It's in the "bible" bullshit

[Tsa`ah]

I made the mistake of letting my father talk me into giving a speech at the VFW that followed a representative of the "Illinois" Family institute ... except the bigoted bitch I followed wasn't from IL.

In a nutshell, the IFI and other "family" oriented groups are targeting veteran's groups in every effort to squash Illinois' already defeated "civil union" legislation and to call for an out right ban of gays in the armed forces.

I thought it was sort of strange that it was standing room only. According to my dad there's only about 50 active and inactive members ... and that's if you include the Women's auxiliary. When the matter of this representative petitioning the VFW came up last month, my dad and a number of others insisted on also having a counter view presented. The IFI responded by having anyone they could gather from any church within driving distance attend.

So for 30 minutes I get to listen to this douche talk about immorality, sin, abomination, it's in the bible ... and everyone giver her more than the respect due by keeping silent and listening. When she finishes spewing her bile, there's applause, pretty much just from the people who have never been in this particular VFW.

The moment I step behind the podium, the heckling starts. "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.", or "Fags deserve to die, it's in the bible". I listen to this shit for about 5 minutes until a few of the actual vets get up and tell them to STFU or GTFO.

My speech just touched on the modern misconceptions of homosexuality in reference to Kashrut law. The explanation of moral and ritual law ... and what to'ebah means in that context, the misconception of Sodom and Gomorra, and what the actual translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are. It ended with marriage statistics, what the call to service means, and if discrimination belongs to that call.

Since that rebuttal on Saturday, I've received 238 emails. Some call for my admittance into hell, my death. Some accuse me of "re-writing" the bible for my "fag agenda", accuse me of doing the devil's work. Not a single one of them could be considered being authored by a third grader. Sadly 6 of them are by church ministers.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sure if you share your email address here, we could bump up that number.

[AnticorRifling]

You should have opened with a slide show. Opening slide goatse, second slide lemonparty, I doubt you'd need a slide three.

[Daniel]

I know straight dave would know how to handle this.

[Nieninque]

You should have opened with a slide show. Opening slide goatse, second slide lemonparty, I doubt you'd need a slide three.


ROFL

[Lumi]

I'd pos rep you, Tsa, if I could yet, just for going and giving that presentation. Good on you, and I'm sorry so much of humanity is failing at you right now.

[Euler]

uhm.... you thought rational well thought out arguments would sway bigotted bible thumpers because.....

also, make sure you die in shorts. Hell is warm I hear.

[Tsa`ah]

You should have opened with a slide show. Opening slide goatse, second slide lemonparty, I doubt you'd need a slide three.

LOL ... had the objective been an insurance claim by the VFW due to arson ... that would have worked.


uhm.... you thought rational well thought out arguments would sway bigotted bible thumpers because.....

also, make sure you die in shorts. Hell is warm I hear.

Well the bible thumpers weren't the intended audience, they were just the typical gang gathered to imply support. The VFW members were the audience. As diverse as war vets are in political views, I've yet to meet a single one that believes they fought to take a person's rights away.

Also, if I'm going to hell, I'm going there dressed the same way I originally arrived here.

[Euler]

Also, if I'm going to hell, I'm going there dressed the same way I originally arrived here.

PIX or it didn't happen.

[Atlanteax]

Well the bible thumpers weren't the intended audience, they were just the typical gang gathered to imply support. The VFW members were the audience. As diverse as war vets are in political views, I've yet to meet a single one that believes they fought to take a person's rights away.

Fought for what rights to be taken away?

[MrTastyHead]

I'm going to say the right to not be discriminated against because of who you want to put your peen (real or strap-on) into.

[peam]

here comes the..

http://paycreate.com/perry/wharrgarbl.jpg

[diethx]

Fought for what rights to be taken away?

The right of gays to not to be discriminated against in general, as far as civil unions and marriage goes. And the right for them to serve in the armed forces. You know, the stuff Tsa'ah said the IFI was speaking against.

[TheEschaton]

Tsa'ah, I wish I could have been there to give the Christian argument against discrimination against the homosexual community, and why all Christian theological teachings about homosexuality are based on an inherent theological fallacy.

But being Catholic, I'm sure I would have gotten heckling for being a Papist and a pedophile.

[Keller]

I would have gotten heckling for being a pedophile.

:bananahit:

[Tsa`ah]

The right of gays to not to be discriminated against in general, as far as civil unions and marriage goes. And the right for them to serve in the armed forces. You know, the stuff Tsa'ah said the IFI was speaking against.

Precisely.

To further that, in the case of not being allowed to serve and not being able to marry/join in union, you're essentially setting other things in motion (or giving things in motion more speed) ... such as banning gays from adoption, surrogate, and fertilization methods. You make the wills these people worth less than TP if the deceased's family decides to contest. Essentially these couples will, as they do now, have absolutely no say in their partners life should anything happen to them.

Vets and vets of war don't necessarily enlist and fight/serve for a specific group's rights, though I'm sure there are a minority that do, they fight/serve the entire nation. To enlist, or attempt to enlist, them as tools for discrimination and bigotry is an insult to that service.


Tsa'ah, I wish I could have been there to give the Christian argument against discrimination against the homosexual community, and why all Christian theological teachings about homosexuality are based on an inherent theological fallacy.

I intentionally stayed away from NT arguments outside of "ignorance of the textual translation" and the homosexual spin not really appearing until the 1950's.

Now I'm up to 400+ angry bigoted parishioners who insist their translations and understanding of Kashrut law are spot on ... and I'm twisting words for "fags" ... because I'm in the closet now. Before I was just another "faggot".

[Deathravin]

You should post the whole speech.

[droit]

You should post the whole speech.

And some illiterate hate emails!

[Tsa`ah]

I'll post it up later this evening ... providing I find the stick it's saved to. The emails will be a chore, but I'll dig out the pearls as soon as I'm able to give that sort of time.

[Renian]

What are the actual translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, out of curiosity, and source plz?

But nevertheless you shouldn't feel too bad about being heckled by a bunch of people incapable of rational thought and clearly incapable of exercising the fundamental principle of Christianity: love one another. The people you spoke out against weren't Christians at all.

[ElanthianSiren]

Good for you. Extra kudos for going through with delivery for your audience regardless of the BS in that environment.

[Ker_Thwap]

I think I hate this thread. I hate people who try to shove their beliefs in my face. This includes both religious beliefs and sexual beliefs. Keep your religious beliefs in your own church and keep your sexual practices in your own bedroom.

Before anyone jumps on me, I don't believe in any civil unions at all, not boy/girl, not boy/boy, not girl/girl.

I think rather than pursuing civil unions people who have concerns about real estate law, taxation, estate planning, adoptions, parental rights, powers of attorney, etc, should instead pursue changing those laws to reflect more control over shared legal choices.

The current state of marriage/civil unions is a joke. 30 seconds of googling show the average marriage ends in divorce after 8-24 years. Marriage or civil unions just seem a poor mechanism for granting additional rights. It's like campaigning for the right to get punched in the face and partake of an already flawed system.

[ViridianAsp]

I have to give you kudos for your trying. I mean, it's like screaming at a wall and most of these people don't think about these sorts of things until their own loved ones come out.

I know the fact that a lot of my loved ones coming out changed a lot of my own bible thumping relatives views.

Like I've said before, diehard Christians will never ever believe anything that says the bible is wrong, or the bible is misinterpreted. Most churches usually do a fairly good job of brainwashing people into believing the bible word for word.

[4a6c1]

Since that rebuttal on Saturday, I've received 238 emails. Some call for my admittance into hell, my death. Some accuse me of "re-writing" the bible for my "fag agenda", accuse me of doing the devil's work. Not a single one of them could be considered being authored by a third grader. Sadly 6 of them are by church ministers.

You quoted Tanakh... support of gay rights in front of a predominantly catholic state for a bible belt audience. I'm impressed.

Why were you chosen to give the speech, just out of curiousity? I know nothing about you except what you shared in the Palin thread.



here comes the..

http://paycreate.com/perry/wharrgarbl.jpg

That dog is a murloc boss. KILL IT!!!!!

[EasternBrand]

My speech just touched on the modern misconceptions of homosexuality in reference to Kashrut law.

I'm confused; are you for or against the eating of homosexuals?

[4a6c1]

lmao

He was probably retorting old testament supported assertions against homosexuality with a modern interpretation of Kashrut law as it affects religions today. One of the most common (and popular) precepts of Kashrut state a case against the eating of pig. Or the 'Jelly Beans are evil' law, as my best friend puts it. I am refering to Leviticus 11:7

As you know, Christianity chose not to adopt the Kashrut laws at organization. Here I believe he is asserting, why then, is Leviticus 18:22 so followed. It is a common theological argument and one with much merit.

