Allen & NJ (PS: I'm Still Alive)

| | Comments (71) | TrackBacks (0)

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

I've been MIA at NOVA TH for months now due to my decision to commit what free time I have to supporting the Virginia Marriage Amendment and thus work to ensure that marriage is not left unnecessarily vulnerable to judicial activism and that the Commonwealth does not sanction (via judicial edict) a relationship designed to willfully deny children a mother or a father.

It’s been quite exhilarating to see the enthusiastic response to our efforts to protect marriage in Virginia as well as to witness the rejection of the anti-Marriage Amendment crowd’s increasingly desperate and absurd declarations and obfuscations. Less than 2 weeks to go! Everyone should get out there and work hard because our opponents and their paid staff are certainly doing so… we can take nothing for granted!

Anyways… just wanted to quickly post Senator Allen’s response to the decision of four unelected New Jersey judges to force same-sex unions on that state’s residents (precisely what the Marriage Amendment is designed to protect against). Here it is, in full:

For Immediate Release: October 25, 2006 Contact: Press Office 703.845.3689

Senator Allen’s Statement on New Jersey Supreme Court Ruling

ARLINGTON, VA – Senator Allen issued the following statement in response to today’s ruling by the Supreme Court of New Jersey that legalizes same-sex marriage:

“Today’s decision by the NJ Supreme Court is another example of activist judges inventing the law and subverting the will of the people. This is why I support the marriage amendment, because it will protect the values and views of the people of Virginia from judges who would want to impose their elitist views on us. This is a clear difference between my opponent and me – I support protecting marriage from judges who do not understand their role: to interpret the law, not invent the law. My opponent does not.

“My opponent says that this amendment would infringe upon the rights of ordinary Virginians, and he opposes it. But I and many members of the Virginia Assembly joined in asking the Attorney General of Virginia to render an opinion. His response: ‘I can find no legal basis for the proposition that passage of the marriage amendment will limit or infringe upon the ordinary civil and legal rights of unmarried Virginians’.

“This amendment does exactly what it says it does; it defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and I’m for marriage between a man and a woman while my opponent is against it.”

— # # # —

Now get off your computer and start making calls and knocking on doors! Sign up here.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Allen & NJ (PS: I'm Still Alive).

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/673

71 Comments

Kevin said:

"elitist views" ROFL!

good to see you back from the arduous trail

Bill Garnett said:

Sorry but I don’t agree. Democracy is far from perfect - as anyone who has read from our founders’ writings will agree. And certainly there exists the tyranny of the majority - which is essentially what opposition to gay rights is, now that science and medicine have concluded that homosexuality is a state of being and NOT a moral choice. Perhaps you think it was “activist judges” that stopped segregation or allowed mixed marriages or found in Lawrence v. State of Texas a right of privacy. We have a three part balanced government, and having the wisdom of independent and wise judges is often a balance against the tyranny of the majority and the hypocrisy of our recent elected officials.

Greg L said:

PM if you can. I need more campaign material.

zimzo said:

It's great to see that you think it's worthy to spend so much energy working to deny rights to people who love each other. What kind of a world would it be without people like you.

charles said:

If so, Bill, why are gay men disproportionately abused as children? Is it that other gay men recognize gayness at a young age and therefore single out the gay boys?

Charles R said:

zimzo, nobody is denying anybody the rights to anything, much less "people who love each other".

We are seeking to protect the unique institution of marriage as the foundation of society, being the biological unit of a man and a woman producing the next generation.

That basic building block of society is important enough that government encourages it by recognition of what has already existed for thousands of years in the history of man -- marriage.

That special recognition serves a compelling government interest, that of encouraging people to get married, have families, and raise those families in a societal unit.

While some people can take advantage of that recognition without providing all the benefits to society that we expect from marriage does not negate the purpose of government recognition.

Government has no compelling reason to provide special recognition to same-sex couples. Just like government might provide incentives to people who do what government wants them to do, without having to give those same benefits to others.

For example, if I buy a Prius, government would give me a tax credit. And if I pay for a special license plate, I can use the HOV lanes.

