we had not needed to stimulate the economy. But WITHOUT stimulating the economy our economy would be wasting lots of productive capacity (that's what happens during Great Depressions) so we'd be less able to provide for our elderly than with the stimulus.

4. Investment the world OVER is down because we are in a global recession. That's why we need a world wide stimulus. Germany is not helping because Merkel's failed right wing economics doesn't work.

5. The way the free market economy works is that companies only hire people to make stuff if the stuff will sell. Since private spending has dropped so drastically, companies quit making so much, and consequently laid off workers, which dropped spending even more causing a vicious cycle. Government is the only entity in a position to get the economy going again by spending which is why we need deficits right now. If we were already producing as much as we could, all that extra spending would cause prices to rise, but that's not the situation we are in. And I would argue that high unemployment the shredded safety net policy we'd have to impose if we opted against the stimulus would be much worse than inflation anyway--unless you rich.

your friend
Keith

your

5.

What gets me about these comments is that, once caught, these cretins always try to appear as if they are apologizing when, in fact, they are not:

"I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

If I offended anyone? Obviously he did or there wouldn't be any problem. It's really a defiant non-apology and an attempt to slither past the situation without admitting guilt. An apology is worthless unless you admit that what you did was clearly wrong and you are repentant.

Of course, consider the source, southern, white, Republican.

Well, let's see, shall we have another Great Depression or more debt? Hoover or Keynes? The right-wing doesn't give a damn if massive bread lines and social suffering follow because their discredited theories are all that matter. Inflation isn't the problem, deflation is. Fortunately, we have neither.

My opinion is that, even if McCain had won, we'd be following much the same path, except that the rightwing nutjobs would be cheering instead of carping (which is all they have, losers).

Perhaps you should engage the argument rather than the pithy ending which I was using as an anecdote, not evidence.

well, if your mom says it, it must be true. Now I'm scared. I think I'll turn Republican (straight too - you never can tell!).

How do white male southern conservatives manage to look at themselves in the mirror, let alone presuming to lecture the rest of us on morality?

You are an idiot. Hitler was a Christian and wanted a purely christian society, that would have worked well huh? And let's not forget about that timeframe where the church ruled society, we call it the dark ages, because that was a success, right? What about the inquisition, the witch trials, the gay bashing, racism, all products of a religious society. So you found evidence of some guy who wanted to start a freethought society and failed, religion fails at every turn and has the most blimished history of any human created organization. Do us all a favor; if god is so great and heaven is the most wonderful place imaginable, take off and go to heaven.