[AnticorRifling]

Next time if you really want to fuck with a crowd like that tell them before you start you'd like to open with a bible reading. Start in the book of Numbers. Keep reading until everyone is gone, asleep, dead. Doesn't take long.

[Fallen]

I think I hate this thread. I hate people who try to shove their beliefs in my face. This includes both religious beliefs and sexual beliefs. Keep your religious beliefs in your own church and keep your sexual practices in your own bedroom.

The best way I found not to get preached to is not attending speeches.

[Sean of the Thread]

Thought you were Jewish anyways Tsa'ah?

AT any rate your story reminded me from the scene in Rat Race the movie where he crashes Hitler's car into a veterans day speech with a burnt tongue stomping and slurring like Hitler in front of 100 vets and one 80 year old pulls a pistol in the crowd.

Hilarious shit.

[Bhuryn]

Thought you were Jewish anyways Tsa'ah?

AT any rate your story reminded me from the scene in Rat Race the movie where he crashes Hitler's car into a veterans day speech with a burnt tongue stomping and slurring like Hitler in front of 100 vets and one 80 year old pulls a pistol in the crowd.

Hilarious shit.

I watched that movie on TNN or something once and never knew what it was called.

[Tea & Strumpets]

I'm confused...was Tsa'ah using the Bible as the basis for his argument, or was it the other speaker? It can't be both of them, because if so, why would the thread have this title?!

[ElanthianSiren]

I believe they both can be. The first book of the bible (the OT) is comprised of portions of the Tanakh, if I'm remembering correctly.

Tsa'ah would have been using the Tanakh while the other person would have been using the OT, including whichever translation either person chose.

[TheEschaton]

Except the other person using the OT was batshit insane.

[Hulkein]

Stop it with your fag agenda TheE.

[TheEschaton]

DAMN IT U CAUGHT ME!

[Daniel]

Stop it with your fag agenda TheE.

haha. You're on a roll today

[EasternBrand]

I believe they both can be. The first book of the bible (the OT) is comprised of portions of the Tanakh, if I'm remembering correctly.

Tsa'ah would have been using the Tanakh while the other person would have been using the OT, including whichever translation either person chose.

OT = Tanakh.

The OT is made up of the Five Books of Moses (in Hebrew, Torah), the writings of the prophets (Nevi'im), and some other general assorted writings, like Psalms, Ecclesiastes, etc (Ketuvim). "Tanakh" is just an acronym for those three sections.

[4a6c1]

^what he said

[Tsa`ah]

The speech as delivered. Three pages of scripture rebuttal tossed out before hand because she didn't use all of the predicted pieces.



I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..

I don't have to finish this oath as each of you are more than familiar with it. This was the oath each and every member of the VFW swore upon accepting the highest service to this nation. This is the oath taken by our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends and neighbors. This was the oath so many took and then never lived to see their homes and loved ones again.

I can't pretend to fully appreciate this oath, only those few who have served this nation can. I haven't served my nation in the same manner, and as such, I've never been bound by this oath. I have never defended my brothers in combat and I have never witnessed the horrors of war, but you have. You took this oath knowing the price of life so that many more would not have to bear the burden.

I can tell you that I respect this oath. It's a respect born of age, a respect one learns as responsibility grows ... the responsibility to others.

We're here today because a representative from a Christian group wants you to lend her organization your support for causes so many believe in. I am here today because my father believes, as he always has, in me as a person, his son ... and more importantly the very same judgement he instilled in me, that his father instilled in him.

What I have to say isn't born of malice. I hold no ill will toward people whose beliefs differ from my own, but I do hold deep reservations when it comes to the foundations of those beliefs.

Before I confront those beliefs, I'd like to touch on the specifics of the oath so many of you are familiar with.

On May 25, 1787 a quorum of seven states met to revise the Articles of Confederation. This document was tossed out a short few weeks later and the drafting of our constitution began.

Two hundred and twenty two years of guidance.

My family didn't didn't arrive in this nation on the Mayflower. My great grandfather was a German Ashkenazic jeweler born of farmers, my grandfather a tailor's apprentice. They, of all of their family, survived the camps and came to America in 1946. My great grandfather and grandfather survived because they were of use to the regime. Both decided to return to farming after several years of being forced to use their crafts in the war effort.

It was my grandfather's love of this country, it's history, it's struggles, and the Guaranteed protections that was instilled upon his children. Four of his sons, one of them my father, enlisted to serve this nation. My father was one of them. While he was an objector to the Viet Nam war, he declined a scholarship to the UofI and enlisted. He enlisted out of respect to those soldiers that made it possible for his family line to survive. He enlisted for love of his brothers, how could he not fight while his brothers did? And he enlisted out of the duty to the citizens that could not go to college and were thus forced to fight.

My father served three tours in Viet Nam, and after the war concluded in 1974, remained in the Army long enough to attain the rank of master sergeant. While my dad doesn't talk about the war, he will tell you that from 69 to 75, he was busted down to spec 4 enough times to make major had he not. Sometimes he'll let it slip about decking the artillery xo after coming in from the bush, or stealing a jeep, and my favorite ... when ordered to pop smoke for the LZ by the CO who was squatting behind a bush, well let's just say dad likes to brag that the guy farted red for a month.

Dad remained in the army until my youngest brother was old enough for school. He took over my grandfather's farm and at the age of 34 he enrolled in college. Shortly after his 40th birthday, my father received his BA in history from the UofI. Why go to college and obtain a degree if you're just going to keep farming? My father believes in leading by example, it's what he was taught, and it's what he taught his children. My father, who loved history, believed it was best to expect his children to go on to college only if he did.

Don't think for a minute that my father didn't put that degree to use. He tortured his kids with it ... so much that we would argue with our history teachers. My youngest brother told me that by the time he reached junior high and on through high school, on the first day of class when his history teachers would take roll ... a mask of despair would fall across each face, each year, when it was confirmed who his father and siblings were.

As a child in a Jewish family, I was instilled with the history of the Jewish people, the laws that governed them, the compassion that was never given, and the shame of atrocities committed in the name of faith. As a child of a veteran of war, I was instilled with the fundamental belief in our constitution, the sorrow of sacrifice, and the desire witness equality.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For two hundred and twenty two years the preamble has read the same, without change. It doesn't state "We the straight people", "We the Christian people". Nor does it limit who is to receive justice, for whom domestic tranquility is insured. It isn't selective welfare or specific defense. The blessing of liberty aren't secured for you, but not them.

Yet that's what this group, and many others, are trying to establish.

Four years after ratification, our forefathers constructed a bulwark against theocracy with a statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and with that sealed the rights of people to worship, or not, as they chose to. People could live without the fear being forced to follow laws established by any clergy.

We're often fed that people fled Europe for the freedom of religion. And that is largely true, but the explanation isn't quite honest. It is true that people came to these shores to escape theocratic tyranny, but not everyone came here to believe in their own brand of religion, some came to NOT believe.

This promised that protestants wouldn't have to observe lent, catholics wouldn't have to observe passover, and Jews wouldn't have to be baptized. This gave each person the promise that their beliefs, or lack of, wouldn't be interfered upon by the government.

It seems that these groups view our constitution as an annoyance. You must believe as they do. You must act as they instruct ... even if they really don't understand the instructions. Imagine where many of our soldiers would be now if Jehovah's witnesses controlled our health care.

But let's take a look at a few of the biblical passages the representative before me used as examples.

I believed she kicked off with Leviticus 18:22, and if I'm not mistaken she used the King James version. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." followed by Leviticus 20:13 ""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." ... also the KJV.

It sounds very specific both in body and description ... but it just doesn't sit well with the original text. Someone down the line offered up some creativity and didn't hold the general readership in very high regard ... it's been dumbed down a bit. If you pick up more recent translations, they just simply dumb it even more ... ""Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin"

The writers of the KJ version were a little more on target since the word "homosexuality" didn't exist in Hebrew at the time.

"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah to'ebah hee."

And then

"V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'ebah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."

First we need to establish the meaning of to'ebah and the different types of Judaic law. We have moral laws, and ritual laws, and transgressions of these laws are, for the most part, deemed as unclean acts.

A ritually unclean act runs a wide spectrum of acts ranging from the voluntary diet, shaving, hair cutting, sex with your spouse, child birth up to a skin rash. These are most often considered temporary conditions that normally don't call for a death penalty.

A morally unclean act is an act in spite of god. A willfull act out of contempt or rebellion.

"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah to'ebah hee."

18:22 literally reads ""And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman". I left out the condition to'ebah intentionally.

"V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'ebah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."

20:13 is a little trickier "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; to'ebah both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood on them."

In both cases to'ebah is used, yet one is clearly ritual, and the other clearly moral. However, it is common to use the word abomination as a translation for to'ebah.

If it's true, then eating shellfish is an abomination, women wearing pants is an abomination, a woman remarrying an ex husband is an abomination ... the word appears over 100 times in the Christian OT.