But what if my neighbor wants a different car? Why shouldn't my neighor get the same "rights" as I have? Why discriminate?

Simple -- because government has a compelling interest in encouraging some things, and NOT encouraging other things.

There is a great tolerance for the gay lifestyle in today's society, even among those of us who find the behavior abhorent and harmful to society.

But we can tolerate a lifestyle and yet not want government to encourage that lifestyle.

Bill Garnett said:

Charles, I do not know the answer to your question, nor am I familiar with the research you suggest. Nor do I see the relevance to the question of whether to vote yes or no on the Marshall/Newman marriage amendment.

However, the following are conclusions of he American Psychological Association after decades of peer reviews studies:

Homosexuality Is A Normal Variant Of Human Sexual Orientation

Legal Discrimination Against Gay People And Same-Sex Couples
Reinforces And Perpetuates The Stigma Historically Associated With
Homosexuality.

Gay Men And Lesbians Form Stable, Committed Relationships That
Are Equivalent To Heterosexual Relationships In Essential Respects.

Gay and Lesbian Parents Are as Fit and Capable as Heterosexual
Parents, and Their Children Are as Psychologically Healthy and Well
Adjusted.

By Singling Out Same-Sex Relationships as Inferior, the State Harms
the Children of Those Couples.

I suggest that we as a democracy approach this subject with rational debate and not legislate on the basis of bias, religious belief, or ignorance.

zimzo said:

Charles R, if it makes it easier for you to sleep at night believing you are "protecting marriage" (from what exactly?) and not denying rights to people who love each other (including, by the way, unmarried straight people), then you go right ahead and believe that. Of course, your line about "tolerating" a "lifestyle" and not wishing to "encourage" it reveals the actual homophobic agenda behind what you say.

Charles, please stop making stuff up. Gays are not disproportionately abused as children. 90% of abuse is by men of girls as I have already pointed out time and time again.

Kevin said:

Hey Charles, I'm also not familiar with the statistics you've alleged. Not saying they don't exist, just not familiar. Likely, though I'm just as unfamiliar, that you'll find statistics that nullify the statistics you cite. I think the reason there is so much debate on the topic is that stats have only served to explode the factors for consideration, not diminish them. You will not find, except maybe in disreputable literature, a study that states abuse (and I don't know if you are implying sexual, physical, emotional, or all 3) causes homosexuality. You will also not find, yet, a study that states genes cause it either. To assert that either are True is only to treat the subject with what amounts to a cursory glance. It could be said that there is a reason to believe that the cause has a biological component to it and that it's expression is shaped by life's events or experiences but nobody even knows whether that is an accurate assessment either.

Strictly following your treatment of the subject however would require you to exclude the number of children who have been abused (in whatever way you are addressing) who fail to identify themselves as homosexual. So that's where that theory sort of comes off the hinges. You can play around the same way with the strict genetics argument. . .nothing personal.

Bill Garnett said:

And Charles, I suggest that your argument that the government is protecting the historical institution of marriage is merely a straw man.

We both know that the Republican Party is using socially explosive issues to energize the authoritatively controlled evangelical fundamentalists to motivate them to go to the polls where they will coincidently check off every Republican on the ballot. It is a tried and true Karl Rove type disingenuous ploy that has unfortunately worked in elections across the country.

Marriage has changed, women were until recently, even in America, merely chattel, controlled totally by their husbands, and certainly unequal. Women have gained equality in relationships and equality under the law. They are not homebound and interracial marriage is now legal. Marriage has changed, as the populous has become more understanding and better educated on the subject. Marriage today in America is the relationship of two adults who are attracted to each other, care for each other, and want to make a commitment to each other – whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

It has only been in recent decades that the reality of homosexuality in the human species (and in 1500 other species, by the way) has emerged. The world is no longer flat.

