self-serving special privileges

Huh? How is it "special" to be able to do what everyone else gets to do by default?

"Huh? How is it "special" to be able to do what everyone else gets to do by default?"

Case in point, hate crimes legislation.

I don't have the right to ask for extra damages because someone attacks me. An LGBT person, under such legislation, does.

Now, isn't that "special?"

I bet if you could prove you were attacked specifically because of the color of your skin, your religion, your ethnicity or your sexual orientation you won't have a problem getting that special treatment.

Yah but just because a black man robs you for your money doesn't mean its a hate crime. He wanted your money. A bit different than beating gay guy to death and tying him to a fence because he was gay.

And I am sure that if it came to light that a white guy was tied to a fence and beaten to death by a bunch of blacks, mexicans, or little green men specifically because he was white, I every other reasonable person on this planet would call that a hate crime.

White and black gangland reprisals would be a little different in my opinion though. Because both groups are hardly innocent.

I bet if you could prove you were attacked specifically because of the color of your skin, your religion, your ethnicity or your sexual orientation you won't have a problem getting that special treatment.

I bet, as a white guy, I would.

How about being attacked because of political ideology? I've been physically assaulted BECAUSE of my conservative ideology in a non-conservative Cambridge, MA. Oops....political ideology isn't a protected class.

How about ancestry? I've been physically attacked because of the particular Scottish clan I belong to. Oops, family lineage isn't a protected class.

How about my gender? I've been physically assaulted simply because I was a breeder surrounded by lesbians.

Hell, I was assaulted by a big black woman yelling "This country's built on slavery!!" and shoving me around in downtown Boston....for holding an American flag in public......right in front of the cops and they not only wouldn't arrest her, they let it continue. That's the one and only time I've ever not defended myself when assaulted and if I DID, I'd have been arrested and charged with a hate crime.

No, I will not be receiving any special treatment as one of the protected class.

How about we stop criminalizing thought...yet another thing the Founders would puke about.

Sarge,

There is a big difference between getting shoved at a political rally, and being lynched, beaten to death, or sodomized with a broom because of your skin color, ethnicity, etc.

And you would have a hard time convincing me that the cops would have arrested you on the spot for shoving back at that black woman. Now if you beat the shit out of her, that would be different.

Ahmanrah,

I am still waiting for the very good reason that it is worse to be killed for being in one category than just randomly killed. (By the way, as we've discussed here before, so-called "hate crimes" are statistically almost non-existent--particularly those based on sexual orientation.

It's as big a lie as the ones the World Health Organization just backed away from--that AIDS is a heterosexual disease, and that "anybody" can get it.

It's not. It's a gay disease, as we've known from the very beginning when it was called GRIDS (gay-related immunity deficiency syndrome). You are highly unlikely to get it without being gay, having a blood transfusion, or being born with it.

But it's so much easier to get bills through Congress when it's "anybody's" disease.

Back to the main point, why should people be overcompensated because of their personal characteristics if they are assaulted? Why should a Jewish person or a woman get an extra compensation when a male of European descent can be beaten just as badly, for any reason, and still get less compensation, and his attacker serve less time?

Why isn't that a violation of the equal protection clause?

"And I am sure that if it came to light that a white guy was tied to a fence and beaten to death by a bunch of blacks, mexicans, or little green men specifically because he was white, I every other reasonable person on this planet would call that a hate crime."

Ah, yes. The legend of Matthew Shepherd.

The idiot who killed Matthew Shepherd over drugs did not do so because he was gay. His gayness did not enter the picture until they got it in their heads that they could use "gay panic" as a defense to their heinous assault. They argued that they were offended and crazed by him making a pass at them--didn't work. They went to prison. Unfortunately, Henderson ratted out McKinney to avoid the death penalty, and Matthew Shepherd's parents intervened to get McKinney life instead of the death penalty.

At any rate, liberals love to drag it out to prove that gays are in grave danger, and they never actually know the facts.

This was not a "hate crime." It was a stupid criminal crime. And there's no special sanction for stupidity. Yet.

There is a big difference between getting shoved at a political rally, and being lynched, beaten to death, or sodomized with a broom because of your skin color, ethnicity, etc.

There's a difference between a "hate crime" and the atrocitities you had to bring yourself to spew in order to have something to say. "Hate crime" is merely the appearance that you were the intimidation target of ANY crime because you're in a protected class. However, when I as a whitey have a group of black youths attempt to rob "the cracker"...as in...they said "Hey, let's get the crackah!".....nope, not a hate crime because I was white. Simple street crime is what it's called.

When I was shoved at that rally....it WAS a textbook hate-crime. She committed a crime against me with the intent of intimidating me BECAUSE I was whitey.....but alsa, I am not in the protected class.

And you would have a hard time convincing me that the cops would have arrested you on the spot for shoving back at that black woman. Now if you beat the shit out of her, that would be different.

I'd have a hard time convincing you the earth is round. If I had tossed her to the ground or knocked her in the mouth as I had the right to do after being physically assaulted, they would have arrested me plain and simple. What she was doing was not seen as a crime by them. I hit her and I'da been doing the perp-walk.

Now get back to your Klan stuff.....and stop criminalizing thought.

Kerry,

If this was simply a crime about drugs, why all the drama, the pistol whipping, the toture, and tying him to a fence. Why not put a bullet between his eyes and be done with it? Most crimes with this much overkill have an added element to them, and I would agree with the police and prosecutors (ie the professionals) that it was what it was, and not the self benefiting spin from right wingers who already have a chip on their shoulder about affirmative action and other matters.