18:22 refers, considering the placement, to a ritual sin. It doesn't condemn homosexuality .... but rather states that male homosexual intercourse is not to be conducted on a woman's bed. This is considered an unclean act as a woman's bed is considered sacred, a place to make babies. The act makes the participants and the bed unclean. This is a temporary condition.

It should be noted that to'ebah translated in the Septuagint, that's the scriptures in Greek Jesus would have read from, read bdelygma. or ritual impurity.

But to'ebah also appears in 20:13, why?

Because the act in 20:13, and by placement, describes a morally unclean act.

You have to understand that Judaic law was largely meant to establish a clear distinction between the Jewish people and the Egyptians or Caanan.

20:13 likely describes a ritual homosexual act, a pagan act. to'ebar is used in both because they're the same act, though one is clearly blasphemy. Had both been morally unclean acts, clear abominable acts ... zimah would have been used.

I know this must seem more akin to a lecture, but if you will grant me a little more of your patience, I promise to get clear of the bible stuff.

Our esteemed representative also included the tale of Sodom and Gomorra. She focuses on a singular incident in Genesis 19, the story of Lot, son of Abraham, taking in two angels of god. A crowd of men gathers and demands Lot to turn out his guests to the crowd so that they may "know" them. To "know" them is taken in a sexual context by modern bible bigots due to the verse that follows, Lot offering his two daughters, who have not "known" the embrace of a man.

As you can imagine, there are problems with the modern translations. Let's examine the crowd.

"anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom."

Anshei is an ambiguous word to begin with. It can mean men, as in general mankind, or it can mean people. There really isn't a gender attached to the word. If you decide to imply gender, in this case male, certainly the "word" know takes on a sexual context. If you allow the word to be gender ambiguous, as well as age neutral ... as it is generally used, well then you have to ask yourself if men and women, young or old, and children were going to gang rape a pair of guests. Or ... were they going to beat and rob them?

Before we go on ... let me ask. By a show of hands, how many people have used, or know people that use the phrase "yada yada yada ".

I wasn't aware Hebrew was so commonly spoke!

Ya'da is Hebrew for know, to know, knowing ... you get the picture.

When our children were old enough to spell, we ... meaning my wife and I ... had to be a bit more creative when suggesting intimacies. I gave her a brief historic Hebrew language lesson and "yada" became "the code".

A few years ago while we were visiting my parents for thanksgiving, my wife asked me what we were going to do when we got back to the hotel. I wasn't really thinking. Dad, my wife, and I were watching a game and mom was playing a board game with the kids on the floor. I just said "yada". Without missing a beat my wife replied "You need a few more yadas in there to convince me"

I was suddenly aware of my dad just giving me a shocked look and my mother giving my father a very angry look before I realized that "yada" was probably their code too. My mother just asked my father "what in the hell were you teaching your sons during Hebrew lessons?!".

True story ... ask my mom.

But yes, let's look at the word ya`da in this context.

Ya`da appears nearly a thousand times in Hebrew scripture. Yet a sexual connotation is attributed to only ten or so instances. In every instance it is so obvious that there can be no other meaning. Lot offering up his two unmarried virgin daughters is one of them. Having not known the embrace of a man.

Folks, Sodom and Gomorra were going to burn and it wasn't because a group of townsfolk wanted to know Lot's guests. Hell, I can't imagine any group of people being so corrupt that they'd bring grandma, grandpa, and the kids to participate in a gang rape. Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed because the inhabitant were morally corrupt. Chief amongst the corruption was the abuse of strangers ... as exampled by the crowd demanding the release of the angels.

The right of hospitality was one of the most sacred rights of Hebrew culture at the time, and for a whole region to soil that right was sacrilege, and that's even before we get into the other stories of the infamous cities.

Eliezer, Abrahams chief servant, went into Sodom and was approached by a beggar. A citizen of Sodom struck the beggar on the head with a rock causing him to bleed, and then demanded payment for the service of blood letting. Eliezer refuses to pay and is brought before a Sodom judge as a result. The judge's verdict is against Eliezer. Eliezer, in response to the verdict, strikes the judge in the head causing him to bleed and says "My debt is now yours", and demands the judge pay the plaintiff.

In another story, one of Lot's daughters ... he had three ... and a friend giving food to a poor traveler visiting the city. When the word got out, Lot's daughter was burnt alive and her friend was covered in sugars and honey and hung outside the city until the bees and other insects had devoured her.

In Jeremiah 23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorra.

Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Ezekiel 16:48-50 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

These are KJV passages. One would think that had homosexuality been the sin, or even a sin, these prophets would have said as much about Sodom and Gomorra, yet these Hebrew prophets speak of adultery, lies, aiding sinners to commit more sins, sinning without shame, greed, sloth, perpetuating poverty and famine ... ignoring either state.

I'm sorry folks. Using Hebrew texts to condemn homosexuality is a dead end at best, deceitful at worst. The language isn't there to begin with. The arguments put forth by those opposed to homosexuality are done at the behest of ignorance. Ignorance of the language, ignorance of the culture, ignorance of the theology, ignorance of translation. People have hidden their bigotry behind their bibles. In their minds they are righteous because the bible, in their view, gives validation to the bigotry.

If we were to take the bible away, what are they?

I'm here to tell you that the bible isn't on their side. What is on their side is a little over a half a century of twisting interpretations in order to accommodate hatred.

Is that what Christianity is about? I that what Jesus taught? Hatred, bigotry, intolerance?

Just for a minute, let's pretend he did. Let's also pretend that the law laid out in Leviticus clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, and abomination. Just for a minute let's pretend it is god's will that homosexuality is a moral and spiritual abomination, that the union of two people of the same sex is prohibited, scriptures indicate that homosexuals should be discriminated against and that gays are not to be allowed entry into any civil or military service.

Just for a minute ... let's pretend.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

Let's pretend ... for a minute ...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

.... just a minute ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

.... pretend ...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No matter what the biblical argument is. No matter what the personal bias ... every citizen is granted equal protection under the law.
The question I have for you is simple.

Did you fight under the flag of a crucifix? Did that flag represent a very narrow and bigoted view that spoke of everything but Christianity? Or did you take that oath, to protect that Constitution, and fight under a flag of thirteen red and white stripes with a mass of white stars on a field of blue?

This isn't a question of God, language, or interpretation. This is a question of human rights, a question of American rights ... and if you fought for the rights of some, or the rights of all.

[Tsa`ah]

Why were you chosen to give the speech, just out of curiousity? I know nothing about you except what you shared in the Palin thread.

My dad is a member of the VFW ... and has a lower tolerance for biblical bullshit than I do. He and two other members asked me to deliver a counter response.


I'm confused; are you for or against the eating of homosexuals?

I'll eat a cow and give a thought about it's sexual preference.

Modern Kashrut law dictates diet, but the term is associated with the physical, moral, and spiritual cleanliness the further back you go.


lmao

He was probably retorting old testament supported assertions against homosexuality with a modern interpretation of Kashrut law as it affects religions today. One of the most common (and popular) precepts of Kashrut state a case against the eating of pig. Or the 'Jelly Beans are evil' law, as my best friend puts it. I am refering to Leviticus 11:7

As you know, Christianity chose not to adopt the Kashrut laws at organization. Here I believe he is asserting, why then, is Leviticus 18:22 so followed. It is a common theological argument and one with much merit.

Yes ... but considering there was only one other Jew in the room, I had to referr to everything in KJV english. Had I thrown out terms like Tanach or Vayikra ... it would have been a lost cause.

[Nieninque]

The speech as delivered. Three pages of scripture rebuttal tossed out before hand because she didn't use all of the predicted pieces.



I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..

I don't have to finish this oath as each of you are more than familiar with it. This was the oath each and every member of the VFW swore upon accepting the highest service to this nation. This is the oath taken by our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, friends and neighbors. This was the oath so many took and then never lived to see their homes and loved ones again.

I can't pretend to fully appreciate this oath, only those few who have served this nation can. I haven't served my nation in the same manner, and as such, I've never been bound by this oath. I have never defended my brothers in combat and I have never witnessed the horrors of war, but you have. You took this oath knowing the price of life so that many more would not have to bear the burden.

I can tell you that I respect this oath. It's a respect born of age, a respect one learns as responsibility grows ... the responsibility to others.

We're here today because a representative from a Christian group wants you to lend her organization your support for causes so many believe in. I am here today because my father believes, as he always has, in me as a person, his son ... and more importantly the very same judgement he instilled in me, that his father instilled in him.

What I have to say isn't born of malice. I hold no ill will toward people whose beliefs differ from my own, but I do hold deep reservations when it comes to the foundations of those beliefs.

Before I confront those beliefs, I'd like to touch on the specifics of the oath so many of you are familiar with.