You state that homosexual “behavior (is) abhorrent and harmful to society”. You grudgingly suggest that homosexuals can be “tolerated”. Perhaps you are jaundiced by the stereotypes of drag queens, promiscuous sex, and effeminacy. But the 250,000 gays and lesbians in Virginia hardly fit those stereotypes. They are no different than you – except for their sexual orientation, and the fact that they live there lives mostly in the shadows, imposed by the bias, prejudice, intolerance and ignorance of people like you.

This intolerance hurts gays, hurts their families, and hurts their children. If you want to talk about abhorrent behavior, I suggest you start with your heterosexual behavior where 50% of all marriages end in divorce, where out of wedlock children are the norm, and where sex outside of loving and caring relationships is rampant.

Enlightened countries have given full citizenship civil rights to gays in The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Canada, Massachusetts – and additionally many other countries and states allow civil unions for gay couples. Young people and educated people in our country now support full civil rights for gays and lesbians. And to engrave discrimination into our Bill of Rights such that future generations of Virginians will be saddled with this type of legacy legislation is far from the promise of equality and fairness on which this country was founded.

Bill,

By the same logic 5 men and 5 women or me and my buddy Fred should all qualify for marriage benefits simply because 10 years ago none of these arrangements would have been legal. With the passage of time everything becomes legitimate.

Soph, welcome back. No one gets the conversation going like old Soph.

Jack said:

I was under the impression, zimzo, that 1 in 4 girls, and 1 in 7 boys, were sexually abused (http://www.therapistfinder.net/Child-Abuse/Child-Abuse-Statistics.html). Furthermore, the current estimate is that 10% of child molesters are female (http://hometown.aol.com/pbanning/Break-C/BC-Ch5.htm).

Now, using these numbers, and assuming that females abuse ONLY male children, men still abuse boys 30% of the time, and girls 70% of the time. Using the HIGH estimate of 10% gay population, we see that gays are 3 times as likely to be child molesters as are straight men.

Where did you get your "90% of abuse is by men of girls" figure?


Jack said:

Garnett said, "Homosexuality Is A Normal Variant Of Human Sexual Orientation."

What the heck is a "normal variant"? Something is either normal, or it is variant. Even accepting the inflated number of 10% of the population's being gay, 10% does not make "normal."

Kevin said:

Jack, I would suggest that differences in hair colors are quite normal variants.

Also, and I'm not attacking but merely pointing out, you seem to take great leaps (as do others including myself) in your statistical analysis. I'd rather you find a reputable study to support that "we see that gays are 3 times as likely to be child molesters than straight men". You should also be fair and report that there are a GREAT many victims of sexual abuse who never report; males tend to report a bit less than women, for instance. Then you can factor in the resistance to reporting sexual abuse within specific cultures, etc. etc.

Jack said:

Kevin:

In fact, differences in hair color are NOT normal. Look worldwide. What percentage of people have blonde hair? Fewer still have red hair. Blondes and redheads are a genetic aberration.

I was in a lecture by a geneticist last year, and he was discussing brown and blue eyes. I asked about my green eyes. He said, "You're a mutant."

How do you know that males report abuse less often than females do? In any event, that would simple increase the percentage of male-on-male molestation. I was trying to take numbers that were most favorable to gays, as the best-case scenario.

Kevin said:

First of all, Jack, I find it suspect that you were trying to take ACTUAL numbers that were most favorable to gays, I mean, come on. Let's call a spade a spade.

Second of all, it should be noted that you have declared yourself a mutant, and that cannot go ignored.

Thirdly, you can't, in an honest way, consider the entire population of Gods good creation and state that there are no normal variations of skin color, eye color, etc. etc. etc., that the majority is normal while the minorities (variations) are mutants. Maybe you meant to say something different but your presentation is what's misleading?

At any rate, you can't have a population without a normal variation within it. Unless you believe God made us all to be exactly alike. If that's how you feel though you might have to rule out that we are each bestowed with different gifts. You might have the gift of rocket science, while I might have the gift of . . . creating an entirely mundane blog?

Jack said:

Suspect all you want, Kevin. Try to find numbers more favorable to gays.

