Repent!
 

Pray tell, repent of what?
 

Sin.

 

Wow.. Such lucid, well thought out answers...

So which horrible sin have I committed in this blog? Bonus points if your answer contains more than one word.
 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,

30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,

31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

-Romans 1:18-32
 

Silly Me.. When I said to reply with more than one word I neglected to specify a word that you actually wrote. Let's try for a multi word response that you actually wrote yourself.
 

You are avoiding the issue.
 

Ok, cool. A fully formed thought. Now, which issue and how am I avoiding it. Lets aim for a full paragraph of original material this time. If you give me 2 paragraphs you get a gold star!
 

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

-Romans 1:26,27
 

I said ORIGINAL material. Something you wrote yourself. No gold star for you!
 

You really should knock it off. The sad irony is that it's people like you who make "Anything BUT your lifestyle" seem attractive. Maybe it's poor rationale, but it doesn't diminish the point.

Sin is a "mistake"... and, I can appreciate that anyone might think gays are mistaken, but don't use yours belief in their "mistakeness" as justification for your sin of self-righteousness.

Share your thoughts, even, but don't overwhelm people with stuff they find reprehensible to begin with... otherwise, they'll throw your baby out with the bath water.

And I'm sure that's not what you want....
 

Sin:

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.

2. Theology.

a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.

3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
-Answers.com

From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
-Matthew 4:17

"Repentance is a change of thought and action to correct a wrong and gain forgiveness from a person who is wronged. In religious contexts it usually refers to confession to God, ceasing sin against God, and resolving to live according to religious law. It typically includes an admission of guilt, a promise or resolve not to repeat the offense; an attempt to make restitution for the wrong, or in some way to reverse the harmful effects of the wrong where possible."
-Wikipedia

To repent means to turn around and go in a different direction.
 

It reveals your station that you have to quote, literally, from various books in order to define such terms. The bible is a "psychology" manual for a very simple people... psychology, during biblical times, was very different from today's academic psychology. In the psychology of biblical times, sin simply meant, "mistake"....

Your understanding of the word "sin", however, fuels self-righteousness...

In reality, G-d is to us as the brain is to the cells... Our commandments are not parental, or military, style orders.... they are guidance to help us remain healthy and, therefore, of use to the greater body. Those cells/individuals who do not follow the guidelines become sick and, ultimately, removed... without your involvement. Unhealthy cells, engaged in unhealthy behaviors, decrease their chances of survival.

There's more to this but I don't want to cast that many pearls just yet until these ones show me what you are.
 

Why did you post the same video twice?
 

The second one is more indepth (6 minutes vs 19 seconds) but Myspace is being dumb and wont let me go back and edit out the first one.

 

I was pretty disappointed too. I did like what mayor gavin newsom said on Rachael Madow's show tonight. He basically said that it is a way address people like Warren directly. But I still don't get it, I mean Warren basically set Obama up at the "debate thing" they did at the church.

 

The thing is Waynebow, he could have found any number of pastors that did not just spend the last couple months working to deny gays basic equality that would still have given the fundies the warm-fuzzy feeling he wants them to have. This is a slap in the face from a man who, now that he is elected, thinks he can ignore, or rather, insult our community because he thinks we are stuck with him.

 

I'm not at ALL surprised about this, especially when you consider his answer at the Saddleback Forum, when he said that he was for civil unions, an anathema to the majority of the GLBT community, but belived that marriage is strictly between man/woman. The MSM and Democrats were so enamored by this guy that they never decided to find out more about him, and rejected any criticism of him as racially-motivated. You guys shouldn't be surprised that he is acting this way, we on the Right tried to warn you. Furthermore, you probably will understand better why the Right had such a problem with Chimpy McBushitler.


Warren, I will admit, is hardly a fan of gay rights, but apart from their views on the life issue, Warren and Obama agree on many social justice issues.

 

"Obama has proven himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. " - John Cloud writing in Time.

 

 

1) I didn't vote for Obama, I voted for McCain.

2) Obama half assed opposed Prop 8.

3) Prop 8 is illegal anyway - fundamental changes to the California Constitution must go thorough the legislature before going on the ballot.
 

John,

There are two methods for making a change to the Constitution of the state of California. The first method, for minor changes is referred to in the Constitution as an "amendment" and can be passed through the initiative process.

The second method, which the Constitution refers to as a "revision" is a major change to the document· A revision requires passage by a 2/3rd majority of the legislature before going on the ballot. This has been recognized numerous times in the state's history, including the following cases:

The ruling in McFadden v. Jordan states: "The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the Constitution in 1911 (art. IV, s 1) applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision."

The ruling in Raven v. Deukmejian states: "revision/amendment analysis has a dual aspect, requiring us to examine both the quantitative and qualitative effects of the measure on our constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision."

The ruling in Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization states: "an enactment which is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions may well constitute a revision thereof. However, even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also."

So, how is Prop 8 a revision instead of an amendment? Simple.

Article 1 of the California Constitution, in more than one place, guarantees to each citizen the equal protection of the law. Additionally, Article one states "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."