On May 25, 1787 a quorum of seven states met to revise the Articles of Confederation. This document was tossed out a short few weeks later and the drafting of our constitution began.

Two hundred and twenty two years of guidance.

My family didn't didn't arrive in this nation on the Mayflower. My great grandfather was a German Ashkenazic jeweler born of farmers, my grandfather a tailor's apprentice. They, of all of their family, survived the camps and came to America in 1946. My great grandfather and grandfather survived because they were of use to the regime. Both decided to return to farming after several years of being forced to use their crafts in the war effort.

It was my grandfather's love of this country, it's history, it's struggles, and the Guaranteed protections that was instilled upon his children. Four of his sons, one of them my father, enlisted to serve this nation. My father was one of them. While he was an objector to the Viet Nam war, he declined a scholarship to the UofI and enlisted. He enlisted out of respect to those soldiers that made it possible for his family line to survive. He enlisted for love of his brothers, how could he not fight while his brothers did? And he enlisted out of the duty to the citizens that could not go to college and were thus forced to fight.

My father served three tours in Viet Nam, and after the war concluded in 1974, remained in the Army long enough to attain the rank of master sergeant. While my dad doesn't talk about the war, he will tell you that from 69 to 75, he was busted down to spec 4 enough times to make major had he not. Sometimes he'll let it slip about decking the artillery xo after coming in from the bush, or stealing a jeep, and my favorite ... when ordered to pop smoke for the LZ by the CO who was squatting behind a bush, well let's just say dad likes to brag that the guy farted red for a month.

Dad remained in the army until my youngest brother was old enough for school. He took over my grandfather's farm and at the age of 34 he enrolled in college. Shortly after his 40th birthday, my father received his BA in history from the UofI. Why go to college and obtain a degree if you're just going to keep farming? My father believes in leading by example, it's what he was taught, and it's what he taught his children. My father, who loved history, believed it was best to expect his children to go on to college only if he did.

Don't think for a minute that my father didn't put that degree to use. He tortured his kids with it ... so much that we would argue with our history teachers. My youngest brother told me that by the time he reached junior high and on through high school, on the first day of class when his history teachers would take roll ... a mask of despair would fall across each face, each year, when it was confirmed who his father and siblings were.

As a child in a Jewish family, I was instilled with the history of the Jewish people, the laws that governed them, the compassion that was never given, and the shame of atrocities committed in the name of faith. As a child of a veteran of war, I was instilled with the fundamental belief in our constitution, the sorrow of sacrifice, and the desire witness equality.

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For two hundred and twenty two years the preamble has read the same, without change. It doesn't state "We the straight people", "We the Christian people". Nor does it limit who is to receive justice, for whom domestic tranquility is insured. It isn't selective welfare or specific defense. The blessing of liberty aren't secured for you, but not them.

Yet that's what this group, and many others, are trying to establish.

Four years after ratification, our forefathers constructed a bulwark against theocracy with a statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and with that sealed the rights of people to worship, or not, as they chose to. People could live without the fear being forced to follow laws established by any clergy.

We're often fed that people fled Europe for the freedom of religion. And that is largely true, but the explanation isn't quite honest. It is true that people came to these shores to escape theocratic tyranny, but not everyone came here to believe in their own brand of religion, some came to NOT believe.

This promised that protestants wouldn't have to observe lent, catholics wouldn't have to observe passover, and Jews wouldn't have to be baptized. This gave each person the promise that their beliefs, or lack of, wouldn't be interfered upon by the government.

It seems that these groups view our constitution as an annoyance. You must believe as they do. You must act as they instruct ... even if they really don't understand the instructions. Imagine where many of our soldiers would be now if Jehovah's witnesses controlled our health care.

But let's take a look at a few of the biblical passages the representative before me used as examples.

I believed she kicked off with Leviticus 18:22, and if I'm not mistaken she used the King James version. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." followed by Leviticus 20:13 ""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." ... also the KJV.

It sounds very specific both in body and description ... but it just doesn't sit well with the original text. Someone down the line offered up some creativity and didn't hold the general readership in very high regard ... it's been dumbed down a bit. If you pick up more recent translations, they just simply dumb it even more ... ""Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin"

The writers of the KJ version were a little more on target since the word "homosexuality" didn't exist in Hebrew at the time.

"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah to'ebah hee."

And then

"V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'ebah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."

First we need to establish the meaning of to'ebah and the different types of Judaic law. We have moral laws, and ritual laws, and transgressions of these laws are, for the most part, deemed as unclean acts.

A ritually unclean act runs a wide spectrum of acts ranging from the voluntary diet, shaving, hair cutting, sex with your spouse, child birth up to a skin rash. These are most often considered temporary conditions that normally don't call for a death penalty.

A morally unclean act is an act in spite of god. A willfull act out of contempt or rebellion.

"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah to'ebah hee."

18:22 literally reads ""And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman". I left out the condition to'ebah intentionally.

"V'ish asher yishkav et zachar mishk'vei ishah to'ebah asu shneihem mot yumatu d'meihem bam."

20:13 is a little trickier "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; to'ebah both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood on them."

In both cases to'ebah is used, yet one is clearly ritual, and the other clearly moral. However, it is common to use the word abomination as a translation for to'ebah.

If it's true, then eating shellfish is an abomination, women wearing pants is an abomination, a woman remarrying an ex husband is an abomination ... the word appears over 100 times in the Christian OT.

18:22 refers, considering the placement, to a ritual sin. It doesn't condemn homosexuality .... but rather states that male homosexual intercourse is not to be conducted on a woman's bed. This is considered an unclean act as a woman's bed is considered sacred, a place to make babies. The act makes the participants and the bed unclean. This is a temporary condition.

It should be noted that to'ebah translated in the Septuagint, that's the scriptures in Greek Jesus would have read from, read bdelygma. or ritual impurity.

But to'ebah also appears in 20:13, why?

Because the act in 20:13, and by placement, describes a morally unclean act.

You have to understand that Judaic law was largely meant to establish a clear distinction between the Jewish people and the Egyptians or Caanan.

20:13 likely describes a ritual homosexual act, a pagan act. to'ebar is used in both because they're the same act, though one is clearly blasphemy. Had both been morally unclean acts, clear abominable acts ... zimah would have been used.

I know this must seem more akin to a lecture, but if you will grant me a little more of your patience, I promise to get clear of the bible stuff.

Our esteemed representative also included the tale of Sodom and Gomorra. She focuses on a singular incident in Genesis 19, the story of Lot, son of Abraham, taking in two angels of god. A crowd of men gathers and demands Lot to turn out his guests to the crowd so that they may "know" them. To "know" them is taken in a sexual context by modern bible bigots due to the verse that follows, Lot offering his two daughters, who have not "known" the embrace of a man.

As you can imagine, there are problems with the modern translations. Let's examine the crowd.

"anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom."

Anshei is an ambiguous word to begin with. It can mean men, as in general mankind, or it can mean people. There really isn't a gender attached to the word. If you decide to imply gender, in this case male, certainly the "word" know takes on a sexual context. If you allow the word to be gender ambiguous, as well as age neutral ... as it is generally used, well then you have to ask yourself if men and women, young or old, and children were going to gang rape a pair of guests. Or ... were they going to beat and rob them?

Before we go on ... let me ask. By a show of hands, how many people have used, or know people that use the phrase "yada yada yada ".

I wasn't aware Hebrew was so commonly spoke!

Ya'da is Hebrew for know, to know, knowing ... you get the picture.

When our children were old enough to spell, we ... meaning my wife and I ... had to be a bit more creative when suggesting intimacies. I gave her a brief historic Hebrew language lesson and "yada" became "the code".

A few years ago while we were visiting my parents for thanksgiving, my wife asked me what we were going to do when we got back to the hotel. I wasn't really thinking. Dad, my wife, and I were watching a game and mom was playing a board game with the kids on the floor. I just said "yada". Without missing a beat my wife replied "You need a few more yadas in there to convince me"

I was suddenly aware of my dad just giving me a shocked look and my mother giving my father a very angry look before I realized that "yada" was probably their code too. My mother just asked my father "what in the hell were you teaching your sons during Hebrew lessons?!".

True story ... ask my mom.

But yes, let's look at the word ya`da in this context.

Ya`da appears nearly a thousand times in Hebrew scripture. Yet a sexual connotation is attributed to only ten or so instances. In every instance it is so obvious that there can be no other meaning. Lot offering up his two unmarried virgin daughters is one of them. Having not known the embrace of a man.

Folks, Sodom and Gomorra were going to burn and it wasn't because a group of townsfolk wanted to know Lot's guests. Hell, I can't imagine any group of people being so corrupt that they'd bring grandma, grandpa, and the kids to participate in a gang rape. Sodom and Gomorra were destroyed because the inhabitant were morally corrupt. Chief amongst the corruption was the abuse of strangers ... as exampled by the crowd demanding the release of the angels.