There is certainly a range of hair color in the population. However, the vast majority of the world -- Asians, Africans, Semites, and Latinos -- have Black hair and dark eyes. Only Northern Europeans seem to have the genes for blonde hair and blue and green eyes in enough of the population to be a significant percentage. Having blonde hair and blue eyes makes one a "2-sigma outlier," far from the "norm."

(My apologies to statisticans, since the distributions in question are certainly not Gaussian.)

Yes, black hair and dark eyes are normal, and we blondes and redheads with light eyes are mutants.

zimzo said:

I think Sophrosene should use this photo:
http://jenee.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/image005a.jpg

And here's some more:
http://jenee.net/a-perfect-union

charles said:

You've turned my argument upside down, silly people.

I'm not arguing that most abusers are gay.

I'm arguing that a disproportionate number of gay men report being abused as children.

For example, this study: http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114645.html

"The study, published in the April issue of Child Abuse & Neglect, found that about one fifth (20.6%) of all MSMs experienced childhood sexual abuse--a rate that is higher than prevalence estimates for the general male population."

So the question is, why is it that gay men were abused at a higher rate as children than the general population?

Is it that they were easily identifiable by gay men as being gay, and therefore chosen?

Or is it that having been subject to sexual abuse as a child will be a factor in making a person gay?

The 2nd couldn't be true if being gay was purely genetic.

I don't believe being gay is purely genetic, and frankly I don't care that the APA thinks differently, they are not in my opinion an unbiased scientific source of information.

I think a lot of people (a lot more than care to admit it) can find sexual gratification and attraction with either sex, to some degree.

And that non-genetic factors can therefor push people to decide they are more comfortable seeking gratification from same-sex relationships rather than opposite-sex relationships.

However the human brain is wired, it doesn't behave in black and white patterns as is suggested by the "gayness is genetic" crowd.

The simplest indication of that is that a heterosexual man will enjoy kissing and having sexual contact with another man, if that other man is dressed like a woman. Obviously if gayness was a genetic physiological response, a heterosexual man would not be attracted to another man simply because of how they look -- there must be a mental attitude involved, and we KNOW that the mental attitude of what is physically attractive is a TRAINED, and not a genetic, trait.


Further, there simply is not enough delineation between the species in regard to mental acuity, emotional response, or even physical description to allow for a genetic predisposition to a "type" to require sexual activity within the gender.

To put that more clearly, there are men who are mentally, physically, and emotional more like "women" than the average woman, and vice-versa.

A man might marry a very "butch" woman, and other than the sexual organs that woman may be more "manly" in every way than half the men he knows.

We also know that physically men who say they are gay can be physically aroused to orgasm by normal sexual activity with a female -- thus leading to many gay men having families with children.

And since I, as a hetorosexual man, know I can "love" another man, I presume that a gay man could "love" a woman.

So if you can love a woman, and you can be physically attracted to a woman if she simply dresses more like a man, and you can get sexual gratification in the same way with the woman as with a man, and you can get the woman pregnant, what exactly is it that makes being gay so unique and so genetically enforced that you must perform anal sex with a male body in order for your life to have meaning?

That last paragraph was simply turning around gender-wise what I already know to be true for a heterosexual man regarding his female and male relationships.

I've tried in all discussions not to attribute motives to those who think differently than I do, and I'm not at all surprised that the other side wants to call me names.

No man deserves anything more than to be tolerated. You might well be accepted, and even welcomed, but those are the perogative of your fellow man, not something you have a right to force upon others.

I am a Christian, and as such I deal with slings and arrows, and in fact am many times NOT EVEN tolerated, much less accepted or welcomed.

And no, I have no choice in my belief, although those who disagree with me will certainly claim I do.

But some people think they are the only ones who have characteristics that must be accepted and welcomed.

If we all tolerate one another, and keep our private lives private, we can all get along.

zimzo said:

Charles, you revealed so much about youself in that little passage. Thank you for that. It was very entertaining. And remind me never to dress in women's clothing around you.