Sarge is right, he would have been thrown in jail immediately if he would have laid hands on that woman. But it has to do more with the adage that a man is to never strike a woman more than reverse discrimination.

As for the Gay Caucus it's a non-starter. The issue doesn't impact my life or the life of many Americans one way or another.

LTL,

Perhaps, but I still don't think the cops would have arrested him for merely shoving back. But he talked about decking the woman, and in that case I would agree with Sarge, the cop probably would take him in. Some may see it as splitting hairs, but there is a meaningful difference in my mind between push and shoving and punching and kicking someone.

There is another aspect of this, the cop may arrest you Sarge, but a jury is needed to convict you an if I were on that jury and it was told to me that it was a mutual shoving match and nothing more, I couldn't vote to convict. Can't say how the other members would vote.

"If this was simply a crime about drugs, why all the drama, the pistol whipping, the toture, and tying him to a fence."

Because McKinney and Henderson were sub-moronic thugs. That's what people like them do.

"Why not put a bullet between his eyes and be done with it?"

Because it's not fun.

"Most crimes with this much overkill have an added element to them, and I would agree with the police and prosecutors (ie the professionals) that it was what it was, and not the self benefiting spin from right wingers who already have a chip on their shoulder about affirmative action and other matters."

You are missing the point. It was not the police that identified it as a hate crime--it was McKinney and Henderson that first claimed it was by asserting a gay panic defense. It would make no sense for the prosecution to claim it was a hate crime--since there WAS NO SUCH THING IN WYOMING. However, it makes perfect sense in our legal system for the perpetrators to use Shepherd's sexual preference as a defense to their own indefensible actions.

And it's not like this kind of killing is unique to gays. The vast majority of torture murders are perpetrated on heterosexuals by heterosexuals. So your "if it wasn't a hate crime what was it" challenge is just plain silly.

"Sarge is right, he would have been thrown in jail immediately if he would have laid hands on that woman. But it has to do more with the adage that a man is to never strike a woman more than reverse discrimination."

Excuse me, but isn't reverse SEXISM a form of reverse discrimination? There isn't a "don't touch women" law. There's a law against generalized assault by a person of either gender.

"As for the Gay Caucus it's a non-starter. The issue doesn't impact my life or the life of many Americans one way or another."

Of course it does. Aren't you an American citizen? Aren't these 52 Congresspersons wasting YOUR time working on these non-issues? And the precedent of a caucus based on sexual orientation just invites NAMBLA to roam the halls of Congress (openly, I mean) pushing their own interests for legislation.

After all, there's no basis on which to deny them the right to their own set of Congressmen, is there?

Aren't these 52 Congresspersons wasting YOUR time working on these non-issues? And the precedent of a caucus based on sexual orientation just invites NAMBLA to roam the halls of Congress (openly, I mean) pushing their own interests for legislation.

No they aren't wasting time, because they are fighting institutionalization of discrimination. And the minute you let your guard down or set a precedent with one group, people will find a way to write a law discriminating against another group. Because anybody who can be made to believe that gay people pose a threat to society (without any real proof) can be made to believe excuses why other groups like the blind, the deaf, the disabled, or the mentally handicapped shouldn't be allowed to get married or have kids.

That's a slippery slope that we as a country don't want to go down. Because we have been there before, when the mentality ill were seriously mistreated because of societal ignorance and indifference.

"No they aren't wasting time, because they are fighting institutionalization of discrimination."

No, they aren't. They're pandering to a specific population based on the way they have sex.

"Because anybody who can be made to believe that gay people pose a threat to society (without any real proof) can be made to believe excuses why other groups like the blind, the deaf, the disabled, or the mentally handicapped shouldn't be allowed to get married or have kids."

First, there are real grounds, but you reject them out of hand, because they concern morality, physical health, and the welfare of children--all of which you subordinate to your unmatched devotion to liberalism.

And second, it's very funny that you would drag the blind, the deaf, the disabled, etc., into this since 1) they have not choice in those conditions; 2) those conditions are debilitating; and 3) the same people that are fighting you over the destruction of man-woman monogamous marriage are the activists that introduced the protection of the handicapped.

Oh, wait. I suppose you think the atheists invented charity, hospitals, human dignity, and the notion of equality. Wrong again.

Read "What's So Great About Christianity" and then go apologize to God for rejecting his laws while basking in their results.

That's a slippery slope that we as a country don't want to go down. Because we have been there before, when the mentality ill were seriously mistreated because of societal ignorance and indifference.

Of course it does. Aren't you an American citizen? Aren't these 52 Congresspersons wasting YOUR time working on these non-issues? And the precedent of a caucus based on sexual orientation just invites NAMBLA to roam the halls of Congress (openly, I mean) pushing their own interests for legislation.

Those very few in NAMBLA want to associate their "struggle" with that of gay rights and so do you Kerry. Hmmmmn how very strange.

Further you ask why hate crime law exists. They exist because hate crimes are not just done to hurt the individual but to terrify and hurt the community or group targeted. Hate crimes are a warning to the whole group to curb their behaviour and therefore this additional intensioned effect carries an additional penalty.

"No they aren't wasting time, because they are fighting institutionalization of discrimination."

No, they aren't. They're pandering to a specific population based on the way they have sex.