The ruling in In Re Marriage Cases states: "Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a “right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the California Constitution"

In short, Prop 8 strips from a class of people a fundamental right. Doing so is much more than a simple amendment - it is a revision and, as such, must go through the legislature first.

Imagine the chaos, John, if the majority can strip rights from a minority at will. We have, or at at least supposed to have, a society where individual rights and freedoms are paramount. Such a society cannot exist if the minority is not protected from the tyranny of the majority.

As Wendell Phillips said, "Governments exist to protect the rights of minorities. The loved and the rich need no protection: they have many friends and few enemies."
 

"You as a man can marry one woman who is not a close relative nor a minor just like any other man in CA or the USA."

So Susan can marry me but Bob can't? Sounds like gender based discrimination to me. Straight folks are allowed to marry the person they love - why is is such a threat to you that I expect the same right?

"In CA what the Gay community wanted and a judge granted was a special privilege that never existed before for a very small group."

Actually it was 4 judges - the majority of the Supreme Court of California (3 of which were Republican appointments, I might add). John, this is what we like to call progress. Much like when Abraham Lincoln gave freedom to a small group of people with the Emancipation Proclamation - freedom which they had never had before.

The Constitution of my state guarantees to me liberty, equality, and the right to pursue happiness. Like it or not they are rights that cannot simply be voted away. Trying to do so is unfair, un-American and is just plain wrong.

"What Prop 8 did was right a wrong perpetrated by a judge, it was not a major overhaul of the Constitution."

The California Constitution prohibits giving a right to one group and excluding another. Prop 8 seeks to make it legal to deny gay people equal rights under the law to marry the person of their choosing.

"you said you voted for McCain, he too is against Gay Marraige"

So what? McCain's and Obama's positions on gay issues were not that far apart and neither of them was real great.
 

"The Gay community is pushing way to fast for average traditional Americans.
"

So what? Are we to surrender our rights because it makes someone else uncomfortable? We get one life to live man, just like you do.
Why do we have to give up our rights and our happiness because someone else has an issue with something that has no effect on them whatsoever?

"You and Susan can produce a baby; you and Bob cannot.
"

And if Susan is infertile? Infertile couples are allowed to marry. Couples too old to have kids are allowed to marry. Couples who have no intention of having kids are allowed to marry. Having children has NEVER been a requirement of marriage.


"who knows it might change you mind on the fairer sex.
"

Doc's blogs hardly have the power to change the very nature of who I am. About all they have the power to do is make me shake my head and wonder why our civility cannot advance at the pace of our technology.


Watch this video John, and then tell me how you would answer this individuals points:


 

" It's a very bad example. Keith to me is a nut and doesn't even deserve a listen."

Eh, I will give everyone a listen. Olbermann gets pretty high strung sometimes, but he makes some very valid points in this video..

"I don't see gays ever having he right to marry"

MA and CT already allow gay marriages. My guess is Prop 8 will be struck down (which will not be the first time a ballot measure has been struck down, BTW). Either way, the last poll taken after the election says 8% of Prop 8 supporters would now have voted against the measure, which is more than the margin it won by. Additionally, gay marriage opponents tend to be older, while its supporters tend to be younger. If the court does not do its job and uphold the Constitutions requirements for revisions, then you can be sure this will be back on the 2010 ballot.

"just because 4 judges said it was ok"

Actually John, the 4 judges just pointed out that the Constitution of the State of California not only said it was ok, but said it was a requirement.


"In the future it may become a reality for a gay test of an unborn child and the parents will then choose whether that child lives, would it take that test for the Gay community to become Pro-Life?"

You know, that is actually a topic that is brought up in gay circles quite frequently. Check out The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians. The Pro-life crowd would have a better chance making inroads in the gay community however if the same folks who lead the pro-life movement weren't so anti-gay. I guess the reverse question has to be asked too - if there was a way of testing if a child was going to be gay, would the pro-life crowd allow that as an acceptable reason for abortion? You know, rape, incest, life of the mother and queerness?

"Dauger we are never going to agree on this issue so we will have to agree to disagree"

We don't have to agree John. You see, I don't agree with Christian Fundamentalism at all. The difference is that I would be opposed to restricting the civil liberties of Christian Fundamentalists because, even though I don't like them, I respect the traditions on personal liberty and freedom that this nation was founded on.
 

Eww.
 

How about this:


 

"Most of the Pro-life Religious crowd believes being Gay is a Choice and you were not born that way and no matter what a doctor or scientist says to the contrary they won't change their minds."

So true. I don't know why the religious crowd just cannot accept that no one chooses to be gay. These people have no idea the pain and anguish they cause with this anti-gay crusade they are on. Oddly enough I just got an email of an article about the Pope declaring that saving the world from gays was as important as saving rainforests..

As to the abortion question, I am very torn on it. Abortion is a barbaric and abhorrent practice unworthy of a civilized people. At the same time I don't think we can empower the government to make such invasive decisions into the private lives of people.
 

"Like I said the Churches are not going to change and I really don’t want them too, for many the Church is the only thing keeping many inline."

John, I really don't think that, without the church, soccer moms are going to go on crime sprees. In fact, if you look throughout history the church has unbelievable amounts of blood on it's hands.

"Sex was designed by nature for the sole purpose of reproduction and getting our genes into the next generation. That is what the purpose of sex is. It’s not for bonding with another human being, not for love it is so our species doesn’t go extinct."

Is it not? Realize homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of species. Incidents of same sex couples have been observed in the animal kingdom. There are some species of animals which are, for the most part, exclusively bisexual. Religion claims that sex is only for reproduction - the natural world says otherwise.

"marriage is an institution created by man for people to reproduce in and raise those kids."

If you look at history marriage has frequently been used as a property arrangement or to seal a treaty. It is not the exclusive "let's have kids" relationship that you are claiming. Even if it was, John, infertile people are allowed to marry. Elderly people are allowed to marry. People who don't want kids are allowed to marry. Allowing gays to marry will, in no way, cause harm to the reproductive desires or ability of heterosexual couples.

"That said what the Gay community is trying to do is change the very meaning of marriage and why the institution of Marriage was created in the first place."

John, marriage comes attached with well over 1000 federal rights and benefits. These rights and benefits are denied to gay couples. This is unfair and unamerican. We are smart creatures John, we can modify institutions as our understanding of the world and of human rights evolve. I guess I should remind you that at one point slavery was considered an institution - one backed up by the Bible - yet we did away with it as our level of civility grew.

"The Gay Community screams for tolerance of their views while trampling on others views. Now that is wrong, very wrong."

So we are the bad guys for wanting the same rights that you have? We are wrong for wanting our relationships protected like yours are? We will fight for our rights John. We will not be silent and we will not roll over and take it anymore. Society can do the right thing because it is the right thing, or it will eventually be compelled to do it, whether it likes it or not. I should remind you that things like the striking down of the ban on interracial marriage and desegregation were done over the "will" of the majority. Why? Because we all have rights and those rights are not subject to the whims of 50% of the voters.
 

"but that does not change the fact the reason for sex is to reproduce our species, nothing more and nothing less."

Do you favor the Catholic Church's position that contraceptives should be illegal?

"You yourself admitted no one would ask or choose to be gay. But if Homosexuality was the Norm, than it would be the end of our species in pretty short order. Two Bobs can’t make a child."

But that does not mean that the 2 Bobs should not be together and given the same rights and recognition that our society gives to Bob and Susan. While we are at it, while 2 Bobs can't make a child, they can raise one. Hell, even the same sex penguin couple at the Central Park Zoo managed to hatch an egg and raise a chick.

"Did you know in the Catholic Church you must be able to consummate your marriage to be able to be married?"

Yet, you do not have to do that in order for the state to recognize the marriage. Religions are free to recognize whatever they want, or not recognize whatever they don't want.

"You know I wish they would get rid of the word Marriage for all Civil Ceremonies because the term marriage is really a religious term."

I would be absolutely in favor of that John. It keeps the state out of the religion business and treats all citizens equally. That's all we want John - to be treated equally.

"If Gays wish to have that piece of paper that says marriage on it then they can go to gay friendly churches that will give them the piece of paper."

The irony is that I would have no problem finding a church to marry me. The issue is getting the secular entity, the state to recognize it.

"But the Gay Comunity wants to hijack a word and ram it down the religions of the worlds throats."

No we don't John. We want to be treated equally by our government. We want the same rights and benefits that you have. We shouldn't have to create webs of complicated legal documents in the hope that they can protect our relationships (which they frequently can't) while and guy and girl can go to a drive up window in Vegas, hand $50 to Elvis and have their relationship absolutely protected. We could care less what religious folks think of our relationships. They are free to look down their nose at us from their church all they want. We have spent our entire lives being the object of their hate, we don't expect them to change anytime soon (after all. the Vatican didn't admit Galileo was right about the whole earth orbiting the sun thing until 1992).

"One last point is the way your side is always trying to compare your plight with enslaved people, trust me it is very insulting to the descendants of slaves and most likely the reason why the Black Community came out so strongly against your wishes."

I think the comparison is very apt. Slaves were singled out in the Constitution as less than a citizen. Gays are singled out in most state constitutions - and there is an attempt to do so in the Federal Constitution - as less than full citizens as well. While we are comparing struggles, realize also that in the 1800's the proponents of slavery used much the same rhetoric about "it's in the Bible" and "its God's will" as our opponents use today.
 

"I live within 30 minutes of Chicago and am very familiar with the Parade Gays have there, they become and strengthen every stereotype that gays have against them and they wonder why people shun them."

Tell you what John, go watch the film "Jesus Camp" and then tell me which group is more scary.

Does some pretty tasteless stuff go on at Pride? Yep. Do I personally approve? Nope. Is that representative of the gay community as a whole? Nope.
 

And when is Mr. Warren going to apologize for his poor choice of words?
 

Seems to me if he thought he misspoke he would apologize for doing so.
 

Hey, were you just not paying attention when Biden told everyone during the VP Debate that they don't agree with gay marriage, or what?
 

Actually, I didn't watch the VP debate, but that's ok, cause its clear you didn't read the blog either...