Bill Garnett said:

Charles, I don't agree with all of what you say. But I want to thank you for saying it. You seem to be making an honest effort to think about this issue and to have some empathy for the feelings of others. In reality, we in Virginia are a big community of 7 million people with an awful lot of diversity, faiths, and points of view.

It seems that we might be a better community if we were to embrace the things we have in common and become a more inclusive and caring community.

David said:

The last two comments by Charles and Bill are probably the closest to an honest, intellegent conversation about this issue I've yet seen on this blog. Thank you, gentlemen.

There has to be room for everyone at the table. It's that simple.

As for the question that Charles has raised about abuse, it's a very good question. In fact, children who have a secret and/or shame are more vulnerable to abuse. Shame is commonly used by predators to control their victims. You might be able to imagine that a child who feels different from his/her peers, even if unable to name that difference, is going to be more vulnerable to that treatment. Successful adult predators are good at identifying victims who will be susceptible to their control.

I don't know if you've raised this idea just as something to be shot down or if you recognize some truth in it, but I think there is a lot of truth in it.

Jack said:

Again, we are in the realm of speculation, not science. We cannot know the reason for the correlation. David's point may be valid, but not for pre-pubescent children, who generally have no sexual attraction at all.

It may all be in the reporting, too. 20% of gay men say they were abused, compared to 14% of straight men. However, since the perpetrators are generally male, gays might be more willing to admit to sexual contact with a male.

Then again, for post-pubescent males, it may be more likely that a gay teenager will return interest in an adult male who is making advances, and it gets classified as abuse in this study. Meanwhile, if the teenager does not seem interested, the abuser will move on.(Similarly, a heterosexual teenager will likely return interest in an adult female who is making advances.)

David said:

A child's secret doesn't have to be about "sexual attraction" to be leveraged in this way - just an internalized message that he is somehow "wrong."

You are correct about correlation, which is why the frequently repeated idea that abuse "causes" people to be gay is so ignorant and irresponsible, not to mention unhelpful. The overwhelming evidence is that sexual orientation is hardwired in some way, we just don't yet fully understand the mechanism.

Jack said:

Well, there is also overwhelming evidence (prisons) that people chose to engage in homosexual activity when that is what's available.

There is also acient Greece, where is was common and accepted. There is no indication that those "gay genes" were passed on to the current inhabitants of that land.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Well, it's election season, so time to pull the ol' "sanctity of marriage" box out of the closet. With a little luck (and some astroglide), we'll work the country up into thinking this is a serious threat to our very way of life all over again!

go get 'em, boys!

mark said:

Loving another “person” is never a sin.

The true God "promotes" love; it’s the best and most powerful thing he ever created, it's what life is ALL about.

Jack said:

Loving another person does not require buggery.

Mark said:

This reminds many that even in the 21st century, even admid growing acceptance of diversity, homophobia lingers like a toxin in the darker corners of our society, threatening the fair treatment, the rights and even the safety of all gay people. Pathedic!

Jack said:

"Pathedic"?

Typical liberal claptrap. Slap an erroneous label on it, "homophobia," whip up some fear mongering, and you've got yourself a liberal's "argument."

jacob said:

Charles, Jack,
Those on the other side of this debate seek our acceptance and the abandment of principal. It is not enough they are left alone to practice their habits. If you fail to show enthusiasm for the homosexual lifestyle you are by defintion a bigot the lexicon of this argument.

God loves all. This is true. God hates sin as well. That second fact is what the other side refuses to come to grips with in this dialogue.

Mark said:

Attack facts, that’s all you Right Wingers do

It’s not a lifestyle; a life style is boating, fishing ect, being gay is how God made some, his creation. Even Rev Albert Mohler a leading right-wing evangelist acknowledges that now.

By the way, your black book has more holes than a 40lb block of swiss cheese; if you want to believe it, fine, just don’t force it onto others, it was written by man, not God


Jack said:

"being gay is how God made some"

Prove it. Jesus said, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife...'" Mark 10:6-7

Nowhere does the Bible say, "God made them male, female, gay, lesbian, and transgendered." He made them male and female. The rest are corruptions of what God wants you to be. Does God make people kleptomaiacs? Does God make people nymphomaniacs, or homicidal lunatics? No. They, too, are the products of corruption.