Oh don't be so bloody stupid, so all the laws related to marriage "pander" to those who have hetrosexual sex?

WB,

I don't think in Kerry's world you can pander to the majority. Your only "defending" them, not pandering.

And second, it's very funny that you would drag the blind, the deaf, the disabled, etc., into this since 1) they have not choice in those conditions;

Kerry,

You still have no proof other than a few measly quotes in the Bible that homosexuality is a condition of choice. Whereas homosexuality has already been demonstrated to exist in multiple species in nature, and it has been demonstrated to run in families. Two clues that suggest it will ultimately be discovered that one or more genes will be found that pre-dispose a person to become a homosexual. And I have no doubt that time is on the side of scientists and not Christianity on this issue. Although I suspect you guys will pull out all the stops to flood the debate with bullshit, just like the Inquisition tried to crush the heresy of knowledge coming from the Early Enlightment.

"Excuse me, but isn't reverse SEXISM a form of reverse discrimination? There isn't a "don't touch women" law. There's a law against generalized assault by a person of either gender." ___________________________________________________

C'mon Kerry, Whether liberal or conservative most of us have been raised as boys not to punch or slap a woman. A man never hits a woman and I'm sure the men who frequent this blog agree.

Gay marriage/civil union and the cause NAMBLA are totally unrelated. The folks who want to get married are consenting adults. No fair-minded person could suggest that gay marriage opens the door for man/boy relations. It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

No fair-minded person could suggest that gay marriage opens the door for man/boy relations.

Heck there has been enough evidence shown that heterosexuals are just as likely to start these types of relations as homosexuals. Maybe we should ban marriage for everyone. And disband the Catholic priesthood, which must be bad (using Kerry's limited rational analysis) since it seems to produce so many pedophiles.

Here is an interesting little piece on the Religious right and its myth about Homosexuals being a greater danger to children than heterosexuals. Notice the same parallels in this first paragraph that other in the past attributed to Jews and Black minorities in their community. If this doesn't ring a bell, nothing will

Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.

In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children" (Bryant, 1977, p. 114).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I particularly love this little morsel of fact:

Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases

And as the narrative above suggests this is not the only study that shows Homosexuals are a small minority when it comes to child abuse, not a majority.

Can't beat facts with bullshit.

Oh, wait. I suppose you think the atheists invented charity, hospitals, human dignity, and the notion of equality. Wrong again.

Christians did not invent any of those things either. You're always wrong when it comes to these things.

Read "What's So Great About Christianity" and then go apologize to God for rejecting his laws while basking in their results.

You also frequently manage to write things that make me feel very sorry for you. Pity.

"Gay marriage/civil union and the cause NAMBLA are totally unrelated."

NAMBLA thinks they are. So do polygamists and advocates of adult incest.

"The folks who want to get married are consenting adults."

So what? The "age of consent" is a determination of the state. Suppose a state decided there WAS no "age of sexual consent?" On what basis do we deny rational boys and men the right to "love" one another, as the Greeks and the Spartans did? After all, were they not superior civilizations to our own? And was it not considered a great honor for a young boy to be taken on by an older, wiser man? In fact (as intergenerational sex advocates argue), the consensual exchange of young sex for wisdom is a practice that created great creativity, art, poetry--and had few ill effects.

What very good LEGAL justification can be held to keep 15-year old boys out of the hands of 55-year old men? And if the law cannot give a good reason for a static and unwavering "age of consent," then what does it mean to have one? If the law says you may engage in sex at 14, but not homosexual sex, will not that law be struck down?

What barrier is there now to pederasty?

"No fair-minded person could suggest that gay marriage opens the door for man/boy relations."

Find a logical legal argument that can keep it closed. The only argument is moral, and we have tossed morality out already. So what's left?

"It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise."

It's intellectually deceptive to refuse to engage the question.

"Heck there has been enough evidence shown that heterosexuals are just as likely to start these types of relations as homosexuals."

Perhaps. This certainly gives them plenty of legal grounding.

"Maybe we should ban marriage for everyone."

And thus destroy society. Congratulations. You win.

"And disband the Catholic priesthood, which must be bad (using Kerry's limited rational analysis) since it seems to produce so many pedophiles."

Only the Catholics can disband the Catholic priesthood. "We" have nothing to do with it.

"Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases "

But the question then is, how many gays are available to have perpetrated? What percentage are in the population, how many of those have access to children, and what does that mean?

The point here is not statistical. It is logical and legal. If in fact you can marry a man when you are 18, why should you not be able to date one when you are 17--or 16? And if so, and society may not pass judgment on you, how is the 16 or 17 year old to sort out what is going on?

No one on the traditional marriage side wants to protect adolescent sexual behavior. To the contrary, it is Planned Parenthood that consistently encourages and hides statutory rape between adult men and young girls. But the combination of the Lawrence decision and (if it stands) the mischief wrought by the California court leaves no zone of protection for children of an age to physically engage in sex.

The privacy which the Lawrence case extended to homosexuals and which the laws of many states (including California) extend to the reproductive privacy of minors make it logical that all childhood sexual privacy shall eventually be protected, if we follow that line of reasoning. With the single exception of rape, there can be no interference by the state in an act which is legally protected under Lawrence.

And, with the potential exception of superstitious science--the effects of which are easily overcome in the modern day--what legal barrier shall there be to adult incest?

"And as the narrative above suggests this is not the only study that shows Homosexuals are a small minority when it comes to child abuse, not a majority."