The right of hospitality was one of the most sacred rights of Hebrew culture at the time, and for a whole region to soil that right was sacrilege, and that's even before we get into the other stories of the infamous cities.

Eliezer, Abrahams chief servant, went into Sodom and was approached by a beggar. A citizen of Sodom struck the beggar on the head with a rock causing him to bleed, and then demanded payment for the service of blood letting. Eliezer refuses to pay and is brought before a Sodom judge as a result. The judge's verdict is against Eliezer. Eliezer, in response to the verdict, strikes the judge in the head causing him to bleed and says "My debt is now yours", and demands the judge pay the plaintiff.

In another story, one of Lot's daughters ... he had three ... and a friend giving food to a poor traveler visiting the city. When the word got out, Lot's daughter was burnt alive and her friend was covered in sugars and honey and hung outside the city until the bees and other insects had devoured her.

In Jeremiah 23:14 I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness; they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorra.

Isaiah 3:9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

Ezekiel 16:48-50 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.

Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

These are KJV passages. One would think that had homosexuality been the sin, or even a sin, these prophets would have said as much about Sodom and Gomorra, yet these Hebrew prophets speak of adultery, lies, aiding sinners to commit more sins, sinning without shame, greed, sloth, perpetuating poverty and famine ... ignoring either state.

I'm sorry folks. Using Hebrew texts to condemn homosexuality is a dead end at best, deceitful at worst. The language isn't there to begin with. The arguments put forth by those opposed to homosexuality are done at the behest of ignorance. Ignorance of the language, ignorance of the culture, ignorance of the theology, ignorance of translation. People have hidden their bigotry behind their bibles. In their minds they are righteous because the bible, in their view, gives validation to the bigotry.

If we were to take the bible away, what are they?

I'm here to tell you that the bible isn't on their side. What is on their side is a little over a half a century of twisting interpretations in order to accommodate hatred.

Is that what Christianity is about? I that what Jesus taught? Hatred, bigotry, intolerance?

Just for a minute, let's pretend he did. Let's also pretend that the law laid out in Leviticus clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, and abomination. Just for a minute let's pretend it is god's will that homosexuality is a moral and spiritual abomination, that the union of two people of the same sex is prohibited, scriptures indicate that homosexuals should be discriminated against and that gays are not to be allowed entry into any civil or military service.

Just for a minute ... let's pretend.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

Let's pretend ... for a minute ...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

.... just a minute ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

.... pretend ...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No matter what the biblical argument is. No matter what the personal bias ... every citizen is granted equal protection under the law.
The question I have for you is simple.

Did you fight under the flag of a crucifix? Did that flag represent a very narrow and bigoted view that spoke of everything but Christianity? Or did you take that oath, to protect that Constitution, and fight under a flag of thirteen red and white stripes with a mass of white stars on a field of blue?

This isn't a question of God, language, or interpretation. This is a question of human rights, a question of American rights ... and if you fought for the rights of some, or the rights of all.

tl;dr

[Fallen]

Saw that coming.

[4a6c1]

speech.

I like it.

:clap:

Also, this is why all my bible study partners have been jews.

[Mikalmas]

tl;dr

Why would someone quote the ENTIRE FUCKING POST to follow it with a tl;dr??

[Fallen]

Likely to illistrate the point of how long the post was. That, and an attempt at humor.

[Hulkein]

I'm offended and outraged that you, Tsa`ah, capitalize 'Jew' but do not capitalize Catholic or Protestant. You're the bigot, sir.

Also you have a problem with "it's" and "its". Interesting read re: the translations though. That is if decide to believe you haven't massaged facts to fit your viewpoint.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

speech

That was excellent.


In response to Hulkein: even if he did, at the end he points out that that doesn't even matter, because it's still the Bible and our laws should not be based on the bible, i.e. did they fight for the rights of some or for the rights of all?

His own interpretation of what goes on in the bible merely casts doubt on the "absolute truth" of homosexuality being a sin-- that even if you literally believe in the bible, which version should you believe and that by itself makes homosexuality a sin unto death, or else simply an unclean ritual act, like hetero sex.

[Parkbandit]

Why would someone quote the ENTIRE FUCKING POST to follow it with a tl;dr??

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/wtf-cat.jpg

Seriously.. it was pretty clear to anyone with a sense of humor and a brain.

[Ravenstorm]

:clap:

I'll say it again, thank you, Tsa'ah.

[Hulkein]

That was excellent.


In response to Hulkein: even if he did, at the end he points out that that doesn't even matter, because it's still the Bible and our laws should not be based on the bible, i.e. did they fight for the rights of some or for the rights of all?

His own interpretation of what goes on in the bible merely casts doubt on the "absolute truth" of homosexuality being a sin-- that even if you literally believe in the bible, which version should you believe and that by itself makes homosexuality a sin unto death, or else simply an unclean ritual act, like hetero sex.

I'm aware of how he concluded that religion is irrelevant; I know how to read. However, I am capable of interpreting the Constitution on my own so his point of view on that subject is just that, his point of view. He's not an authoritative source on Con law.

I'm interested in the religious aspect of his speech because I don't speak/read Hebrew and I certainly don't know anything about the history of the language. Not because I think it should have an impact on how America legislates but simply because I'm interested in the topic.

[TheEschaton]

He is not, but the SCOTUS is, and even in their most conservative iterations, they've lined up generally against the idea of discriminating against people based on a purely religiously-held belief.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm offended and outraged that you, Tsa`ah, capitalize 'Jew' but do not capitalize Catholic or Protestant. You're the bigot, sir.

Also you have a problem with "it's" and "its".

In my defense, it was written to be read aloud by me, not as a post. I gave it only a quick proof reading and spell check.


Interesting read re: the translations though. That is if decide to believe you haven't massaged facts to fit your viewpoint.

There was no decision to twist anything to fit the argument.

How old is Judaism and the Hebrew texts associated with them? How old is Christianity and the Christian canon? If homosexuality were a "sin" ... wouldn't there be specific references and not a list of vague english translations to support that position?

The homosexual connotation placed on the story of Sodom and Gomorra are modern Christian notions. They have never been Jewish notions ... so I have to ask again. Which is older? And even more, exactly when did the memo go out that the Jews had no clue about their own texts?

The arguments against homosexuality hinge upon misuses of Hebrew words. As I exampled to'ebah meaning abomination ... then there's a laundry list of "abominations". The word doesn't describe moral impurities except in specific cases.

What exactly are you inferring that I "massaged"?


I'm aware of how he concluded that religion is irrelevant; I know how to read. However, I am capable of interpreting the Constitution on my own so his point of view on that subject is just that, his point of view. He's not an authoritative source on Con law.

While I'm not the professed expert on the Constitution others claim to be, it doesn't take a constitutional law prof to know when people are not being granted equal protection.

Yes it's true that the preamble has never been successfully used as tool in any case ... the language is still clear.

I also don't have to be a soldier or vet to know what the oath of service entails.

[Hulkein]

He is not, but the SCOTUS is, and even in their most conservative iterations, they've lined up generally against the idea of discriminating against people based on a purely religiously-held belief.

It's not really a "purely religiously-held belief." There are plenty of non-religious people who would be against homosexuality for various reasons. I'm not agreeing with them, just sayin'.

[Hulkein]

In my defense, it was written to be read aloud by me, not as a post. I gave it only a quick proof reading and spell check.

I was just joking. Or was I??? And the fact that you did it in a hurry only shows your true feelings!


What exactly are you inferring that I "massaged"?

I would have no idea because I have no knowledge of the Hebrew language and how it has evolved. I am just saying that I know how passionate you are about it and it's not out of the question for someone who feels that strongly to leave out possible rebuttals or differing points of view as to how something is translated. I have no evidence of you doing so.


While I'm not the professed expert on the Constitution others claim to be, it doesn't take a constitutional law prof to know when people are not being granted equal protection.

There is nothing stopping a homosexual from marrying someone of the opposite sex. Until it's proven that it's a trait you're born with, it's not the same flawed argument that it was when used in the inter-racial marriage context decades ago.

NOTE: I do believe they're born that way and do believe they should be allowed to have the benefits of heterosexual couples but that doesn't mean others aren't entitled to believe it's a lifestyle choice and not an inherited trait.

[nub]

And there are some homosexuals who don't want that gene to be there because they don't want people weeding them out in selective breeding. They don't want to be the only ones, it's comfortable for them if there are more around.

[MrTastyHead]

Marriage isn't in the constitution. The only thing saying marriage has to be between a man and a woman are religions, and the people in power who follow them.

[TheEschaton]

Until it's proven that it's a trait you're born with, it's not the same flawed argument that it was when used in the inter-racial marriage context decades ago.

NOTE: I do believe they're born that way and do believe they should be allowed to have the benefits of heterosexual couples but that doesn't mean others aren't entitled to believe it's a lifestyle choice and not an inherited trait.