Mark said:

The problem with many Christians like Jack is that they try to have others live THEIR “lifestyle” and if they don’t, they try and push them to the back of the bus.

Jack, keep trying to hide your bigotry behind that fairytale book, keep quoting your versus, at the end of the day you are nothing more than a hate monger.

Gays and lesbians will never stop fighting to protect their rights, no matter the obstacle, they’ll continue to fight bigots and will prevail - history shows this and it's simply a matter of time and social evolution.

Jack said:

Amusing that your name is "Mark." Perhaps you might consider changing it to something non-Biblical.

Anyway, you are wrong, of course. We Christians may WANT you to live our lifestyle, but we do not want to force it on you.

On the other hand, we do not want you to force your lifestyle on us, and to require us to affirm it through government recognition and benefits.

The Christians want you to be free from sin and corruption, and to accept Jesus as your savior. Meanwhile, the left continually resorts to ad hominem attacks such as "bigot" and "hate monger."

stay puft said:

"claptrap"?

How to avoid being labeled a homophobe, step 1: stop comparing gays to homicidal lunitics

jacob said:

Mark,
Amazes me how 'rights' are now the need to get into someone's face with bedroom habits.

In this country a typical homosexual makes more than his/her hetero counterpart. Typically, from a historic standpoint those who have their rights abridged suffer economic loss. Guess that don't apply because you really are not having any of you rights abridged.

You have the right to couple with anyone else who shares your bent on the matter. No more sodomy laws. Still somehow your mind, your rights are violated. Poor dear.

Marriage is as much a religious ceremony as it is any civil state. As such maybe you ought to respect the religious sensibilities of others instead crying in your soup.

You can be openly gay in this country and suffer no loss. This is contrary to most of the planet through much of recorded history. That is emancipation, you want applause as well?

baby jesus said:

TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN

10- You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9- You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8- You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity god.

7- Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

6- You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5- You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

4- You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

3- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

2- You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1- You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.

Is that enough blindness to make you think, anyone?

zimzo said:

Jacob can always be counted on to pass off myths as fact. Where is your evidence that gays earn more than straights? According to the U.S. Census, it's not true:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PLP/is_2_33/ai_n18616237

And where did you get the notion that discrimination necessitates economic deprivation? I guess you don't believe that Jews were discriminated against in Europe before Hitler came to power.

And while I'm sure gays are grateful that the evil judicial activists on the Supreme Court finally tossed out sodomy laws way back in 2003 it is still legal to fire someone for being gay or deny them the right to buy or rent a house or apartment or refuse to serve them in a restaurant, not to mention marry.

And no one is getting in your face with their bedroom habits. How is stating that your partner is of the same sex any more explicit than stating that your partner is of a different sex? If you don't want to know what gay people do in the bedroom perhaps you should stop searching for gay porn on the Internet.

Jack said:

Baby:

I must assume that you came up with this list on your own, since you give no attribution. Certainly you would not plagiarize.

10. I never get upset when someone denies the existance of God.

9. Wrong again.

8. Three-in-One. Get it right before you criticize it.

7. That's a fair one.

6. Would the diciples have suffered what they did for what they knew to be a lie?

5. Wrong again.

4. Little do you understand Chritianity. Romans 2: "12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

3. Wrong yet again. Just as you say, "So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand[g] or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" (1Corr. 14:23)

Indeed, such an idiot as you mention is NOT following the Bible: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God." (1Corr. 14 27-28)

2. I do not know the success rate, but the failure is probably due to us, not to God. Just living in this country at this time, I am far more blessed than I deserve.

1. Perhaps this is true. There is no more important question than, "What happens when we die?" Those who are atheists and agnostics, to be true to themselves, must spend a vast amount of time, as I did when I was an agnostic, investigating all of the possibilities. Those already in possession of certainty do not need such research.