Being as how they are around 3-5% of the population in the first place, we ought not to be comforted by the idea that they are 1% of the perpetrators.

""Oh, wait. I suppose you think the atheists invented charity, hospitals, human dignity, and the notion of equality. Wrong again.""

"Christians did not invent any of those things either. You're always wrong when it comes to these things."

Yes, in fact, they did. Prior to the Christian notion of individual human dignity, if one was not useful, one would not be cared for. It was only the Christians who went out of their way to care for those who had no value to society--the weak, the lame, the blind, the imperfect children.

Of all the ancient thought-systems, only Christianity posits an equal and individual worth for every human being. There are no castes, no classes, no better or worse. The Book of James is profoundly clear on economic distinctions. Paul speaks most eloquently on racial and gender equality.

The ancients did not value individuals--they valued the CHARACTERISTICS of individuals, and admired those who displayed them--valor, honor, beauty, strength, etc. But Christianity introduces the notion that none of that matters to God, in the end. For each individual, whether able to display such characteristics or not, is of equal and infinite worth to the God of the universe, who sacrificed His Son for individual human beings.

Now, you may not like it, but it's an undeniable fact of history.

And the idea of a marriage of equals--of two individuals joined by God to form one complete unit for a lifetime--that comes entirely from the Christian faith. Even in Biblical Judaism, in the Old Testament, the chosen people of God try to follow the will of God in marriage, but they often confuse it with an alliance or an assignation.

In the New Testament, marriage is portrayed as a loving partnership, demonstrating for us the relationship of Christ and His church. Now, just because the Church, the Popes, and the Kings got that wrong for centuries doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Monogamous and egalitarian marriage did not come from "the world"--it came from the Bible.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether this nation or any nation founded on that thought-system shall long endure. We have had a good run, but if we write into law what every major religion considers an abomination, we invite the end of our civilization.

Yes, in fact, they did. Prior to the Christian notion of individual human dignity, if one was not useful, one would not be cared for. It was only the Christians who went out of their way to care for those who had no value to society--the weak, the lame, the blind, the imperfect children.

What a load of crap...what did the Chinese ever do before Marco Polo arrived. You obviously know nothing about Confucius, who lived nearly 500 years before 99% of the planet even knew of the bible much less had read it. There are a million Confucius quotes that talk about how you should treat others, including the poor and the sick, etc. So many I am not going to bother posting them here.

Of all the ancient thought-systems, only Christianity posits an equal and individual worth for every human being. There are no castes, no classes, no better or worse.

Then why does every church, the Catholics most of all have such an authoritarian structure. Monk, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, and ultimately Pope. I could be the most saintly person on Earth and never become the pope, because its an unequal system, that was decided by human beings, just like the Indian caste system. And while Europe's caste system wasn't directly religious, it nevertheless had one. Emperor (including the HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR..hmm) Kings, Princes, Earls, Dukes, Knights and ultimately on down the line to powerless peasants. And neither is any other caste system on Earth entirely religious.

Being as how they are around 3-5% of the population in the first place, we ought not to be comforted by the idea that they are 1% of the perpetrators.

And you are comforted enough by the fact the other 90% account for 99% of the pedophiles? Do you realize the math here Kerry? If Homosexuals had the same "potential" to be pedophiles, as heterosexuals, there numbers would be closer to 10% of that total, instead of 1%. In other words the chances of heterosexuality producing a pedophile are much higher than among homosexuals. Using only this one example of course. I'd say you start banning heterosexuals from having access to kids....if you truly are worried by appearances. But you are nevertheless convinced that Homosexuals are the more dangerous, when facts suggest otherwise.

Monogamous and egalitarian marriage did not come from "the world"--it came from the Bible.

Do you have proof that everybody was a polygamist, a polyandry, a swinger, etc before the Bible showed up? I would hazard a guess that archaeological evidence probably exists that shows that the traditional family unit was practiced long before the Bible, by most people out of shear necessity. That's not to say of course that certain elements of any given society didn't practice polygamy, like the wealthy. And hell as far as that goes, even Christian Kings weren't truly monogamous for most of their history, despite the teachings of the Bible. Sure they may have officially had one wife, but there was also many a mistress for sure.

""Of all the ancient thought-systems, only Christianity posits an equal and individual worth for every human being. There are no castes, no classes, no better or worse.""

"Then why does every church, the Catholics most of all have such an authoritarian structure. Monk, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, and ultimately Pope."

You misunderstand Christinity in general, and Catholicism in particular. The Pope is not intrinsically "better" or more valuable than you--even if "you" are Charles Manson or Adolf Hitler or an anonymous Afghan child blown to bits by a Soviet toy-bomb. The people you name serve FUNCTIONS that set them apart for a unique kind of SERVANTHOOD--their roles do not change their CHARACTER as children of God.

"I could be the most saintly person on Earth and never become the pope, because its an unequal system, that was decided by human beings, just like the Indian caste system."

No, this is not so. You could be the most saintly person on earth and still go to Hell BECAUSE you are outside the Kingdom of God. DOING "good "is neither the same as being transformed and redeemed by the righteousness of Christ nor of any meaning to God whatsoever.

And you could not be Pope because you are not Catholic.

Under the Indian caste system, you are born irretrievably into a classification of being that cannot be changed, and your ability to function in this world is determined by it. Within this system, there is no equality.