They're entitled to believe whatever they want. People are entitled to believe black people are inferior to white people, but we can't legislate on that, yanno. The whole point is that this radical Christian right, DESPITE what science says, which almost conclusively points to some genetic basis for homosexuality, would rather we legislate based on their belief, and not actual fact.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

You completely ignored the fact that this specific belief severely hampers an equal protection claim. Yanno, the specific point of law being discussed.

[TheEschaton]

Wait, what? I'm arguing there is an equal protection claim being violated, despite people's right to believe what they want, because what people believe should not be established as governmental law.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

What people believe should not be established as governmental law? All laws are based on beliefs.

[TheEschaton]

Religion should not be law. It is not law in our country. And I don't know if you have read some of our laws, but we've long ago done away with the idea that public policy (ie, what we believe) should be law, and rather like to site some rational reason for why we make a law.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

For the second time, it's not a purely held religious belief. And again for the second time, there are some rational reasons that people who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman will cite.

Completely ignoring that, you're missing my point about the equal protection claim. If homosexuality isn't determined to be an immutable trait then no one is being denied any rights.

[Ravenstorm]

For the second time, it's not a purely held religious belief. And again for the second time, there are some rational reasons that people who believe marriage should be between a man and a woman will cite.

I've yet to hear a single one that isn't easily refuted. Such as: marriage should only be for procreation. Sorry, until it's illegal for anyone proven infertile to get married or woman who have gone through menopause, not a valid argument. All others are on the same level.

[TheEschaton]

How is "Homosexuality is evil" not a purely held religious belief?

IOW, please explain to me how you can find homosexuality to be other than a natural sexual orientation of higher mammals, without resorting to religion?

Marriage, by its very definition, is a religious thing. It is not a "fact of nature." However, the legal rights it affords are something we have decided to give people who get "married" or, in other words, are co-dependent and live together. If we attach legal rights to a religious ceremony, either we have to make a civil equivalent, or determine that marriage is now a function of the state, otherwise you have the state A) endorsing a religious ceremony, and B) discriminating against citizens who would wish to be so joined from receiving the legal, civil benefits of performing such a rite.

AND HOMOSEXUALITY HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE GENETIC AND INHERENT TO A PERSON.

You remind me of the idiotic Catholic teaching that says homosexuality is inherent to a person's being, but that homosexuals should not be who they are, neglecting the very fact that Jesus Christ himself would cringe at an idea of suppressing one's true self to conform to some idiotic social view.

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

IOW, please explain to me how you can find homosexuality to be other than a natural sexual orientation of higher mammals, without resorting to religion?

Actually, recent researching is showing it's not limited to higher mammals at all. Mammals, birds, reptiles, even insects. Seems to be pretty widespread across the board.

[Hulkein]

How is "Homosexuality is evil" not a purely held religious belief?

You must have missed the part where I said there are plenty of non-religious people who are against homosexuality for non-religious reasons. By non-religious reasons, I mean reasons aside from "it's evil."

Keep up please. It's becoming annoying repeating myself.


AND HOMOSEXUALITY HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE GENETIC AND INHERENT TO A PERSON.

No it hasn't. I believe it is and I know there is evidence showing it is, but it's definitely not something that is scientifically conclusive enough for a judge. Take a step back and realize that a judge doesn't have the luxury of selectively believing sources of information that he personally agrees with. Until it is more certain, there is a serious hurdle for an equal protection claim. I'm not happy because of that; I'm stating a fact. Try to reign in your idealistic impulses for a second.


You remind me of the idiotic Catholic teaching that says homosexuality is inherent to a person's being, but that homosexuals should not be who they are, neglecting the very fact that Jesus Christ himself would cringe at an idea of suppressing one's true self to conform to some idiotic social view.

I don't think homosexuality is a sin you dumbass. And by dumbass I mean stop acting like an asshole and ignoring my posts and lumping me in with a group of people I don't agree with. I know you're not an idiot.

[TheEschaton]

Have you taken scientific evidence courses? And establishing the burden of what is well-known enough to be judged true by a judge? I have, and the scientific research of the inherent nature of homosexuality would be more than enough to find it true, in the legal sense.

[Hulkein]

No, I haven't. What I am basing my assumption on is the fact that judges looking at these types of claims will usually defer to the legislature. There'd be a good argument that it's inherent but in the end I believe the judge would hear enough counter-argument to defer.

In a completely non-rhetorical question: has this ever faced a judge? This specific argument, that is.

[Stretch]

I think we're all overlooking a far more heinous crime against nature.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UhUOT-2x5ag/Rm6ScXFt3dI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/3ltztXUXdno/s320/20051123-ginger+kids+pic.jpg

[TheEschaton]

AFAIK, no one has ever sought to introduce scientific evidence into court that homosexuality is inherent.

[Deathravin]

With absolutely no scientific evidence, just thinking about it myself...

I always figured that sexual attraction is found in the X & Y chromosomes.
Y overwrites the X, but sometimes it has a problem and X wins out, making a male gay. But this hypothesis that's completely devoid of scientific facts or testing would mean homosexual women aren't attracted to women as much as then hate men.


Hey, if people can hide their heads in the sand with so many other issues, why can't I with my beliefs of sexuality damnit...

[Deathravin]

To the OP...

I'm really not surprised you're getting death threats.
If you had kept it as a speech to underscore the separation between church and state, it would have been convincing. Myself as a person curious of religions and such, and have always felt that the current Christian bible as being mis-translated and very clear things being mis-understood in the translations, am very interested.

But you basically just shit all over the Christian religion.

The Christian religion believes that God would not let the bible be mis-translated. It's at the root of their beliefs, the English Bible is law. "Born-Agains" point to a part of the bible that has been hotly contested forever. And these issues have been raging for many years.

I'm sorry you're getting death threats, but the speech was a clear slap in the face of many Christ-based religions. And unfortunately not many fanatical Christ-based worshipers take the teachings of Christ very seriously.

[TheEschaton]

A) Your "I always figured" is based in nothing, and is equally something we should not base law off of.

B) the Christian religion merely says the Bible is divinely inspired, not that "God would not let the bible be mis-translated." I mean, come on. The vast majority of Christian sects don't think the Bible is literal truth, and that much of it is allegory as opposed to literal truth.

-TheE-

[Deathravin]

A) Not sure I said it should be something laws were based off of.

B) I know many Christians and Catholics that think the bible is absolute literal truth. They live their own lives strictly by it, they vote based off of it, they criticize policy through a lens of it, and they feel everybody else should live strictly by it as well.
I remember calling one out on the "Judge not least ye be judged" thing, and they proceeded to tell me that I can't quote scripture to them because I don't believe it, it doesn't apply to judging those that are not Christian, and I'm going to hell because I quoted their book to them out of context.

A was just going by a very unscientific hypothesis that makes sense to me (either way I could care less what people do with their own bodies as long as they don't do it in my bedroom), and the B was simply my own observations.

[ElanthianSiren]

I always figured that sexual attraction is found in the X & Y chromosomes.
Y overwrites the X, but sometimes it has a problem and X wins out, making a male gay. But this hypothesis that's completely devoid of scientific facts or testing would mean homosexual women aren't attracted to women as much as then hate men.



People are moving away from the consideration of the gene as a discrete quantus and moving more toward RNA coded from genes because there's so much overlap, due to things like alternate splicing and so many genes people can't find a function for. Also, the protein is often the function. While there are things that traditional mendellian genetics are useful for (hemophilia, colorblindness, ABO blood typing), most advanced things, like sexuality, require going beyond the logic of one dominant vs. one recessive.


Long Post Coming
One segment of DNA or a gene can code for many things depending on how it's put together after transcription or translation (DNA makes RNA makes protein). Much of the current focus is on trying to figure out what happens to the RNA DNA makes. To date, nobody's found the gay gene though there are some interesting papers dealing with polymorphisms in genes and their effects on sexuality, but mainly it's been from an everybody standpoint.

At transcription stage the RNA is called hnRNA and is often modified, at least by intron splicing. Additionally, afterward, you also have post translational control on RNA. This is where things get really exciting. Proteins can be cleaved differently, put together differently, chemically modified etc at this stage. The human body also contains an ever growing number of microRNAs, (last estimate I saw was 37,000 or almost 2x our number of coding genes described by the human genome project), which serve to further influence traits.

With regard to sexuality, I've come to believe that it's probably a polygenic cascade (many genes) or even many cascades and that the proteins coded for and modified interact with each other. I wouldn't be surprised if few elements actually had to do with sexual preference and many, if not all, were involved with bonding, friendship etc. I'm not a romantic though, and I don't believe romantic love to be much more than very close friendship.

Additionally, I wouldn't be surprised if every human (straight, gay, bi, transgendered whatever) had the same genetic "switches," and that it's the combination (cascade) that determines level of attraction to a specific set of environmental stimulants. That's derived from Kinsley's studies that found most people are in fact at least slightly bisexual.

Nobody knows, but just like they can't find a singular intelligence gene that encompasses everything about intelligence, I really wouldn't worry about them finding a singular gene, protein, or microRNA that encompasses all of human sexual preference to target people. Alternately, I wouldn't count on them finding a singular gene, protein, or microRNA interaction to convince the court that human sexual preference is sheerly genetic and thus that, based on genetics, alternate sexualities are entitled to the same rights; what Hulk is arguing.

This sometimes leads me to wonder why we don't err on the side of caution, since our laws are not based in religion and afford the same legal status to homosexual and heterosexual unions.

[Ravenstorm]

People are moving away from the consideration of the gene as a discrete quantus and moving more toward RNA coded from genes because there's so much overlap, due to things like alternate splicing and so many genes people can't find a function for.

Yes. I don't know a lot about genetics but from all the studies I've seen it's fairly clear to me that there is no single 'gay gene' that can be pointed to. Instead, there's most likely a lot of genes or other factors that then need to be switched on somehow (see activated alleles).

The twin study certainly implies this. While the initial study was too small a group to make any certain conclusions (some researchers are now trying to find thousands of identical twins where one or both are gay) it does heavily imply that there's a genetic factor.

To summarize the findings, where one identical twin was gay, there was something like a 55% chance the other was as well. If there was a specific gay gene, it would be 100% but if genetics played no factor at all, it would be significantly lower. So it seems to be a combination of genetic factors that are also somehow influenced in the womb (which would also explain the increasingly higher percentage of a gay son the more male children (as opposed to female ones) that the mother gives birth to).

[Geshron]

Interesting. I'm kind of curious/baffled by people interpreting the Bible however they wish. It's all the same to me, regardless of which version, testament, book of, etc.. Where does a believing Christian (Catholic or otherwise) draw the line in terms of what did, and didn't happen? By no means am I attacking anyone's system of belief or lack thereof. I'm just curious as to what plausibility takes precedent over another, when it comes to the events of the Bible?

[Holybane]

I am sorry to say this but I cant NOT leave a comment and if I make enemies in the process so be it.

The only problem I have with homosexuals is the fact that they want to get married or got married in some areas. Marriage is a ceramony that is to be between a man and a woman. To go and let homosexuals get married is going agianst the Bible. If a man and man want to spend the rest of their lives together just do it. Getting married is absurd.

Now before you start telling me I am narrow-minded and need to open my eyes to the world and yata yata it is just my opinion and I have a right to state it. Now bring on the haters please.

[Holybane]

Interesting. I'm kind of curious/baffled by people interpreting the Bible however they wish. It's all the same to me, regardless of which version, testament, book of, etc.. Where does a believing Christian (Catholic or otherwise) draw the line in terms of what did, and didn't happen? By no means am I attacking anyone's system of belief or lack thereof. I'm just curious as to what plausibility takes precedent over another, when it comes to the events of the Bible?

How you take the Bible is how you were raised and taught. That is why there are so many different branches of christianity.

[MrTastyHead]

To go and let homosexuals get married is going agianst the Bible. If a man and man want to spend the rest of their lives together just do it. Getting married is absurd.

The bible (lower case!) is not (should not be) what laws and benefits should go by. The problem is the rights that go along with marriage. Do you think that entirely non-religious benefits should only go with religious unions?

[Ravenstorm]

To go and let homosexuals get married is going agianst the Bible.

I suppose you'd have no problem living your life according to the Quoran? No? You'd have a problem with that? Fortunately, we don't live in a theocracy. Please keep your Bible to yourself and live your own life according to your beliefs without pushing it on anyone else.

[Geshron]

The bible (lower case!) is not (should not be) what laws and benefits should go by. The problem is the rights that go along with marriage. Do you think that entirely non-religious benefits should only go with religious unions?

Yes I was raised Catholic, I honestly capitalize it because I am programmed to.
And no, Catholicism didn't turn me to atheism, sound, rational thought did.

[Holybane]

Marriage is a christian/jewish ceramony

[Ravenstorm]

You know, I can't let this go. I'm detecting in Holybane someone who generally means well (as in has no overt bigotry) and genuinely believes in the bible's teachings. So to him (her?) I have a few questions...

You say the bible says gays can't get married. Exactly where does it say that? In fact, I don't think it even forbids it once. Now, it oftens goes on about a man and a woman marrying which is certainly the more normal course of events but please point out where two men or women marrying each other is specifically forbidden.

Second, let's assume anything in the English translation of the bible is true. So two guys doing each other is strictly verbotten: thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman. Well, how about two guys who don't engage in penetrative sex? Lots don't you know. Anal sex isn't a benchmark of a gay orientation. Lots of straight guys even enjoy having their GFs/wives using a strap-on on them.

And lesbians aren't even mentioned at all. So while gay men might have a few restrictions, lesbians can do whatever they want?

And since lots of men had multiple wives, you've got no problem with polygamy? Slavery was also consider acceptable. You're in favor of it? Do you eat shellfish? Lobster? Crabs? Hope not or you're screwed.

I could go on. Have you actually given any real thought to your beliefs beyond 'what is in the bible is good'? Maybe it's time.

[Holybane]

Yes I was raised Catholic, I honestly capitalize it because I am programmed to.
And no, Catholicism didn't turn me to atheism, sound, rational thought did.

I believe in a lil of both. I believe God created the universe and its inhabitants but he created the first creature with the ability to evolve to fit the weather patterns he first put in place. As for The Bible saying he created MAN seperately from everything else is just a thought put into the man God gave the information to right The Bible. I could go into more details and all but really, I dont have that kind of time. It is a beliefe I have came up with from my PoV on The Bible and the scientific proof of evolution.

[Ravenstorm]

Marriage is a christian/jewish ceramony

Marriage existed long before monotheism did.

[Holybane]

You know, I can't let this go. I'm detecting in Holybane someone who generally means well (as in has no overt bigotry) and genuinely believes in the bible's teachings. So to him (her?) I have a few questions...

You say the bible says gays can't get married. Exactly where does it say that? In fact, I don't think it even forbids it once. Now, it oftens goes on about a man and a woman marrying which is certainly the more normal course of events but please point out where two men or women marrying each other is specifically forbidden.

Second, let's assume anything in the English translation of the bible is true. So two guys doing each other is strictly verbotten: thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman. Well, how about two guys who don't engage in penetrative sex? Lots don't you know. Anal sex isn't a benchmark of a gay orientation. Lots of straight guys even enjoy having their GFs/wives using a strap-on on them.

And lesbians aren't even mentioned at all. So while gay men might have a few restrictions, lesbians can do whatever they want?

And since lots of men had multiple wives, you've got no problem with polygamy? Slavery was also consider acceptable. You're in favor of it? Do you eat shellfish? Lobster? Crabs? Hope not or you're screwed.

I could go on. Have you actually given any real thought to your beliefs beyond 'what is in the bible is good'? Maybe it's time.

One post does not tell you everything I believe in. I simply gave my opinion on the matter. I was raised a certain way and taught a certain way. Call me old school but do NOT try to change my beliefs to fit yours. I have given thought to all of these things and to go into every detail would be absurd.

Now you mentioned that The Bible says nothing of lesbians? Sodom and Gomorra. One side lesbians the other gays and it was destroyed.

[Holybane]

Marriage existed long before monotheism did.

But it wasn't the marriage the homosexuals want. They want a more christian like wedding

[Ravenstorm]

Call me old school but do NOT try to change my beliefs to fit yours.

Then don't try to impose YOUR beliefs on me. It works both ways, you know.


But it wasn't the marriage the homosexuals want. They want a more christian like wedding

I'm sorry to inform you that you're just plain and simply wrong. What we want is the ability to get married civilly, have our marriages recognized by the government and if one of the religions such as the Episcopalians or Reform Jews who have no problem with that is willing to perform the ceremony, great. The Catholics will not be forced to do so any more than they're forced to marry people who are divorced.

[Holybane]

Then don't try to impose YOUR beliefs on me. It works both ways, you know.

Impose my beliefs on you? sir/maam, I simply posted my opinion on the matter. I thought that was what forums were for.

[Ravenstorm]

Impose my beliefs on you? sir/maam, I simply posted my opinion on the matter. I thought that was what forums were for.

If you try to make it illegal for me to marry my partner of choice, you are directly trying to impose your religiously held beliefs on me. If you simply hold a belief but contribute no money to any anti-same sex marriage campaign and don't vote for anti-gay marriage candidates because they promise to stand against the "gay agenda", them that's another matter.

And I'm a guy.

[Holybane]

I'm sorry to inform you that you're just plain and simply wrong. What we want is the ability to get married civilly, have our marriages recognized by the government and if one of the religions such as the Episcopalians or Reform Jews who have no problem with that is willing to perform the ceremony, great. The Catholics will not be forced to do so any more than they're forced to marry people who are divorced.

I respect your decision of homosexuality I just believe it is wrong. I am a christian plain and simple and follow what I was taught as a child. I am capible of rational thought but to completly change my life style is not what I am looking to do. I like it the way it is regardless if I am right or wrong.

[Holybane]

If you try to make it illegal for me to marry my partner of choice, you are directly trying to impose your religiously held beliefs on me. If you simply hold a belief but contribute no money to any anti-same sex marriage campaign and don't vote for anti-gay marriage candidates because they promise to stand against the "gay agenda", them that's another matter.

And I'm a guy.

I am sorry I forgot to mention this in my first post. I believe that you should be able to have the same rights as married couples through a ceramony that is not marriage.

[Holybane]

Thanks for the debate but I dont feel like carrying on this conversation seeing as it will not go anywhere and probably never will.

[Ravenstorm]

Thanks for the debate but I dont feel like carrying on this conversation seeing as it will not go anywhere and probably never will.

I agree. If you're comfortable with your beliefs and have no wish to alter them even if they're wrong (as you stated above) there's little point in continuing. And as I'm really not in the mood to play Ambassador from Gaytopia today in any case, I'll just close this by saying that no, homosexuality is not a choice and no "decision" was made. If you ever want to see why you're wrong on that, there's plenty of information on the internet.

[Holybane]

homosexuality is not a choice and no "decision" was made.

I am sorry but I did not mean it that way. I just mean't I respected who you are.

[Kuyuk]

where are the emails of death? bring out the good stuff

[Ravenstorm]

I am sorry but I did not mean it that way. I just mean't I respected who you are.

Noted. I suspect we could get along in person but just see things differently. If you do ever want to discuss the issue with an eye to broadening your viewpoint, I'll be here.

[4a6c1]

There is a disturbing lack of ClydeR in this thread.

I believe it is now my responsibility to present the ONLY rational argument.

(in progress)

[Tsa`ah]

Marriage isn't in the constitution. The only thing saying marriage has to be between a man and a woman are religions, and the people in power who follow them.

A great deal of things aren't in the constitution.

Interracial marriage wasn't in the constitution, that didn't stop the SCOTUS ruling against laws that prevented them.

Education isn't in the constitution, yet SCOTUS made a landmark ruling in Brown vs TBOE.

Abortion isn't in the constitution .... yet RvW happened.

I think you're confused about the purpose of the constitution.


To the OP...

I'm really not surprised you're getting death threats.
If you had kept it as a speech to underscore the separation between church and state, it would have been convincing. Myself as a person curious of religions and such, and have always felt that the current Christian bible as being mis-translated and very clear things being mis-understood in the translations, am very interested.

To be clear, my audience was a VFW lodge my father belongs to, not a bunch of out of area bigoted bible thumpers who only showed up as a mob intent on drowning out opposition.

I could have given the speech based purely on constitutional arguments and the military oath of service. That would have been relatively ineffective in my opinion. You have to get people to question what they have been taught to believe. You have to make them look at their bible and question the homophobic message.


But you basically just shit all over the Christian religion.

I'd hardly call it shitting on Christianity simply because it's not being practiced.


The Christian religion believes that God would not let the bible be mis-translated. It's at the root of their beliefs, the English Bible is law. "Born-Agains" point to a part of the bible that has been hotly contested forever. And these issues have been raging for many years.

I'm sorry you're getting death threats, but the speech was a clear slap in the face of many Christ-based religions. And unfortunately not many fanatical Christ-based worshipers take the teachings of Christ very seriously.

I disagree. It was a slap in the face of those parading under the guise of Christianity. They're not my audience, so don't really give a shit.

I'll engage any of them in debate in the hopes of maybe one person coming away with the ability to question the validity of what they were taught, but I'll not acknowledge them as Christian by any measure or definition.


I am sorry to say this but I cant NOT leave a comment and if I make enemies in the process so be it.

The only problem I have with homosexuals is the fact that they want to get married or got married in some areas. Marriage is a ceramony that is to be between a man and a woman. To go and let homosexuals get married is going agianst the Bible. If a man and man want to spend the rest of their lives together just do it. Getting married is absurd.

Now before you start telling me I am narrow-minded and need to open my eyes to the world and yata yata it i s just my opinion and I have a right to state it. Now bring on the haters please.

Out of curiosity, where does your bible say that homosexuals can't get married? Where does it say in our constitution that biblical law/fancies must be adhered to?


How you take the Bible is how you were raised and taught. That is why there are so many different branches of christianity.

And you provide an excellent example to this statement with your previous post.

In my opinion, that's the problem ... and it extends to all branches of religion.

The problem is that very few people actually read the scriptures they "believe" in. When it comes to matters of faith, people are generally lazy and too trusting.

My sister in law is an excellent example. She drags her family to church every Sunday, marks her bible to the selected passages in the program ... and doesn't actually read them.

She can quote a few verses after 20+ years of attending the same church, listening to the same minister ... yet if you ask her to quote the verse that comes before or after her quote ... she's lost. At that point she'll drag her bible, a bible that has almost no wear, out and hunt for the passage.

This brand of Christian is comfortable with ignorance.


Marriage is a christian/jewish ceramony

Marriage predates either and extends beyond either.


Now you mentioned that The Bible says nothing of lesbians? Sodom and Gomorra. One side lesbians the other gays and it was destroyed.

Did you even read the speech I posted ... did you ignore my earlier question pertaining to the age of Judaism vs the age of Christianity?

Nothing annoys me more than Christians ignorantly dipping into my heritage for defensive bullshit arguments for their own bigotry.


But it wasn't the marriage the homosexuals want. They want a more christian like wedding

No, absolutely not. They want the same right. They don't, by and large, want Churches to be forced to do anything, they want the right to marry in the courts or any church that will accept them.

This isn't a theological argument, it's a legal argument.

[4a6c1]

Raven can you please stop being Gay in Public. You cant marry a man! If that happens petshops everywhere might suffer as a result of the beastials following in your lead. You cant get married because it would hurt the small businesses. Sorry.

Evidenciary proof. A petshop in California.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/rojodisco/monkeydog.jpg

[Holybane]

Raven can you please stop being Gay in Public. You cant marry a man! If that happens petshops everywhere might suffer as a result of the beastials following in your lead. You cant get married because it would hurt the small businesses. Sorry.

Evidenciary proof. A petshop in California.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/rojodisco/monkeydog.jpg

thanks for the nightmares.

[Holybane]

Noted. I suspect we could get along in person but just see things differently. If you do ever want to discuss the issue with an eye to broadening your viewpoint, I'll be here.

I dont mind debating the matter with you. I do love a good debate.

^ not meaning any harm that is

[Holybane]

Raven can you please stop being Gay in Public. You cant marry a man! If that happens petshops everywhere might suffer as a result of the beastials following in your lead. You cant get married because it would hurt the small businesses. Sorry.

Evidenciary proof. A petshop in California.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv183/rojodisco/monkeydog.jpg

A pet shop in California? I doubt it. I am not a biologist or anything but I dont think you could breed a human and cow(?). The gap between the two species is too emense. Correct me if I am wrong on the matter and link some evidence please so I can learn more.

Edit: That was harsh.

[4a6c1]

You find the creepystories yourself lazyass, im just the creepyphoto finder.

[Ravenstorm]

A pet shop in California? I doubt it. I am not a biologist or anything but I dont think you could breed a human and cow(?). The gap between the two species is too emense. Correct me if I am wrong on the matter and link some evidence please so I can learn more.

Edit: That was harsh.

She was mocking the same-sex marriage leads to bestiality/marrying your dog arguments made by many right wing people. That's photoshopped :)

[Holybane]

Figured it was

[Holybane]

bestiality from same sex marraiges? That is pretty dumb imo. No offense to anyone.

[Ravenstorm]

bestiality from same sex marraiges? That is pretty dumb imo. No offense to anyone.

It's a standard right wing talking point. Same sex marriage is no different than bestiality. And if we let two men or two women marry, what's next? People marrying their dog?

You'd be amazed at the number of politicians - not to mention religious figures - who have said exactly that.

[Holybane]

I disagree with that. I doubt anyone in their right mind would marry an animal. Though there are some sickos.

[Ravenstorm]

That's because you seem to be relatively sane and not dogmatic to the point of rabidity. Somewhat misguided and mistaken but still relatively sane :P

But you can see why the topic can make me a little defensive and start assuming the worst about someone. There's a poster here who exemplifies that point of view. Whether he does it to mock the extreme right winger position to the point of absurdity or truly believes it is up for debate. Even if it's the latter, he says nothing that isn't said by others. Google the Westboro Baptist Church if you want to see some of the biggest bigots.