So, overall, you're 2 for 10. Perhaps you should try thinking for yourself, rather than plagiarizing others.

Mary said:

Gays and lesbians DON’T force who they ARE on you, nor do they ever try to strip rights away from another human being.

As for the government, separation of church and state, keep your religion OUT OF IT – period. If you are against gay marriage, don’t have one! – Let other couples have the same rights and protections as you (an obvious white straight male)

stay puft marshmallow man said:

Jack, do you ever say to yourself, "I'm not even going to bother responding to this?"

Mary, these guys use this argument that gays want to take their rights away all the time. Essentially, they say they have the right not to like homosexuality, and allowing gays to marry would therefore infringe on their rights. It's a fairly convoluted argument that has to do with the question of what tax breaks represent, but they're convinced it holds up.

Jack said:

Yes, Mary, they do. They try to strip the freedom of speech and association from those who disagree with them. They want to take away employers' rights, and they want to take away landowners' rights.

Puffalump, if we allow ignorance and stupidity to go unchallenged and uncorrected, it will only grow and fester.

Until the governments (state and local) get out of the marriage business altogether, I will oppose government recognition of homosexual "marriage."

stay puft marshmallow man said:

that's why I can't leave

Mark said:

Marshmallow man, you’re right, people have the right to feel / believe however they want, however, when they start infringing on the rights of others, that’s wrong!

These Christian extremists should be very careful, the pendulum is NEVER centered.

Jack wrote;
"if we allow ignorance and stupidity to go unchallenged and uncorrected, it will only grow and fester"

That's why we are trying to "correct" you before you really get out of control.

Anonymous said:

Jack “they” try to do what??

I don't see anyone trying to take your rights away, maybe they should start - after reading your posts, it doesn't sound like you're a well person.

Oh by the way, Mark is right - you are quite the radical Christian extremist - may you seek help and love.

Jack said:

Yes, puffalump. At least you recognize that you need to be shown the errors of your ways.

Mark, why don't you try facts and reason, rather than ad hominem attacks and fear mongering?

Mark said:

Facts? Reason? but you keep quoting from the bible? Jack, there is very little fact OR reason in there.

Jack said:

There are both. That you choose to ignore them is not my problem.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

Jack, that might be the most quintessentially Jack post ever!

Jack said:

Thank you.

jacob said:

Mark,
You speak of reason. Upon what assumptions do you base _your_ reasoning? From whence do your facts hail?

jacob said:

Mark,
Well? I asked you a simple and direct question up above. You say there is no reasoning in the bible. OK. What do you use as a frame work, or starting point? There are no facts in the bible? What facts suit you Mark?

jacob said:

Mark,
Well? I asked you a simple and direct question up above. You say there is no reasoning in the bible. OK. What do you use as a frame work, or starting point? There are no facts in the bible? What facts suit you Mark?

Mark said:

YOU COWARD! – nice try but you didn’t kick me off your blog; it now reads “I’M FORBIDDEN” to post on this site from BOTH my computers – so I am asking a friend to post this for me.

Jack (who also posts under other names) I’m done wasting energy on you dumb, ignorant bible beaters like you – hear this: gay marriage is here to stay, “as goes Massachusetts, so goes the nation,” and soon gay marriage will be coming to a state near you!

In the three years since the implementation of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, opponents of equality for same-sex couples (like Jack) have ranted and raved that same-sex marriage weakens the foundation of our society and destroys traditional marriage.

Yet, in those three years, "not one" iota of proof - real factual evidence that could be presented in a court of law - has ever been offered to show that these predictions have come true. Massachusetts continues to rank “FIRST” amongst all states for the greatest longevity of marriage and lowest divorce rates in the nation, you want proof Jack “look that up”

Over and out, on “MY” terms!!!!!


PS: May the real GOD bless you!

stay puft said:

forbidden?

Jack said:

I don't know what your problem is, but your not banned. You don't even appear on the list of Authenticated Commenters, so I couldn't ban you if I wanted to.

I do not post under other names, either. What gave you that impression?