Christianity, on the other hand, values not only the Christian--but also the Untouchable and the Brahmin--equally and has a divine and unique purpose for each. Whether an individual achieves that purpose is determined only by the willingness of the individual to follow the will of God.

"And while Europe's caste system wasn't directly religious, it nevertheless had one. Emperor (including the HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR..hmm) Kings, Princes, Earls, Dukes, Knights and ultimately on down the line to powerless peasants. And neither is any other caste system on Earth entirely religious."

You are using the term "caste" incorrectly. While the European medieval system was class-bound, it was not caste-determinative. While it was unlikely that one would move from the very bottom to the very top, it was at least theoretically possible. In a caste system, this is literally impossible--for spiritual reasons, regardless of material reality.

""Being as how they are around 3-5% of the population in the first place, we ought not to be comforted by the idea that they are 1% of the perpetrators.""

"And you are comforted enough by the fact the other 90% account for 99% of the pedophiles? Do you realize the math here Kerry? If Homosexuals had the same "potential" to be pedophiles, as heterosexuals, there numbers would be closer to 10% of that total, instead of 1%. In other words the chances of heterosexuality producing a pedophile are much higher than among homosexuals. Using only this one example of course. I'd say you start banning heterosexuals from having access to kids....if you truly are worried by appearances. But you are nevertheless convinced that Homosexuals are the more dangerous, when facts suggest otherwise."

No, you have here one single study, which does not by itself answer the theoretical point. You yourself point out the high incidence of pedophilia among the Catholic clergy. Do you mean to tell me that if gay Catholic priests were allowed to have male "life-partners," it would somehow prevent them from molesting children?

Does this not fly in the face of the insistence of the gay lobby that pedophilia and homosexuality arise out of different circumstances?

""Monogamous and egalitarian marriage did not come from "the world"--it came from the Bible.""

"Do you have proof that everybody was a polygamist, a polyandry, a swinger, etc before the Bible showed up?"

Greece, Rome, Sparta, Babylon, all the ancient Kingdoms, Egypt, etc. And yet, from within this vast sea of crass materialist marriage arose monogamous Christian marriage.

"I would hazard a guess that archaeological evidence probably exists that shows that the traditional family unit was practiced long before the Bible, by most people out of shear necessity."

And yet, you have not looked. I don't have time to school you in the history of marriage, ancient and modern. I have given you facts which you choose to ignore, based on your "guesses" and imagined "probabilities."

"That's not to say of course that certain elements of any given society didn't practice polygamy, like the wealthy. And hell as far as that goes, even Christian Kings weren't truly monogamous for most of their history, despite the teachings of the Bible. Sure they may have officially had one wife, but there was also many a mistress for sure."

Technically, "monogamy" is not affected by the presence of concubines or mistresses.

You seem to assume that there must have been thought-systems precedent to Christianity that produced the same belief in monogamous and spiritually enduring marriage, yet you have no such to show. At the same time, you wish to dismiss the preservation of traditional marriage as a purely religious argument. So, which is it? You can't have both. Either traditional marriage is a Christian invention, or not. If not, then you must drop your objection to banning gay marriage insofar as it is based on the notion that it is a religious position.

Really. Read D'Souza's book. You will learn a lot--even that science supports both the notion of a Creator and the notion of a Designer.

Find a logical legal argument that can keep it closed. The only argument is moral, and we have tossed morality out already. So what's left?

No you have decided to throw out morality. It seems to be your belief that without a Judeo-Chistian God, nobody has any right to claim a moral code. Most of the rest of us disagree, something I've seen argued here on a number of occassions by a number of posters. That you can't see (or won't acknowledge) that hetrosexual relationships according to the logical extension of your arguement are a gateway to paedophilia illustrates your blinkered outlook.

Your repeated attempts to link homosexuality to an organisation like Nambla have fallen into absurdity. You say Nambla claims a link, well the Westbro church claims a link to Christianity so presumeably we should judge all Christians by their pronouncements.

Your posts here have descended into meaningless drivel and since people have taken the time to correct you in the past and you seem to have learned nothing it raises the question of what is the actual point of engaging with you.

"No you have decided to throw out morality."

No, I am attempting to retain it.

"It seems to be your belief that without a Judeo-Chistian God, nobody has any right to claim a moral code."

There are many other moral codes that also reject homosexuality; you don't like them, either, because morality requires a supernatural element, and you won't put it on the table.

"Your repeated attempts to link homosexuality to an organisation like Nambla have fallen into absurdity. You say Nambla claims a link, well the Westbro church claims a link to Christianity so presumeably we should judge all Christians by their pronouncements."

I am not judging homsexuals by NAMBLA. I am making the logical and legal association between unfettered homosexual privacy with an additional right to marriage, and unfettered heterosexual privacy with an additional right to marriage. Given the high incidence of statutory heterosexual rape, engendered by the combination of early age of consent laws and absolute reproductive privacy, how can we make laws preventing pederasty--laws that will not be thwarted by well-meaning organizations the same way statutory rape laws are thwarted by Planned Parenthood?

Your posts here have descended into meaningless drivel and since people have taken the time to correct you in the past and you seem to have learned nothing it raises the question of what is the actual point of engaging with you.

Moreover, there are requirements for claiming the title of "Baptist" and "church," both behavioral and ecclesiastical. I am not denying that WBC qualifies as a "church," but no Baptist group claims them, and they show no signs of actually being Baptist.

Moreover, it is perfectly possible for individual Baptists--even entire Baptist churches or denominations (as well as other individuals, churches, and denominations) to not be "Christian" to begin with.

Now, I am still waiting for the POINT OF LAW that permits laws against pederasty (or polygamy, or adult incest) that have not already been eliminated by the logic of Lawrence and succeeding cases.

...and thusly.....yet another potentially good thread is ruined.

because morality requires a supernatural element, and you won't put it on the table.

Sometimes, as the amazing Christopher Hitchens puts it, the daft arguements of your opponents need not always be refuted (because of the lack of sense), only underlined, consider this quoted babble underlined.

Kerry,

The day that joe sixpack has a choice in deciding who his new pope is, is the day I will believe the founding church of Christianity is egalitarian.

"I would hazard a guess that archaeological evidence probably exists that shows that the traditional family unit was practiced long before the Bible, by most people out of shear necessity."

And yet, you have not looked. I don't have time to school you in the history of marriage, ancient and modern. I have given you facts which you choose to ignore, based on your "guesses" and imagined "probabilities."

No need, all I have to do is demonstrate that people existed in monogamous relationship before Christians ever showed up on the scene. And all I need to do is find one example, and it throws your complete argument in the toilet.

Kerry,

Here is a perfect example after 30 second search on the web.

http://www.chcp.org/wedding.html

It is a discussion of Chinese wedding rituals that based on traditions written down in 400 BC, 400 years before the Bible. Notice how they talk about one man, and one woman, not one man, his harem, and 50 kids.

Kerry,

I also suggest you read the Indian texts,the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, both ancient Indian texts dating between 750 to 500 BC, which describe the most popular form of marriage in ancient India called Swayamvara.

What is Swayamvara?

....was a practice of choosing a life partner, among a list of suitors by a girl of marriageable age. Swayam in Sanskrit means Self and Vara means choosing or wanting.

In this practice, the girl's father decides to conduct the Swayamvara of the daughter at an auspicious time and venue, and broadcasts the news of this to the outside world. Kings, typically used to send messengers to outside lands whereas commoners arranged to spread the news within the local community.

On the appointed day and venue, a list of suitors arrive at the girl's home and ask for her hand. The girl and her family get to choose among the suitors, sometimes through evaluating the completion of various tasks assigned. When the girl identifies the husband of her choice, she garlands him and a marriage ceremony is held immediately.

So keep spewing your BS about Christianity setting the standard. The Bible and Jesus weren't even in diapers when the Indians and Chinese were performing monogamous marriages routinely.

"The day that joe sixpack has a choice in deciding who his new pope is, is the day I will believe the founding church of Christianity is egalitarian."

You still totally miss the point. In the eyes of God, the Pope and the pauper have EQUAL value. They may not occupy the same role, have the same material circumstance, or have equal life chances, but none of those things affect their value in the eyes of God.

"""I would hazard a guess that archaeological evidence probably exists that shows that the traditional family unit was practiced long before the Bible, by most people out of shear necessity."""

""And yet, you have not looked. I don't have time to school you in the history of marriage, ancient and modern. I have given you facts which you choose to ignore, based on your "guesses" and imagined "probabilities."""

"No need, all I have to do is demonstrate that people existed in monogamous relationship before Christians ever showed up on the scene. And all I need to do is find one example, and it throws your complete argument in the toilet."

I said "monogamous and EGALITARIAN." This is based on the EQUAL value of men and women. You have not found such relationships.

I said "monogamous and EGALITARIAN." This is based on the EQUAL value of men and women. You have not found such relationships.

This doesn't sound to EGALITARIAN to me....

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Or this...

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Or this...

Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Or this...

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Or this....

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

You have a real messed up concept of Egalitarian relationship if you think Christianity offers a shining model of it.

If credit is to be give to anyone for the concept egalitarianism it should be to those who invented the word...the French. They definitely didn't get the concept from the Bible, as the Bible quotes above clearly demonstrate.

"This doesn't sound to EGALITARIAN to me...."

Of course it doesn't. Because you have no idea of either the meaning or the context of what you have plucked from a book you do not read.

"Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."

Biblial submission is egalitarian. All parties are considered equally important, equally valuable, equally loved. Moreover, while there are 3 verses on wives' duty to their husbands, there are FIVE on husbands' duty to wives:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church."

The point here is that no man of the culture in which Paul's audience lived was required to do any such thing. In that culture, women were of so little worth that they could not even testify in court, owned nothing, could inherit nothing, and meant nothing. Men were in no way expected to "love" them, much less "cherish." Men merely wanted, took, and owned "their" women. This was the most clear statement of equality this culture had ever heard--and even so, it caused no end of difficulty as they tried to live it out.

"Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

And your problem with this would be? Men and women have different roles, not different WORTH. The traditions of ancient Judaism added much to the plain Scripture, and it was these errors that Jesus came to set right. As He clearly did with His own astonishingly equal treatment of women.

Don't forget that Adam, too, was punished in his way (many would argue more harshly): "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return."

"Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

I do not see a problem with this. Would you claim that Christ is oppressed by God? Or less than God? God Himself says otherwise. This is an order of function, not value.

"Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."

And immediately thereafter, Paul says: "Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them."

Again, this is a great leap forward, considering the culture in which they live. If a man loves his wife, she can live in Biblical submission without fear or oppression. Both must obey. In fact, the Bible says that God will not hear the prayers of a man that does not love his wife:

1 Peter 3:7: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

That is a relationships of equal heirs of grace (an "heir" was something that a woman could not be in the culture out of which Christianity developed; this promise of Peters would have been an incredible assertion for women to hear.)

"1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Again, this is culturally understood. In the Corinthian church, as in most synagogues of the time, the women and men were separated spatially in service. Paul speaks here of the habit of calling across to have someone repeat what had already been said. Remember, this is in the middle of Paul's instructions as to how the church is best run--when to permit prophesy, how to handle speaking in tongues, etc. It is not a general instruction for all times, nor is it intended to limit women in the church. In fact, there were women leaders in the church from the earliest times.

And, I would ask you to explain this, if there is not equality between men and women in Christ:

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

NOW, could we please get back to identifying the POINT OF LAW that can ban pederasty, polygamy, or adult incest, despite the ruling in Lawrence and succeeding cases?

I mean, if society doesn't want to ban those things, that's one thing. But if we do, we need to face the reality that the basic arguments against them are no more tenable than the arguments against a private right to sodomy.

"And as the narrative above suggests this is not the only study that shows Homosexuals are a small minority when it comes to child abuse, not a majority."

Maybe so, but here are two who shouldn't be allowed access to children:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369486,00.html

And please note that, while the sweet word "girlfriend" appears in the body of the article, the word "lesbian" does not appear at all, either in the article or the headline. One of the reasons you can't rely on google searches to find out what's going on out there.

Sometimes, as the amazing Christopher Hitchens puts it, the daft arguements of your opponents need not always be refuted (because of the lack of sense), only underlined, consider this quoted babble underlined. - SSE

I do not find Christopher Hitchens "amazing," except in that he was deceived by Bill Clinton for as long as he was. I rather liked "No One Left to Lie To," but he seemed to have come to reality with a slowness unbecoming someone alleged to be so brilliant. His brother is much wiser.

Kerry,

Sorry to break it to you. But a relationship where your husband "RULES" over you is not egalitarian...plain and simple!

"Sorry to break it to you. But a relationship where your husband "RULES" over you is not egalitarian...plain and simple!"

Why not? Do you know the meaning of that word in its context?

That wasn't fair. If I have the answer, I should give it--not ask you to come up with it.

Let me explain.

Although the woman is "ruled" by the man in the Old Testament context, in the New Testament, that curse is redeemed, as is the man's curse of labor.

Matthew Henry explains the merciful nature of God's decree in Genesis:

'Observe here how mercy is mixed with wrath in this sentence. The woman shall have sorrow, but it shall be in bringing forth children, and the sorrow shall be forgotten for joy that a child is born, Jn. 16:21. She shall be subject, but it shall be to her own husband that loves her, not to a stranger, or an enemy: the sentence was not a curse, to bring her to ruin, but a chastisement, to bring her to repentance. It was well that enmity was not put between the man and the woman, as there was between the serpent and the woman.'

With the Advent of Christ, however, the relationship changes between man and women. While roles are changed only so far as is practicable in the surrounding society, intrinsically, they are made equal to one another. In Christ there is no male nor female. In Christ, we are different. A peculiar people. The meaning of "male" and "female" in the world into which Christ came were clear and unequal. Yet Paul tells us that Christ has eliminated that inequality within us.

For the Christian, the inner life is of greater importance than outer appearances. In the same way, though Paul sends Onesimus the slave back to his master in the book of Philemon, he is clear as to how their relationship is to be transformed:

"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself."

Paul admonishes the master to take Onesimus back as a BROTHER, though he is still a slave.

It is in the internal change that Christianity does its greatest work. For when a slave and his master are joined as brothers, by necessity eventually the relationship will lose its inequality--as the abolitionists, in the end, proved.

In the same way, a woman who is serving her husband, with a husband who is serving her, is in the most equal and fulfilling relationship possible in this world.

And thus endeth the lesson.

Now, AGAIN, explain to me the very good reasons why:

1. The Congress needs to bother itself with LGBT issues;

2. The law can, under Lawrence and succeeding cases, entirely ban polygamy, pederasty, adult incest, or other aberrant forms of private sexual conduct;

and

3. Why "hate crimes" legislation does not create a special category of protection for one group of people that is not available to others, and why that doesn't violate the equal protection clause.

Kerry,

There are still two tiny problems.

1 - There is still an emphasis on men being more important than women in Christianity. You can see this both in the fact that most people envision God as masculine, and obviously Jesus was a man too.

2 - There are many Christian, particularly the more fundamentalist ones that still choose to look at quotes like those in Genesis and apply them as quoted today. And lets be honest we live in a male dominated society where many men think they are the boss of their household. But I don't really blame Christianity for this, because I think this attitude develops from the reality of our genetics, just like we see in the hierarchical society of wolves. But if Christianity were truly egalitarian, you would have thought it would have helped contribute to the shed of this attitude in our society, but fact that it hasn't says to me that Christianity not only fails at this task, but also confirms that Christianity for the most part is product of the people that created it...people who believe in a male dominant culture, with a male figure as earthly leader, and a male as its spirtual leader.

"There are still two tiny problems."

Well, then I should be thankful for "small" favors, I suppose "Two tiny" ones are better than usual.

"1 - There is still an emphasis on men being more important than women in Christianity."

No, not in the Bible. Not more "important." Just differentially important. Equal value, equal worth. Equally bought with the price of God's own Blood. You can't get more equal than that. Now, if you want to assign that attitude to "Christianity," I will say, yes. Because "Christianity"--denominations, churches, individuals--have made a lot of mistakes. But you can't legitimately get that from the text. Not if you take Galatians 3:28 seriously.

"You can see this both in the fact that most people envision God as masculine, and obviously Jesus was a man too."

Well, yes. God is masculine. But that has nothing to do with His status as God. He could have been anything He chose. He could have sent Jesus to come to earth as a literal lamb. But that wouldn't have solved the problem. Think about this. Had Jesus come as a woman, He would have had no authority. Miracles or not, He would not have been taken seriously. More importantly, He would not have been crucified--because a woman claiming to be Messiah would simply have been mad, not dangerous or blasphemous.

"2 - There are many Christian, particularly the more fundamentalist ones that still choose to look at quotes like those in Genesis and apply them as quoted today."

I'm not sure what you mean by "as quoted today." If you mean they see them as banishing women from leadership or an equal position in the home, I would agree that some of them do. They are wrong.

"And lets be honest we live in a male dominated society where many men think they are the boss of their household."

I have no quarrel with that.

"But I don't really blame Christianity for this, because I think this attitude develops from the reality of our genetics, just like we see in the hierarchical society of wolves. But if Christianity were truly egalitarian, you would have thought it would have helped contribute to the shed of this attitude in our society, but fact that it hasn't says to me that Christianity not only fails at this task, but also confirms that Christianity for the most part is product of the people that created it...people who believe in a male dominant culture, with a male figure as earthly leader, and a male as its spirtual leader."

Where, exactly, do you think the idea of female equality comes from? Jesus declared it when He sent women to be His witnesses--despite the fact that they had no place in the world at the time. He declared it when He revealed Himself to the woman at the well, when He allowed Mary Magdalene into His inner circle, when He appeared to the Marys at the temple after the resurrection, before seeking His male disciples.

In Christ there is no male nor female.

Perhaps I take this so seriously because the faith communion in which I exist began with a one-eyed black man and a woman. From the beginning, we have had women leaders, even though our surrounding cultures didn't like that a whole lot. Even today, in other nations where women have little, even no, value, we have indigenous women pastors in training and women missionaries teaching.

I do not disagree with you that the church (in its universal sense) has very often mistaken an order of difference for an order of preference. That is not the fault of the Bible, nor of Jesus. It, like slavery, is an effect of human beings trying to live out a very challenging command. We don't always get it right. But it always IS right. And, with God's help, eventually we DO get it right--though it may take a lot of small, uncertain steps to get there.

But, hang on there. Am I reading this right?:

"I think this attitude develops from the reality of our genetics, just like we see in the hierarchical society of wolves."

Do you actually mean to say here that you think the roles of men and women (which I argue are equal, but different) is genetically determined?

Oooh, my old femmie sisters would have had you for breakfast. And not in a good way. They would consider that "masculinist science." Which, in case you were wondering, is BAD.

And, back to the show. Why do we need an LGBT Equality Caucus? And not, let's say, a Straight Arrow Caucus?

"Do you actually mean to say here that you think the roles of men and women (which I argue are equal, but different) is genetically determined?"

Of course, that should be "are genetically determined," not "is."

Mea culpa.

Had Jesus come as a woman, He would have had no authority. Miracles or not, He would not have been taken seriously.

LOL! So despite all of his heavenly powers of persuasion, he wouldn't have been taken seriously because he was a WOMAN! PLEASE. He/She is the Messiah for pete sake, gender shouldn't matter when are greater than this world. In other words I don't buy that part. Neither do I buy the part about the crucifixion. Someone causing that much trouble would have been dealt with one way or the other.

No, not in the Bible. Not more "important." Just differentially important. Equal value, equal worth. Equally bought with the price of God's own Blood. You can't get more equal than that.

Sure you can, God could have created them at the same time and spare us the drama. Creating man first, and then creating women from man suggest the man was more important. Numero Uno! It means something and you can't get away from it. This is especially true if God is so worried about getting through to man that he has to send a man down to Earth to have an impact. He has to know that telling a masculine ruled culture that man came first and woman came second...and from man besides, was going to be viewed exactly as it is today...woman are second, and thus not equal.

Well, yes. God is masculine. But that has nothing to do with His status as God. He could have been anything He chose.

Nevertheless, he chose to be masculine, and according to you appearances are everything. My point is made.

Oooh, my old femmie sisters would have had you for breakfast. And not in a good way. They would consider that "masculinist science." Which, in case you were wondering, is BAD.

Maybe in the peace of their living room, but not in the real world.

...and thusly.....yet another potentially good thread is ruined.

I don't see how this thread had the potential to be good. First of all, regarding the initial subject, I don't find anything remarkable about this at all considering the variety of pro-homosexual organizations that exist. Is Kerry, once again, feigning surprise and outrage? I don't even understand the issue here.

Second of all, this is a post on PME. That means there will be scads of uninteresting and unpleasant exchanges between Kerry and Ahmanrah.

So I don't see where the potential for goodness lay, except by the fact of the occasional comment by others. I find it "strange" considering how much time Kerry and Ahmanrah waste arguing with each other everyday, with absolutely zero chance of ever swaying each other. When I look at the length of their posts here, I keep thinking what else they could be doing with their time. Maybe putting their words into action? Nevermind, you guys keep at it.