Gay marriage was around 2000 years ago in Greece. It didn't stay then, either.

As for Massachusetts, it is a perfect example of "legislation from the bench" and judicial fiat. The court-ordered law went into effect in 2004, so there is hardly time to evaluate it's impact.

I don't doubt that Gay Marriage will be coming to a state near me, namely the People's Republic of Maryland. Along with Massachusetts and Connecticut, it is another state full of left-wing nut-jobs.

Per your suggestion, I did "look it up," and found that Mass. and Conn., a.k.a., MassCon, also had very low marriage rates: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

So with fewer marriages, it is no surprise that there are fewer divorces.

And what "GOD" would that be? Pan? Bacchus? Set?

Mark said:

Simply amazing � I�ve been banned for a week on one computer and two days on the other and �poof� I have a friend post my message on my behalf and suddenly I am not forbidden? WOW, you really love your power trip don�t you Jack (head of this right-wing website) - typical of a radical Christian extremist.

GOOD BYE JACK or what ever name you want to post under � you are a pathetic human that is blinded by faith, I truly feel sorry for you, I hope someday you realize what life is all about � LOVE...

Mark, you were not banned, as we have banned only like one person since the inception of this blog. Whatever you did, you screwed it up yourself. I suggest you make sure your IP is not on some blacklist for spamming or whatever.

Also, Jack and the others do not have the privileges to ban anyone. It would have to have been done by me, and I don't know you from Adam because I have not been following that old thread you guys are arguing about.

So your sputtering rage over a "a radical Christian extremist" comes off, if I may be so bold, as mildly ridiculous.

And believe me, you are nowhere near the level of ban-worthy opposition we have encountered here. If we have not banned certain others, we would not ban you. You need to step it up numerous notches.

PS "Jack's" actual name is "Jack".

zimzo said:

Joe is right (Thunderclap!). Surely, I would have been banned a long time ago if they merely banned people for disagreeing with them as many other blogs do (on both the right and the left). As annoyed as I get with Joe, Jack and Jacob (and they with me), I have to give them credit for their willingness to engage people with different points of view.

stay puft said:

you can only get banned for dissing The Crocodile Hunter.

Jack,

it's Zarathustra, COME ON!

True 'nuff, General, true 'nuff.

Zimzo, thank you. I think I should start a scrapbook to chart the times we have reached any point of agreement. This exchange would complete the first half of the first page.

Jack said:

I, on the other hand, have been banned from two-and-a-half liberal blogs. Vivian paige banned me for, of all things, using the horrible epithet "The Democrat Party"! The Virginia Progressive banned me for pointing out that the murder rate for White victims is no higher here than in Canada, while the rate for Black victims is nine times as high. David wants to ban me from Equality Loudoun, but Jonathan doesn't, so there's my half!

jacob said:

Mark,
More than likely you forgot to type the required word below. This gets movable type very annoyed. I myself have done this and got myself 'banned' from my own site.

Your views, as wrong as they are, are most welcome here. The purpose of places like this is to offer a forum for debate.

Jack said:

I just tried that, jacob. Without the "dobbs" below, the comment ends up in the "Junk Comments" folder. None of Mark's comments are there, so that was not the problem.

The only "forbidden" messages I ever get is with B.S. sites, such as "Adult Friend Finder," which I have blocked in my firewall.

Two of the Movable Type filters check in with external databases periodically which contain lists of certain expressions and flagged IP addresses. I forget the details. Another filter checks a local file that functions something like "hosts.denied", maintaining a list of IPs that have tried something squirrelly (like logging in without "dobbs" or making too many comment attempts in a given number of seconds).

Judging by the tenor of Mark's remarks, I think he's done something to get himself locked out.

jacob said:

Mark certainly is excitable. Hope he sticks around.

"YOU COWARAD" ??!!?? I love it!

Hey zimzo! Are you not aupposed to jump in here and tell Mark that shouting is 'verboten!' Or do you save that only for conservatives?

Jack said:

I hope he sticks around, too. We only have a few libs here to blast, and I do so like a target-rich environment.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM