So the American Psychological Association is “proof of nothing” but the Catholic Church somehow IS?  Pretty poor argument.  She got the best of him there.  And as for 2000 years of history deciding on gay marriage, let’s also not forget that interracial marriage was claimed to be in violation of the bible as well.  Same people, different generation.  Good for you girl for standing your ground! 

So the American Psychological Association is “proof of nothing” but the Catholic Church somehow IS?  Pretty poor argument.  She got the best of him there.  And as for 2000 years of history deciding on gay marriage, let’s also not forget that interracial marriage was claimed to be in violation of the bible as well.  Same people, different generation.  Good for you girl for standing your ground! 

Santorum? http://spreadingsantorum.com/

How can this man claim to be a conservative?  I lived in Philly when he was a Senator, and he’s nothing more than a Big Government Republican. 

I don’t knock anybody’s religious faith or values, but this kind of tinkering into personal lives is Social Engineering.

The minute that the left can’t point to social values, the debate shifts to economics and size and scope of government.  And that’s a hard case for them to win.

I wish social conservatives could understand that you don’t have to approve of anyone’s lifestyle, you just have to acknowledge an adults right to be left alone.  Why is government involved in marriage anyway? 

Dear unidentified student who is speaking in this video,

I love that you had the courage, poise and wherewithal to go head to head with Santorum and his frothy rhetoric.    Students like you give me great hope for the future.

I think this was an educational experience for the college students attending.  They are used to a university environment where you need facts and qualified citations to strengthen their argument.  In politics, you can convince people by using platitudes or talking points.  Obama is proof of this, using words like ‘revenue’ for taxes, and ‘investing’ for spending. 

Santorum knew he couldn’t keep up intellectually, so he called a time out.  That made the student seem rude and immature, as if she was in kindergarten and he was the adult in charge.

What is so hard to understand? He is not defending the Catholic Church. Nor am I. In fact, I am not a Catholic. However, he is defending the Bible. I’m quite certain it represents more “proof” than that girl or you have time in your lifetime to argue against. The majority of this great country founded on Biblical principles agrees with this. This is just a classic case of the minority being vocal in hopes to persuade the majority.

The WAY,

This country was founded not on “biblical principals” but rather religious freedom.  Further, there is no proof in faith.  Faith is, well, faith.

aithNoun/fāTH/
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Science = proof.

Everyone sees through his B.S. no matter how frothy it is.

We don’t need a theocrat as the president telling us what to do. 

What evidence does the bible offer in the argument of gay parenting other than “because I said so”?

That was just so condescending on his part. I guess he came there to make a speech instead of have a conversation. 

Santorum is a dick for going into this class and barking at these kids like this. He can’t make an argument so he’s got to intimidate these kids.

MommaBear22,

If “Science = proof” then how does one go about proving that? Science by its nature has a very difficult time proving anything. Proof is a mathematical concept. How does the Dictionary constitute proof? Just because a version of a Dictionary says “rather than proof” does not mean that Dictionary is in and of itself proof. There is no Science that proves any version of a Dictionary is proof.  For example, Can Science prove mermaids do not exist? No. All science can do is say that scientists who have been looking for mermaids have not found them. Maybe you should try looking at other items that reveal proof such as principle and history. 
History tells us that religious freedom from God as you imply was not the point of why this country was founded. Rather, history tells us that our Our Founding Fathers were believers in the Bible. If religious freedom from God was the point, then why is God referenced in so many of our founding documents and government institutions?  Just look at the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And what about the many times the Supreme Court has supported our Biblical foundation:

In 1892, the Supreme Court said this: “No purpose of action against
religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national because
this is a religious people. This is historically true.”

In 1930, the U.S. Supreme Court said this: “We are a Christian people, according to our motto.”

In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.

Lord knows what it’s going to take before you rightwingers and fundamentalist wake up to reality. The Bible, as blessed a book as it is, has a lot of content that is either false or based on values coming out of tribal amd primitive values which make no sense in today’s world. Much of what’s in the Bible promotes violence and warfare and is extremely hostile to women and, of course, gays. There is such a thing as evolution and since many rightwingers don’t believe in evolution it’s pathetic to see them floundering around like Santorum when confronted with reality.

“It will undermine the family. It will destroy faith in America”

People like Rick Santorum undermine families and destroy faith in America.

Look at his voting record.

Hi Ganymede,

This “pathetic, floundering, right-winger” has a response for you. First of all, let’s deal with the subject of you calling me names. That could be considered violent and warfare like. I will not respond by calling you a name back. Nor did I call anyone else a name. The Bible teaches us to forgive. I forgive you. Would you call that tribal and primitive that makes no sense in today’s world? I doubt it. Would you say Forgiveness is not realistic? I doubt it.

How about the 10 commandments? Would you call those tribal and primitive as well? I agree that there is a lot of violence and warfare in the Bible. But I do not think the Bible promotes that. Nor does the majority in this country. And that, my forgiven friend, is reality. If you want to look at the reality of the Bible one would first ask: Have you actually read the entire thing? I doubt it. I believe if you had, you would come to the conclusion that the majority of people who have read have come to: The Bible is a love letter from God telling us the great lengths He has gone to for us. If in fact you “don’t have time to read it” just read the book of John. The Bible is far less about violence and warfare than it is about Love. True, some have used it to promote violence and warfare. But that by no means indicates that the Bible promotes those things. In fact, the reality (as you say) is that many things can be used to promote violence and warfare. For example, you can use your car to promote violence and warfare. Therefore, based upon your own admission, you should consider never using your car again and that using a car is out of touch with today’s world and not realistic.
As for me, this “pathetic, floundering, right-winger” prefers to forgive, love, and keep driving his car. :)

God Bless…

To convince me in regards to something, you have better give me more than “the Bible says it”.

“The majority of this great country founded on Biblical principles agrees with this.”

Show me a link. Many many Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation of everything which is found in the Bible.

Thomas Jefferson cut up a Bible and discarded the passages he felt were false. He then created his own Bible with what remained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Thank you!

The US Supreme Court also upheld segregation and Jim Crow earlier in our history.

Times change.

Santorum is polling at 1 or 2 percent, so he is desperate for any attention he can get.

Religion….the crutch of a weak mind. Santorum, the weakest of them all. 

Amazing how people put so much stock in a 3,000 year-old book of implausible myths written by superstitious goat herders.

I really didn’t mean to offend, nor was I dismissing the Bible as the book central to our culture. I am a true believer and a believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I believe Christianity, Judaism and Islam have been constantly misused through the ages. We see this clearly today in many fundamentalist religions. How does one reason with people who think that Palin, Bush, Perry and Bachmann are good Christians when their actions and words are so contradictory to the precepts of Christianity. At a point, you have to pull back from supporting religions that are causing us so much confusion and misery. That doesn’t mean that we pull back from God, quite the contrary. We need to communicate more directly with our higher self which is where God truly resides.

Notorious – Atheism is a religion. A crutch devoted to worshiping one’s own sense of superiority.

Adfella – What is implausible about Love? What is implausible about Sacrificial Love? What is implausible about Forgiveness? What is implausible about not getting yourself into debt? Are those all myths in the Bible as well?

If you truly believe it is all just a “myth” then prove yourself worthy of your point by living in opposition to the Bible and it’s principles. In other words, put your money where your mouth is and do the exact opposite of it. Try committing the opposite of each of the 10 Commandments. Then tell the Judge you were just trying to prove the Bible to be a “3,000 year-old book of implausible myths written by superstitious goat herders.” See how far that gets ya!

Rick Santorum needs to learn how to separate his personal faith from his politics. 

Imagine, a libertarian saying that.. lol

“An organization supporting a position is not evidence of benefit to society.” – Rick Santorum
Wait…couldn’t the same be said for the Catholic Church?

“An organization supporting a position is not evidence of benefit to society.” – Rick Santorum
Wait…couldn’t the same be said for the Catholic Church?

I’m sure there will more rebuttal to some of the things I have said tonight. I am truly grateful that we live in a country that allows us freedom of speech. While I may not agree with all of the comments made tonight in these posts, I do respect each of your rights to speech. And I also apologize on behalf of imperfect Christians who may have harmed you or lived in contradiction to the Bible and caused you to turn away from God. I’m sure you all have heard: “Christians aren’t perfect – just Forgiven.” Nor are any of you perfect. Forgive any one (Christian, Muslim, non-Christian) who has hurt you. As difficult as that is, it’s essential to your well-being. With that said, I am getting tired and ready to go to sleep. Before I do, I will conclude with one thing:
God loves you. Yes you. He loves MommaBear22, Libertarian, lagged out, Nature Freak, Ganymede, Notorious Wojo, Adfella, and anyone else I left out or who reads this after I signed out and went to bed. In fact, He loves you so much he sent His son to die for you. No matter where you stand tonight, I am sure we can all agree that sacrificial love is a tremendous thing. After all, are there any of you who would not die for someone you loved dearly? I doubt it.
Jesus died and rose again. There is much evidence to this and historical documentation supporting that. You have the right to dispute that if you like. I don’t know about you, but I think I should listen to man who can come back from the dead after 3 days and who was not known, documented, or proven to have committed any sin by all of those surrounding Him. This Man ( I would call Him “The Man”) told us to love each other and sacrifice for each other. He also told us to believe in Him to save us and restore us back to God so that we will be saved from eternal Hell. As for me, I’m taking His word over any of your opposition tonight and having faith in that. If you choose not to that is your choice.
As for you, thankfully God gave you a choice. That’s a loving thing to do. Wouldn’t you agree? I challenge any of you who think that it is crazy to believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior to ask God (whether you believe in Him or not) to show (or prove) Himself to you. If you are so sure He does not exist, then why would you be afraid to talk to Him and ask him to prove Himself to you? If it is true that most pain is a direct result of the fact that we did not get something that we wanted; then, most (not all) unbelievers are people who have chosen not to believe in God because He did not give them something they did not want. I don’t have all the answers if that is you. But I do know that you are making yourself your own God by saying God did not meet your needs. After all, if he needed to meet your needs, would He be God? I doubt it.
Bearing that in mind… if you are right and He does not exist and you choose not to believe in Him for your salvation, then you have lived a very good life if you simply read the New Testament only and live as Jesus instructed. If you are wrong and my faith is proved right, well then… You put a lot of belief, faith, and religion in something (or yourself) that results in your eternal misery. Do as you will. No one is forcing anything on you. I hope you consider very carefully what I have said.

God Bless all of you and God Bless America! Goodnight.
– The WAY

I’m sure there will more rebuttal to some of the things I have said tonight. I am truly grateful that we live in a country that allows us freedom of speech. While I may not agree with all of the comments made tonight in these posts, I do respect each of your rights to speech. And I also apologize on behalf of imperfect Christians who may have harmed you or lived in contradiction to the Bible and caused you to turn away from God. I’m sure you all have heard: “Christians aren’t perfect – just Forgiven.” Nor are any of you perfect. Forgive any one (Christian, Muslim, non-Christian) who has hurt you. As difficult as that is, it’s essential to your well-being. With that said, I am getting tired and ready to go to sleep. Before I do, I will conclude with one thing:
God loves you. Yes you. He loves MommaBear22, Libertarian, lagged out, Nature Freak, Ganymede, Notorious Wojo, Adfella, and anyone else I left out or who reads this after I signed out and went to bed. In fact, He loves you so much he sent His son to die for you. No matter where you stand tonight, I am sure we can all agree that sacrificial love is a tremendous thing. After all, are there any of you who would not die for someone you loved dearly? I doubt it.
Jesus died and rose again. There is much evidence to this and historical documentation supporting that. You have the right to dispute that if you like. I don’t know about you, but I think I should listen to man who can come back from the dead after 3 days and who was not known, documented, or proven to have committed any sin by all of those surrounding Him. This Man ( I would call Him “The Man”) told us to love each other and sacrifice for each other. He also told us to believe in Him to save us and restore us back to God so that we will be saved from eternal Hell. As for me, I’m taking His word over any of your opposition tonight and having faith in that. If you choose not to that is your choice.
As for you, thankfully God gave you a choice. That’s a loving thing to do. Wouldn’t you agree? I challenge any of you who think that it is crazy to believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior to ask God (whether you believe in Him or not) to show (or prove) Himself to you. If you are so sure He does not exist, then why would you be afraid to talk to Him and ask him to prove Himself to you? If it is true that most pain is a direct result of the fact that we did not get something that we wanted; then, most (not all) unbelievers are people who have chosen not to believe in God because He did not give them something they did not want. I don’t have all the answers if that is you. But I do know that you are making yourself your own God by saying God did not meet your needs. After all, if he needed to meet your needs, would He be God? I doubt it.
Bearing that in mind… if you are right and He does not exist and you choose not to believe in Him for your salvation, then you have lived a very good life if you simply read the New Testament only and live as Jesus instructed. If you are wrong and my faith is proved right, well then… You put a lot of belief, faith, and religion in something (or yourself) that results in your eternal misery. Do as you will. No one is forcing anything on you. I hope you consider very carefully what I have said.

God Bless all of you and God Bless America! Goodnight.
– The WAY

haha you said “frothy”!

Even though I disagree with many (not all) of your points, you are polite and not obnoxious about your faith.

The WAY, I appreciate this fact. No snark from me.

Goodnight.

I’d like to think we’ve grown up a bit as a nation since the “glory days” of 1776, 1892, 1930, and 1952…  Here’s to progress, and the possibility that taking cover under the Bible and selectively touting its contextless anachronisms no longer grants politicians a free pass and instant mass appeal.  Oh yeah, and three cheers for that silly little separation of church and state thing that seems to fly in the face of all this “Christian Nation” nonsense.

I mean, c’mon…  The Book of Exodus lays out all the latest rules for keeping and beating your slaves.  Deuteronomy says I should burn nonbelievers and I am obliged to marry my dead brother’s wife.  Zecharia says I ought to kill false prophets and Corinthians says women shouldn’t speak in churches. (It goes on like this.)

The Bible is a patchwork quilt knitted together by political considerations, happenstance, and the ups and downs of human memory over the course of some 3500 years…  What does that prove, aside from the fact that it’s an old book?Really, if we’re going to be taking the Bible as the infallible instruction of God, then we ought to consider living like nomadic, desert dwelling Jews from several thousand years ago.  You know, so it makes at least *some* sense.

And finally, if the suggestion that the AMA is merely a group of people who agree with themselves is enough to undermine anything they suggest, doesn’t it obviously follow that Bible-thumpers, as a group of people who agree with themselves, aren’t reliable resources either?

How many nuclear families headed by same-sex partners do you think those nomads had experience with?  Doesn’t it seem like maybe we can, you know, look at real life on this one and save ourselves a bunch of trouble?

He may have tried to make her look rude and immature.  I don’t think he suceeded.

Look, let’s not conflate “Jesus” with “the Bible”, eh?  Love and forgiveness are indeed pretty great things.  It strikes me as worth noting that both exist with or without the Bible.  Love, in fact, seems to me to be the lynchpin that holds families together (all families, whether they be traditional or not).  I’d be happy to agree with you that Jesus was a pretty great guy.  Hell, I’ll even agree that he was God.  But then, so am I.  And so is that gay couple over there with the adorable baby.  And you know what, so is Rick Santorum, froth and all.

I’m so tired of people using the Bible as a weapon with which to bludgeon the things they’re afraid of.  I’m tired of people who insist on living 2000 years in the past when the whole message Christ preached — if only we’d pay attention to it — is that *this* moment, here and now, is the perfect one we’ve been seeking.  The Kingdom of Heaven is here, ladies and gentlemen.  You and your Father are one.  Now quit externalizing the motive power of the Universe and finally start taking ownership of your shit.

And for what it’s worth: I hardly think there’s much evidence to support Jesus’ resurrection or ascension.  In fact, let’s consider it rationally.  To where would he be ascending exactly?  Up?  To Heaven?  Like, through the sky and out of the atmosphere?  Because up is relative, in the first place, and the only “place” beyond the clouds of earth is a mostly empty mass of space, punctuated by a few billion stars and other floating/falling debris.

Not getting what you want?  Impossible.  Existence is perfect and self-luminous.  It wants for nothing.

God is a great word if we remember that it’s exactly that.  A word.  A placeholder for a concept that humankind endlessly returns to.  It’s not someone’s name.  He isn’t a he.  God is this.  Is us.  God is.  Ideas like salvation and happiness, these are useless to God, if God is truly and perfectly self-luminous, self- contained, however you want to say it.  God wants for nothing, and we are God made manifest.  Therefore we want for nothing.  Suffering is an illusion.  Death is an illusion.  Distance from God, and Hell?  Illusion.

You are the Savior you’ve been waiting for.  You are the eternal source to which you seek to return.  You’re here.  You made it.  Now start acting like it.

Rick, the fact that you hang out with bigots and regularly make bigoted, hurtful, inaccurate, and unsubstantiated claims is not “proof” that you’re a bigot — it’s just evidence.

Sometimes as person has to go on the evidence (as provided by peer-reviewed publications produced by professional societies who have lots more credibility than Rick Santorum) because flat-out proof is not available. A person might be wrong, but with thoughtfulness, can avoid that happening too often.

So, the evidence is that Santorum is an ignorant, sanctimonious, none-too-bright prig who wants to impose his cult’s view of reality and morality on others.

That’s what the evidence suggests.

Just look at the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Only applied/applies if your skin color was/is white & you professed to being a christian. Any other skin color or religion or non religion,  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness be damned.

The bible is full of hatred/descrimination and killing. The bible states its okay to pick up babies & dash them against rocks.
The bible states its okay to kill/slay a whole lot of newborn or unborn babies, kill/slay pregnant women & rip their bellies open whilst at it, kill all elderly, all young, here there and everywhere, depending on the so called, ”big guys” mood at the time.

The bible has been rewritten numerous times to the point no one matches the other. There’s also the hidden or lost books of the bible removed eons ago, that leaves the bible,  non fiction or fiction, incomplete. Why would anyone want to defend it?

The bible is full of hatred/descrimination and killing. The bible states its okay to pick up babies & dash them against rocks.
The bible states its okay to kill/slay a whole lot of newborn or unborn babies, kill/slay pregnant women & rip their bellies open whilst at it, kill all elderly, all young, here there and everywhere, depending on the so called, ”big guys” mood at the time.

The bible has been rewritten numerous times to the point no one matches the other. There’s also the hidden or lost books of the bible removed eons ago, that leaves the bible,  non fiction or fiction, incomplete. Why would anyone want to defend it?

Most boring zombie story…EVER.

The APA is not a scientific organization. It is a thinly-veiled political organization with a “progressive” (more like digressive) agenda which has repeatedly re-defined psychological disorders in an effort to move American society further to the left.

If you look only at sexual behavior and not at the gender of the partners, a promiscuous heterosexual male or female will currently be diagnosed as a sex addict for engaging in behaviors common among promiscuous homosexual males. But those behaviors are perfectly fine, and even healthy, if both partners are men. The APA has no real interest in helping homosexuals, only in scolding those of us in society who refuse to accept their lifestyle as normal.

Over a decade ago, the APA journal published a non-scientific, non-peer reviewed study which indicated that boys who had been molested in their youth suffered no ill effects and in many cases were more balanced socially in their early adulthood than boys who had not been molested. Of course, NAMBLA jumped right in and claimed that they were doing young boys a favor by raping them. Now there are groups pushing the normalization of pedophilia. After all, a person is born with his sexual preferences and it is wrong to fight them – at least that’s what the APA has been saying about those who prefer partners of the same sex. How long before they take the next step. I’d wager it’s less than another decade.

They also removed narcissism as a psychological disorder about a year ago. Couldn’t have anything to do with the mental condition of the man sitting in the Oval Office at the time, could it? Didn’t think so. It must just be a coincidence.

You were doing fine until about halfway through the piece and then you went off the rails. I was ready to say, “obviously you derive much comfort from your faith, so I’m happy for you.”

Then you (apparently in all seriousness) proposed that I (and others) “ask God to show himself” to us. Which tells me that you don’t get it at all. Atheists like myself haven’t turned our faces away from god, because there is nothing to turn away from. I could only be afraid if I expected a response. Were I to “talk to god,” I would be talking to thin air.

The notion that ”most pain is” due to not getting something you want is just silly. The plurality of physical pain comes from being whacked by something; the plurality of mental pain comes from being lost in your own skin. Neither of these have anything to do with mythical creatures.

I did not choose to disbelieve in god. While I was exposed to religious teachings as a child, I realized very early that they were without effect, and simply never went down the rabbit hole of belief in the first place. And for that I am profoundly grateful, because I’ve watched friends struggle with the loss of their faith or suffer in a state of hypocrisy for fear of alienating those they care for should they tell the truth. And I would not visit that withdrawal on anyone. Best to not get addicted in the first place.

And I have not made myself my own god, since there is no such thing. I have, however, made myself my own man, and I am reasonably content with that.

And the eternal misery bit? A non-factor.

Sorry , the Bible  is a book of fairytails written by drunk monks in the catacombs. I ldoubt they even had a clue the horrible impact they would have. SICK

Travis Pierson, you sound like you’re just another member of Fred Phelps,
Westboro Baptist Church group of inbred nazi right-wing nut cases. I’m sure
you’re a plant of Santorums, who is probably actually a closet-case homosexual,
since he has been using the gay rights platform and discrimination for the past
12 years or so. Many believe that Santorum is really gay but was never able to
come out of his closet because of his Catholic upbringing and got married and
had children and constantly speaks out with stupid remarks for many years.
Remember Santorum got voted OUT of office, but perhaps hasn’t come OUT of his
closet, like so many other gay republicans. Either that or he is just a hateful
republican who will do anything and sign any stupid pledge by the right-wing to
get votes and try to get into office and ruin America and turn us into a Nazi
concentration camp. You have used your booklet from the bigoted right-wing
platform for every sentence and everything you can find to discriminate against
gays and lesbians with false information and you speak as if you think you’re a
trained Psychiatrist. I’m sure you’re no more of an expert on Psychology than
the guy mowing the local cemetery grounds, but are just another pawn of the
right-wing conservative bigots and that your only news source is either FLUSH
limbaugh or FUX-FAUX Noise TV. Perhaps you feel guilty about a homosexual
encounter you had with another young male when you were in junior high or high
school and are still the typical guilt-ridden guy who goes around calling
everyone you think is gay a f-g-ot, and talking ill of them to make yourself
feel better. I’m sure you’re also the loud mouth at any sports event or the guy
who wants to harass someone instead of minding your own business.

THE WAY??????? NO WAY!!!! Your name tells us ALL right here that you think YOUR WAY is the only way and that the rest of us that don’t agree with you should take the HIGHWAY! The bible was written by MEN, not GOD, thousands of years ago. The Old Testament came first, but you probably don’t know that since you went to the Main Street Baptist church and only participate in Tent Revivals. You apparently weren’t taught that the NEW TESTAMENT was written to bring a Savior, Jesus Christ to pay for all the SINS of those in the Old Testmant. TRUE Sinners like youself who are so FULL of hate, that you think you know what GOD wants. IF Gay People are wrong or are sinners, than why did GOD Create Gay people? You bigots never are able to answer that question. Now are you speaking for GOD? You obviously can’t and I will prove you wrong over and over and so will the majority of people who have gay sons and daughters, gay grandchildren and gay brothers and sisters and gay aunts and uncles, gay neighbors, gay co-workers and so on and so on. You sound like you’re just another member of Fred Phelps,
Westboro Baptist Church group of inbred nazi right-wing nut cases. I’m sure
you’re a plant of Santorums, who is probably actually a closet-case homosexual,
since he has been using the gay rights platform and discrimination for the past
12 years or so. Many believe that Santorum is really gay but was never able to
come out of his closet because of his Catholic upbringing and got married and
had children and constantly speaks out with stupid remarks for many years.
Remember Santorum got voted OUT of office, but perhaps hasn’t come OUT of his
closet, like so many other gay republicans. Either that or he is just a hateful
republican who will do anything and sign any stupid pledge by the right-wing to
get votes and try to get into office and ruin America and turn us into a Nazi
concentration camp. You have used your booklet from the bigoted right-wing
platform for every sentence and everything you can find to discriminate against
gays and lesbians with false information and you speak as if you think you’re a
trained Psychiatrist. I’m sure you’re no more of an expert on Psychology than
the guy mowing the local cemetery grounds, but are just another pawn of the
right-wing conservative bigots and that your only news source is either FLUSH
limbaugh or FUX-FAUX Noise TV. Perhaps you feel guilty about a homosexual
encounter you had with a young male or woman when you were in junior high or high
school and are still the typical guilt-ridden guy or girl who goes around calling
everyone you think is gay a f-g-ot, and talking ill of them to make yourself
feel better. I’m sure you’re also the loud mouth at any sports event or the guy
or girl who wants to harass someone instead of minding your own business.

The bible is full of hatred/descrimination and killing. The bible states its okay to pick up babies & dash them against rocks.The bible states its okay to kill/slay a whole lot of newborn or unborn babies, kill/slay pregnant women & rip their bellies open whilst at it, kill all elderly, all young, here there and everywhere, depending on the so called, “big guys” mood at the time. The bible has been rewritten numerous times to the point no one matches the other. There’s also the hidden or lost books of the bible removed eons ago, that leaves the bible, non fiction or fiction, incomplete. Why would anyone want to defend it?     

THE WAY??????? NO WAY!!!! Your name tells us ALL right here that you think
YOUR WAY is the only way and that the rest of us that don’t agree with you
should take the HIGHWAY! The bible was written by MEN, not GOD, thousands of
years ago. The Old Testament came first, but you probably don’t know that
since you went to the Main Street Baptist church and only participate in
Tent Revivals. You apparently weren’t taught that the NEW TESTAMENT was
written to bring a Savior, Jesus Christ to pay for all the SINS of those in
the Old Testament. TRUE Sinners like yourself who are so FULL of hate, that
you think you know what GOD wants. IF Gay People are wrong or are sinners,
than why did GOD Create Gay people? You bigots never are able to answer that
question. Now are you speaking for GOD? You obviously can’t and I will prove
you wrong over and over and so will the majority of people who have gay sons
and daughters, gay grandchildren and gay brothers and sisters and gay aunts
and uncles, gay neighbors, gay co-workers and so on and so on. You sound
like you’re just another member of Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church
group of inbred nazi right-wing nut cases. I’m sure you’re a plant of
Santorums, who is probably actually a closet-case homosexual, since he has
been using the gay rights platform and discrimination for the past 12 years
or so. Many believe that Santorum is really gay but was never able to come
out of his closet because of his Catholic upbringing and got married and had
children and constantly speaks out with stupid remarks for many years.
Remember Santorum got voted OUT of office, but perhaps hasn’t come OUT of
his closet, like so many other gay republicans. Either that or he is just a
hateful republican who will do anything and sign any stupid pledge by the
right-wing to get votes and try to get into office and ruin America and turn
us into a Nazi concentration camp. You have used your booklet from the
bigoted right-wing platform for every sentence and everything you can find
to discriminate against gays and lesbians with false information and you
speak as if you think you’re a trained Psychiatrist. I’m sure you’re no more
of an expert on Psychology than the guy mowing the local cemetery grounds,
but are just another pawn of the right-wing conservative bigots and that
your only news source is either FLUSH limbaugh or FUX-FAUX Noise TV. Perhaps
you feel guilty about a homosexual encounter you had with a young male or
woman when you were in junior high or high school and are still the typical
guilt-ridden guy or girl who goes around calling everyone you think is gay a
f-g-ot, and talking ill of them to make yourself feel better. I’m sure
you’re also the loud mouth at any sports event or the guy or girl who wants
to harass someone instead of minding your own business.

THE NO WAY is getting UPSET NOW!!!!! I’m loving this!!! Come on NO WAY blow a fuse!!!

You are a goat herder.. Go back to your pasture.

You will not change your ignorant ways, NO WAY, and there is NO point in discussing anything intelligent with you since you are a tool of the right-wing and are guilt ridden and will likely go to your grave with your prejudices and ignorance.

The bible was written 3,000 years ago by nomads in the deserts of Israel and the Middle East and people only lived to be at the most in a normal life to die before they were 40. Most children did not live until their first birthday and to avoid people enjoying their sex life the bible was written so that women who loved sex with women and men who loved sex with men would feel guilty and be stoned if they didn’t have sex with the opposite sex and have children to farm and take the goats to pasture. It’s as simple as that.     

Oh bullshite. You lying piece of crap. I challenge you to produce that non peer reviewed article. Thats crap only right wing groups do. You should be horsewhipped naked by Blimpy and Newtie on Times Square. What a bunch of garbage.

basically, you don’t have a legal argument to stand on so you turn to religion. America was also founded on greek, roman, iroqouis, babylonian, french, english, etc. values, so your argument is irrelavent.

I agree with Rick Santorum.  The only form of a couple (in a sexual relationship) that should be allowed to adopt or raise children are a man and a woman.  Homosexual relationships are abnormal, the act of sex between homosexuals is disgusting and it is not what God wanted for such a beautiful act between a MAN and a WOMAN.  He meant the act of sex to be used as a form of carrying on the human race, not a disgusting act of sexual gratification performed through the use of a part of our anatomy that rids us of our waste.  And don’t bring up that other people don’t believe in God and so this does not pertain to them.  It most certainly pertains to everyone because America is a Christian nation and I believe as do millions of other parents believe, that our children should not be subjected to this disgusting, immoral act. Homosexuality is as it was during the time of Soddom and Gamora and everyone knows what happend during that period of time.

tell us how you reallllly feel….

Students like you are bringing this country to the immoral, bankrupt, disgusting, anti-God, butt budied, baby murdering, non-job, UN loving, freedomless, Socialistic country it is quickly becoming.

It was easy to make her look rude and immature because she is.

@turk281 – Big Government Republican!  Is this a derogatory statement towards Republicans?  So you are against the Big Government Republicans, but you support the Big Government Democrats!  I guess it is better to have the Big Government Democrats – during their dictatorial reign that we are now experiencing, we have a jobless rate of almost 20% (realistically), we have a Socialistic health care system that is going to bankrupt our country and convince thousands of hospitals and doctors to go out of business and force the American people to pay for health care from the Federal government which is unConstitutional.  You mean to tell me that you agree that we belong in Libya fighting ANOTHER war and that this President involved us in this war with no Congressional approval which is also unCONSTITUTIONAL.  You also agree that he was right to give away billions to companies such as Chrysler with no rules that they must keep the jobs in American and so they took the business and the jobs to Mexico.  You agree with the fact that this administration has piled on $14 trillion in debt to China – $2.5 trillion in the last 15 months and climbing minute by minute.  Because of this administration, before my children get out of school, they owe $50,000.  You need to wake up and stop drinking the Kool Aid and stop believing the Liberal rhetoric that is fed to people like you or America is gone – maybe that’s what you want.  You might want to live in a country like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or Cuba – I don’t!!!!

I’ll be the first to admit that I cringe at the sight of guys kissing guys and the idea of gay marriage, but lets not make this the focal point of the debate. And, while I’m of the same faith as Santorum, his clinging to a social agenda is what finds him at the bottom of most polls.

How about this for evidence – I’m a gay parent myself of a wonderful, happy, beautiful son that my partner and I adopted as a newborn more than 5 years ago. Last week he started Kindergarten. He was intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically well-prepared for it.

I would dare Santorum to look into my son’s eyes and say that this child is unhappy, unloved, or in any way disadvantaged from being raised by two fathers.

And you know what – we’re just like any other family and any other parents. We’re not perfect, we have busy schedules, it can be challenging trying to maintain that work-family balance, we sometimes have little battles over video games and bedtimes, but like most parents, we love our child with everything we have and are committed to doing our our job as parents as best as we can - which is to raise our son so that he becomes a responsible and productive adult who can then do the same for his children.

There’s no shortage of politicians like Santorum who’s likened same sex relationships in the past to bestiality or Rick Perry who takes pleasure in signing anti-gay legislation inside a church, and yet at the same time, in our day to day personal lives, I’ve been very humbled by how universally supportive everyone has been of our family.

And, I too, applaud the young woman who was willing to stand up to Santorum and call him on his BS and his manufactured moral outrage over the Piers Morgan interview. It’s people like her who help build a world that our son – and indeed all children – can thrive in. To me, it’s people like her who are the true under the radar leaders who, inch by inch, day by day, make this a better world.

But beware those with an excess of moral rectitude who know what’s best for everyone else – their respectable public face often masks a far uglier interior of an unbridled lust for power.

Question: If Jesus were on this Earth today, would he turn his back on homosexuals??

Centuries ago David, prophet and king, asserted “The FOOL has said in his heart’There is no God’ “. Still true today…..

Seriously?  

Republicans latched on to religion to scare and control people.  People like our buddy Santorum up here use religion and fear (Homosexuals are ruining America and its moral fiber is but one example)  as a vehicle to get rich (Poor me he says, I was called a bigot and now I can’t get elected and get preferential tax treatment) walking on the backs of the poor, steering them with ridiculous rhetoric like this in the name of god.

I am not anti religion, even though I personally am not a believer.  I think it gives good things to many people.  However, religious zealots like this guy are what is ruining the moral fabric of America.

Most agnostic and atheist democrats I know are far more ‘Christian’ in their living that all these high profile republican and tea party fear mongering zealots who give religion a bad name.  I can’t wait to see the religious ‘war’ that happens when real Christians get sick and tired of these people making them look nutso and giving their religion a bad name.  I mean really?  Who would want to align with this guy?  If you do, I suggest taking some time to really really listen to him because to the rest of us sane people he is very clearly a whacko.  If you take what he says, hook like and sinker, you aren’t paying attention.  Wake up!

The one thing that strikes me about this video is how incredible charmless and boorish Santorum actually is. Someone like Huckabee shows that it’s possible to be have right-wing Christian fundamentalist views and still actually try to engage your opponent. Santorum just insults and talks over others.

P.

Is that the bit where the all loving god burns people alive and then turns someone into salt for having the termerity to turn around and look back at her city burning along with all the people she knows?

My single favourite part of your post is ‘disgusting act of sexual gratification performed through the use of a part of our anatomy that rids us of our waste’.  Through what do you urinate t .hen?

F**k you man

America was not set up as a Christian nation, quite the opposite. Also, who are you to infer what god did or did not mean? I don’t find the idea of most heterosexual couples I know having sex attractive but frankly it is none of my business as they are consenting adults. Have you ever had sex apart from the purpose of reproduction? Do you pick and choose what the bible says because if you are to be remotely consistent, I hope you do not have a bank account that pays interest as the bible specifically bans usury. What are your thoughts on homosexuality in animals as the ‘unnatural’ nature of homosexual acts is often cited but if animals do it, it suggests it is quite natural. Why not get beyond what you consider to be disgusting and have some empathy for people living their lives in a loving way that does nobody else any harm?

Lol.  Go through any of my comments here and you’ll see how conservative I am.  The difference between my conservatism and yours is that you’ll use the power of the federal government to mold the country into your image.  That’s not conservative, that’s antithetical to the very idea of conservatism.

Barry Goldwater, the father of conservatism and Ronald Regan’s biggest influence warned that social conservatives could ruin the Republican party:

“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson
and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a
religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics
goodbye.
”

The difference between you and me is, I don’t like Big Government, and I apply that across the board.  You don’t need to preach to me about the failures of this administration or the failures of liberal ideology.

If you feel that the federal governments job includes telling consenting adults how to live their private lives, then you are more liberal than you are conservative.  You’re no different than the people who wage war on salt, energy, fast food, light bulbs, etc.

Students like her will be the death of your archaic ideas, grow up and think for yourself maybe try reading science weekly or something that is factual.

 Are straight men allowed to insert their penises in to a woman’s rectum because it gives the woman pleasure or is it just man in man you find disgusting? Is oral sex allowed according to your bible? How about masturbation? Isn’t that just a waste of God’s seed? Is a man licking a woman’s vagina disgusting? Please tell me where it says in the bible how we should make love. Love is the key word here. LOVE
America is a Christian Nation you state. Surely a Christian Nation would not go in to illegal wars and kill thousands of people. Surely a Christian Nation would not spend so much money on its military. Surely a Christian Nation would not be so greedy and be full of obese people. Does the Bible say that’s it’s OK to owe 12 trillion dollars? Is there anything that America does that can be seen as being done because it is a Christian Nation? If you really were a Christian Nation you would love everyone and not feel the need to carry guns. Love everyone is the Christian message. Everyone! Can you please stop reading your bible like it is the word of God. It has some good bits in it, it has some bad bits in it. It was written by men. There is no God.

The Bible also says women shouldn’t wear red or cut their hair. Throw out that red dye! Close the hair salons!

If you don’t want gay people to marry, fine, but don’t hide behind the Bible. Recognize that you don’t want it because YOU don’t like it and yes, that makes you a bigot. Deal with it.

The Republicans need to get away from abortion and the Gay stuff. They need to concentrate on the economy and Obamacare which will become very bad in 2013. A lot of people who have company insured health care are going to be shocked.

Thanks & congrats for the great comment from the real world.

Priceless that all Santorum said about APA is definitely true about the Catholic Church. The student is great. I applaud her for standing up to this self-righteous bigot. Yeah, it´s a good thing when all people are treated equally. It´s a good thing when discrimination ends. It´s a good thing that children grow up in families with parents who love them. 

Everyone seems to be focusing on whether kids will be worse off with two gay parents than with two straight parents. I personally believe they will be.  As a boy growing up without a father, I have something I can compare it to, which is similar to having two mothers.  Sure you get more love and attention, but you’re missing something important, which is that you need a father to teach you how to be a guy, respect women, and a variety of other things best taught by a man.  But there are individual differences that allow for some kids to become emotionally stable and successful without two good (which is key) parents of the opposite sex, but this is the exception, not the rule.  But Santorum isn’t even focusing on this, rather, he’s focusing on what it will do to the institution of marriage.  If gay people are having sex before marriage or not being married at all even when they’re able to, kids growing up now will have a different idea of what marriage is and won’t view it to be as important as previous generations will, unless they get the foundational teaching from their parents, which many won’t considering half of the kids in this country have divorced parents.  They’ll think, since gay people are allowed to get married but so many are having sex before marriage or not getting married at all, what makes marriage so important?  But studies show that couples who co-habitate and/or have sex before marriage have a significantly higher divorce rate than couples who don’t.  More babies will be born out of wedlock, which studies show also is more likely to lead to more problems for the child such as the father leaving since without being married he has more freedom to leave.  In terms of success, there are many kids with gay parents who will turn out just fine because they did get the love and attention they wouldn’t have gotten in a foster home.  But in terms of their relationships they have a disadvantage because they never got to see firsthand examples of how a man and a woman make a relationship work.  Kids from single parents such as myself also have that disadvantage, but that doesn’t mean we should change the institution of marriage, we should just teach kids the values and relationship skills they need to make a marriage last.

Did you just use ‘freedom’ in a post that implies that the government should not allow gay couples to marry?  Yes, I think you did.

You are correct, sir/madam. It was hard watching him shout her down.

Hey — love is love. Period.

Adding the death penalty to the list.

I have said this many times, but no one ever wants to acknowledge it. They refuse to see  that the bible is not the word of god, it is many people’s interpretation of what they think their god wants them to do and think.

proconserv says: “the act of sex between homosexuals is disgusting”

And I have to ask – hOw do you know it’s disgusting? Have you tried it lately?

The future is going to be pretty rough for you.  As it should be.

WOW…I’m still disgesting…Santorum is a fool.  We are NOT a Christian nation, we were not STARTED as a Christian nation and to many of the religious posters out there, YOUR God is certainly not MY God.  Do NOT hold a flag in one hand and a cross in the other and tell me I’M wrong.  STOP the spin about BIG SPENDING LIBERALS when HISTORY (oh LORD those pesky facts) show the BIGGEST spenders were REAGAN, BUSH SR. and BUSH JR.  It took Clinton and now Obama to try and pay off the excesses.  It took Clinton until 1993 before he could start the climb upward to balance.  Obama is still in the trenches.  I KNOW you people have your ‘beliefs’ but could we TRY a few facts…

Just because you’re paranoid that doesn’t mean they’re not out to get cha.

He is a biggot… an ignorant biggot at that.. guess he still hasn’t read the constitution that there is a separation of church and state…..

UN loving

This is rich coming from you.  bwahahahahahahaha!

“Rick Santorum Gets Into Heated Argument With Student Over Gay Parents”

Or

“Typical Opinionated, Loudmouthed, Bully-Behavior College Liberal Attempts to Shout Down Rick Santorum ”

‘(Whoops.  The politician just made a point against me.  Better step it up a notch)  A Woman can be a lawyer, too, you know.  Lets talk about the fugitive slave law.  You’d have been a slave holder too, wouldn’t you have?  Racist.  Let’s talk about the constitution, which you clearly want to erase.  Why am I supposed to care about religion, anyway?  God is a stupid idea and you’re stupid.  We should just do away with it.  Are you a doctor?  Are you a psychiatrist?  I mean are you one of the the doctors or psychiatrists I want to listen to, that is?  Well I value their judgement more than yours because I like their opinion more than yours and it better suits my politics.  I’m not one of those either, but so what?  I’m right and you’re wrong.  There’s social science out there that says kids can be survive with two gay parents, and be ok even.  And even though that doesn’t touch upon the point you were making, about the value to society of a moral standard, questioning how it’s right for some in a society to want to devalue for the whole traditional human constructs of familial relationships merely to allow institutionalized demonstrations of behavior that’s already perfectly legal in a permissive society which holds individual freedoms dear, and to what degree we should as a country be willing to abandon foundational social institutions without debate merely for the point that some want to and a few gay judges can be persuaded to go along with it despite possible long term adverse consequences to that society as a whole, and though, as far as the studies go, I’m not going to say there’s this one and this one and this one, because that would be too much work, just know that there are.  I don’t have to sit here and listen respectfully to you anymore  because I hold a different opinion than you do.  I don’t have to to identify and absorb your point – I’m a college girl and I’ve already broadened my experience and expanded by mind to the state I (and my professors) wish it to be.  Why do we have to listen to a Republican anyway?  I don’t have to take this sitting down you… you… MAN!”

We’ve all been there.  Why is this news?

Oh, that’s right.  You “liberals” think Santorum, of course, is wrong and that the girl has the better “argument.”

Why dont you also prohibit divorce and eating of pork and working on the Sabbath? Why is Rush Limbaugh your hero when he is twice divorced? 
And spare us that crap about America a Christian nation.. that is a lie…

Travis you sound like an ignorant bigoted redneck..maybe its because you are..

Why didn’t she just ask Santorum for proof of Jonah and the whale?

Pro con…is having your head up your rectum the same as sodomy because if so you are guity!

Next on the list… SHELLFISH!

Thanks Leviticus!

Oh ya PROCON give us your hateful self righteous rants and then tell us you are pro-God!! Maybe you need some of that divine enlightenment…

You really dont know what you are talking about

Excuse me?  The boorish one wasn’t the college girl interrupting with off-point nonsense?

Interesting that Santorum wishes to use the bible as proof that his ideas are not bigotry. Apparently he has spent more time reading the bible than a dictionary. Bigotry is intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own. His intolerance for the idea that homosexuals are people and citizens of the United States entitled to the full protections and benefits under law …and that this intolerance is founded on his own beliefs about the bible is absolutely bigotry and Rick Santorum is a bigot when it comes to gays. I’ve about had enough of right wingers who hate science, but are all to ready to believe that 1. The earth and every living thing on it was created by a supernatural being in only 6 days.2. That once upon a time a man built a rudderless boat that contained two of every kind of animal on earth.3. That woman was made from the rib of a sleeping man.4. That Jesus was conceived in some other way than every other human that has ever been born from a womb.5. That he was killed, then on the third day came back to life and then flew up into the sky.6. All of that CRAP in Revelations.7. People being turned into pillars of salt, talking animals and all of the rest.I’m done pretending to tolerate idiots who have chosen to buy into the worst cosmology in te history of man-made religions. You want to reject science? Fine. I reject your crappy …heavily edited… book that commands that we worship a Macrocosmic Sociopath.

Biblical Values..Does Santorum endorse the Bible teachings selectively? Did these moral precepts change with Jesus teaching ? meaning that gods morality changes …but I thought god and morality were absolutes? If these teachings change why not the teaching about homosexuality?  Maybe the entire bible and all its stories and teachings are the work of MEN…

Kill
People Who Don’t Listen to Priests

    Anyone
arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest
who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such
evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy
17:12 NLT)

Kill
Witches

    You
should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus
22:17 NAB)

Kill
Homosexuals    ”If
a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to
death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” 
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill
Fortunetellers

    A
man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to
death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their
death. 
(Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death
for Hitting Parent

    Whoever
strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus
21:15 NAB)

Death
for Cursing Parents

    1) If
one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming
of darkness.  (Proverbs
20:20 NAB)

   
2) All
who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are
guilty of a capital offense. 
(Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death
for Adultery

    If
a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the
woman must be put to death. 
(Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death
for Fornication

    A
priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and
thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. 
(Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death
to Followers of Other Religions

    Whoever
sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be
doomed.  (Exodus
22:19 NAB)

Kill
Nonbelievers

    They
entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers,
with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the
Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or
great, whether man or woman. 
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill
False Prophets

    If
a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to
him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the
name of the Lord.”  When he prophesies, his parents, father
and mother, shall thrust him through.  (Zechariah
13:3 NAB)

Kill
the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God

    Suppose
you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that
some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray
by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you
must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and
can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must
attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well
as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the
middle of the street and burn it.   (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill
Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night

    But
if this charge is true (that
she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night),
and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring
the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman
shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against
Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house.  Thus shall
you purge the evil from your midst. 
(Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

Kill
Followers of Other Religions.

   
1) If
your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife,
or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods,
whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations,
near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do
not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to
spare or shield him, but kill him.  Your hand shall be the first
raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. 
You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray
from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
that place of slavery.  And all Israel, hearing of this, shall
fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. 
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Death
for Blasphemy

    One
day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into
a fight with one of the Israelite men.  During the fight, this
son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name.  So the
man was brought to Moses for judgment.  His mother’s name was
Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. 
They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter
should become clear.  Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take
the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to
lay their hands on his head.  Then let the entire community
stone him to death.    (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Boy you said a mouthful there, Fat Lib. If it weren’t for all of Santorum’s religious sanctimony I could really get behind him for President. To me this is his one flaw, but I think it’s a major one.

When are people going to learn not to mix religion and politics? Not only does it not make any sense, but those who do so usually end up losing elections. How about if we all mind our own business, including our religious beliefs and not be so concerned about those of others?

This is one conservative who just gave you a “Like”.

I still don’t understand the argument made by liberals against polygamy.  If they are for 2 same sex parents, why not a whole smorgasbord of parents?  How about a whole village.  lol  The Left has always been and will always be for anything that weakens America.

I made this point below, and I’ll make it again here. People need to mind their own business. One’s religious beliefs and how one feels about homosexuality have no place in politics, which is the only reason I can’t’ support Rick Santorum. I think he’s great on everything else, but I can’t go along with his sanctimonious attitude about gays.

You are an idiot. Monogamy is the opposite of polygamy; what does having two monogamist parents have to do with Polygamy?

Right, Libertarian.  I would like to add that the Bible was also used to support slavery and could still be used for that purpose.  In fact, there is more support for slavery in the Bible than for homophobia.  Does Santorum want to reinstitute slavery?

What, pray tell, is “butt budied?”  For someone so antigay, you spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what gay men do with their bodies.  Gee, when someone spends that much time thinking about men’s sexual organs, we usually call them something?  Now, let me see, what could that be?  I’m thinking, I’m thinking . . .oh, I know!!   GAY!!

STOP IT

YOURE CONFUSING THE FOX VIEWERS

This is not a Christian nation.  The majority of Americans are Christians, but there are also citizens of many other faiths and of no faith at all, and all are given the same freedom of or from religion by the First Amendment and by Article VI, which states there can be no religious test for any public office or trust.  The Constitution–which does NOT mention God, Jesus, or anything else supernatural–establishes a secular government, neutral in matters of religion.

If SANTORUM is wearing MIXED FABRICS HE’S GOING TO HELL!!!!!

It’s non-conventional, non-traditional, etc.

How embarrassing to get Owned by a college student.

Of course, whether its possible for your child to be happy, loved or advantaged is entirely separate from whether its a good idea for society to equate homosexual marriages with heterosexual ones.  Your kid’s welfare is just as much determined by other factors than the general human behavior of people who aren’t jerks.  Say, for example, if you were homosexual and homeless, your child’s story might be quite different.  On the other hand, its also quite possible for a child to be happy, loved and advantaged under the care of a well connected but absentee single-parent prostitute with a string of lovers every day between the hours of 9 and 5 who nevertheless sees that his or her child is under the eye of attentive caregivers and provided with a structured environment with well defined boundaries in which to grow.  Perhaps a heterosexual couple in a similar socioeconomic situation as your own but with the male made a eunuch at birth and the woman similarly sexually mutilated would also be able to raise a child who was happy, loved and advantaged.  Which is all to say that the circumstances I described above ought not necessarily be encouraged as acceptable social norms.  As substantive evidence, it being “possible” to produce a well adjusted child is irrelevant and little but a personal appeal.

You applaud interruptive and bullying behavior, write in defense in labeling opponents with smear words and are derisive towards those who take a stand on their deeply held beliefs.  This last, though, taking a stand on a moral code, is just what your post is all about.  You, here, in support of gay marriage (even as you conflate that with
simple gayness), are pronouncing with moral rectitude your belief as to
what’s best for everyone else.  That’s taking your own moral stand.  Presumably many similarities exist between your and Santorum’s moral code – perhaps both would be against the murder – only In
yours, homosexual relationships should be held on par with
heterosexual ones in every way.  Yet what body of evidence do you have
in your possession that argues philosophically that familial organizations other than those
we currently value are better for humanity or a society?  Remember, your individual experience is just as invalid as emotional appeals to ridicule, or novelty.

You may think a better world may be brought about by brow beating someone with a differing moral code than your own.
Yet how is your support of such tactics have a higher moral standing than those who support the past tactics of those you decry?  Do any of those tactics sound familiar to you as means by which the the gay community was silenced?  Thought so.  So not a better world, then, but one in which you think to hold moral authority.

Maybe, just maybe, you’re just basing your opinions solely on your identity.

Another intellectual Repug  -  filtering his hatred & ignorance thru Geesussah.

You haven’t read much of the bible,have you? You might be surprised to find polygamy aplenty in the bible…

Getting yelled at by an opinionated jerk is not getting “owned.”

Shouldn’t you be wishing him dead already, as you do others around here?

Almost EVERYONE’s faith is tied to their politics. Atheist politicians who have faith that there is no God may be biased to believe a different way then a politician who has faith in God. Someone who claims to be a Christian but is not actually a Christian would probably have less impact from their faith. There spirituality still plays a part in how they see the world. What I mean by someone saying they’re Christian and not really being one is this: Being a Christian means to be “Christ-like”. Someone who does not strive to be Christ-like and calls themselves a Christian is not really a Christian. Only God knows who those people truly are but we can have an idea. Only them and God know for sure. A true Christian will always have his politics influenced by his faith because there are some things that are more important than being popular or politically correct.
I do not expect any liberal to understand that. Some libertarians may and some may not though. Libertarians, for the most part, have a large amount of common sense while liberals are allergic to it.

Nice recital of a definition.  Dictionary.com was it?  And you’re not at all bigoted against the religiously inclined, I presume, or right-wingers in general.

I’ve just about had enough of people who don’t know not how blindingly hypocritical they’re being even as they state in no uncertain term how thoroughly enough they’ve had of one thing or another.

gay parents should have kids the same way everybody else haves them

You mean the same God that has no proof of existing & told us that slavery is okay? Sorry, but such a God has no credibility among sane people.

Right, the APA has no credibility in terms of telling us about the dangers of same sex couples adopting kids. Meanwhile, the Catholic church which protects pedophile priests is somehow a credible source for how to take care of our kids. Keep drinking the Jesus juice man, you’re killing me here.

You’re a complete moron. The whole appeal for Republicans is that they’re supposedly for less government (which the clearly aren’t with the exception of Ron Paul). If they take on fascist positions like Santorum goes, then we might as well stay with Obama.

If you don’t like where America is going, then leave. Might I suggest the Middle-East? They seem to support theological dictatorships just like you.

You mean the same Bible that said slavery is okay? Sorry, but the Bible lost all moral credibility with that one.

LOL @ the Bible being a love letter from God. So in other words, the Bible only applies to women or else that means God himself is bisexual. Guess it’s true about homophones being gay themselves. This seems quite evident in our so called creator.

So the American Psychological Association is no proof of anything but a book written by Bronze Age bigots who were scared of everything is proof? Silly rabbit, facts are for adults.

Right, because Greek mythology did teach real world morals. Why don’t you do the opposite of what all Greek mythology teaches and see how that works for ya. This is why I can’t stand religious freaks, you people have no concept of logic. Sheep.

He loves us so much he sent his son to die for the sins he himself created. Wouldn’t it have been easier to do away with sin all together? Him sending his son to die does not tell me he loves us; in fact, it tells me that God doesn’t even love his own kid.

In all your incoherent ranting, you failed to make a single valid point. Much like Santorum, you’re talking out of your ass.

So conservatives are for polygamy now? Moron.

Actually it is when you have no valid points to counter.

or maybe, his raising his kid with a committed partner has nothing to do with you, me or Santorum.

my philosophy on gay parenting (etc.) is this:  “heterosexuals frak up their kids all the time. they divorce all the time. why not share in the experience and open it up to the gays?”

but your comment just shows what an old fogie *ss you are. 

Me, I’ll just say THANK YOU BRAD for taking in a child, loving it and raising it.  It’s more than a lot of blowhards on this site have dared to do.

America is a nation of many religions. It is not exclusive to christians.

 There’s also people who do not find sex, a beautiful act between a man and a women, they find it disgusting & immoral.

There’s also many people/couples who have no interest in having children to “carry on the human race” as they choose to live a more comfortable & affordable lifestyle instead. 

Since you’re so into carrying on the human race, in an already overcrowded world, is the child free couples lifestyle, disgusting and immoral to you also?

And yet, Gay marriage does have credibility, why? On what grounds does Gay marriage have credibility?What is credible about two people of the same sex getting married?  If it’s a matter of law, why not enter into a civil contract. Why does marriage, in the traditional religious sense have to be part of the issue? Is it a matter of Civil Rights? If so, what specific Civil Rights are Gay’s being denied? Why would almost, every culture on earth turn it’s back on the Gay life style? Could it be, that through untold generations of life, culture’s have learned through trial and error that the Gay lifestyle just doesn’t work? Throw out the religious, and psychological  aspect, and concentrate on what does and doesn’t work in the real world. It’s not about bigotry, it’s about continuing the human condition, and what the real condition needs to survive. Homosexuality, is, for all intent and purpose, the polar opposite of that condition.
Apply the psychological aspect, and it still doesn’t work.    

Where can we find that clause in the Constitution?

Or as your screaming college liberal hero would say, “I CANT HEAR YOU!!! LALALALALALALA”

“Glutton.”  That’s a practitioner of one of Dante’s classical seven deadly sins, is it not?  Humph.  That could almost be interpreted as irreligious, and pugnaciously so, at that.  And they say what moniker one applies to themselves on the internet isn’t usually a window into their personality or at least somewhat indicative of where they’re coming from.  I wonder if one with such an active disregard for religious expression as to wrap one’s identity around it might perceive a person who’s known to hold religious views in a tolerant manner or might somehow work against that person’s participation in public discourse as a matter of principle and color any thought promulgated by that person through a prism of their own contrivance?

Since I’m now in the habit of critiquing appellations in this thread, I’m happy to point out that avoidswork also avoidstheargument.

NAMBLA agrees wholeheartedly.

You asked for it. Took me 30 seconds on Bing to find it, geniuses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9670820.

Here’s the link to the APA Journal’s copy if you’d like to buy it for only $11.95: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1998-04232-002

Here’s a nice little article regarding the debunking of the study: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Controversial+Study+Used+to+Defend+Child+Molesters+is+Debunked%3b…-a080877677

I was a student at the time the study was published and intended to become a psychological counselor. I became so disgusted with the fact that I would have to be licensed by the APA that I changed majors the next semester.

If the APA really wanted to help homosexuals, they would allow counselors to address the behaviors at the root of the widespread depression in the gay community. People who claim to care about this issue like to blame it on a lack of societal acceptance. If that were true, gays in San Francisco and Austin would be less likely to be depressed and attempt suicide than gays in Boise or Tupelo. The actual difference in depression in more vs. less accepting communities equates to statistical noise. It’s insignificant.

Thank you all for expressing your vitriol about me without knowing anything about me or the truth about the issue at hand. It makes me happy to know I’m loathed by uneducated ideologues.

By the way, none of the homosexuals in my circle of friends has ever doubted that I care for them – but they also know I don’t believe their sexual behavior is normal or healthy and that I believe it is at the root of the chaos and unhappiness most of them feel is too big a part of their respective lives. I’ve expressed the same concerns about the behaviors of my promiscuous heterosexual friends. I’m an “total abstinence before marriage and total fidelity after marriage” guy. It worked for me and can work for everyone. Try it and prove me wrong.

Another incoherent rant with no point whatsoever. Sorry bud, but typing a lot to say nothing doesn’t mean you’re smart; it means you’re trying too hard to try & sound smart when you’re really a complete moron.

Nice try idiot, but bigotry against bigotry isn’t bigotry. If it were, the we would be considered bigots for looking down on Nazis & the KKK.

Why would a non-religious person wish for someone else’s death? Only a moronic religious nut that thinks that God somehow cares for them would do something like that. Stop posting, you’re seriously the biggest idiot I’ve seen post here.

santorum hates peer-reviewed science

I for one am glad you did not continue on with your career as a psychogical counselor. The amount of damage you’d do to others who are already dealing with depression, relationships, broken families etc etc, would be frightening. 

scientists proving something is just not important to santorum

he wants proof in the bible, because he’s a bigoted fossil

i can’t wait for people like santorum to just get old and die, so the rest of us can
finally live in peace with each other.  

Maybe just maybe, you have no clue what you’re talking about & maybe just maybe you’re a complete idiot.

Nope, the boorish ones are you and Santorum who both overestimate their own intelligence when you both really come off as ignorant idiots.

and is santorum arguing that human history began only 2,000 years ago?

Look at how much brains this poster “haves”!

History tell me that’s what Great_1 does, as was implicit in my message, pretty much blowing your theory out of the water.

Of course, he could actually be a secret worshiper of a god.  You know what THOSE people are like.

You know, you don’t have to reply to every one of my posts.

You’d like to think so, wouldn’t you?

There’s already a link to a dictionary site around here.  Feel free to check it out.

…

You know, you really shouldn’t try to pull off clever.

I posted it below in response to myself.

Your bigot that is out of touch with reality and is judgemental all claims are baseless & lies. All you want to do is shove morals & ethics down peoples throat which is wrong your idiot & moron that doesn’t know what there talking about. Being gay isn’t a sin either the bible is wrong on that and being gay isn’t immoral either so your wrong everything. I’m a good christian as well.

Rick Santorum is wrong the student made Rick look like the fool that he truely is. Rick is wrong as always I think gays should have a right to have kids if there good loving parents it shouldn’t matter. Being gay isn’t sin or immoral either those that say it’s sin or immoral are wrong and it shouldn’t matter if larry marries joe doesn’t harm me any. I know those that don’t agree will take the extreme and say then you will have people wanting to marry there dog or horse which isn’t a legit in argument or debate. 

Romneybot

Okay, I know this isn’t going to when me any friends and probably get me banned from yet another site; here is my take, from experience. As a survivor of Divorce and a Gay Uncle raising two boys with stellar school records and there are a lot of social workers and Doctors involved, I have a box of records documenting their success, given the alternative (Mother on drugs) I completely disagree with Rick Santorum, as I have for Decades. He is a Catholic and they (he) are for the most part going to Hell anyways. His Conservative views and the fact that they (Catholics) are “the Harlot Church of the Apocalypse” don’t help. He has less of a chance being elected President than Mitt Romney and we don’t even want to go there. There is a very good possibility that he is going to fry in hell for all eternity, being a Catholic that is. So what he says is just inconsequential because I am pretty sure he is going to Hell for all eternity, being a Damned Catholic (Google it).

You’re fucking stupid.  You abuse the words of the Bible, and for you to be so self-righteous and judgmental of how other people live their lives is rather hypocritical of what a loving Christian is supposed to be.  God doesn’t teach hate, which is what you practice.  When you die, and IF you go to Heaven, you’ll discover how wrong you are about your views on homosexuality.  God created homosexuals to teach ignorant people like you that love has no limits.  Get an education and learn about life, all lives, and not just your miserable one.

You’re fucking stupid.  You abuse the words of the Bible, and for you to be so self-righteous and judgmental of how other people live their lives is rather hypocritical of what a loving Christian is supposed to be.  God doesn’t teach hate, which is what you practice.  When you die, and IF you go to Heaven, you’ll discover how wrong you are about your views on homosexuality.  God created homosexuals to teach ignorant people like you that love has no limits.  Get an education and learn about life, all lives, and not just your miserable one.

Having been raised in a religiously
conservative home and community obsessed with biblical literalism and
inerrancy (an insidious form of idolatry in itself, by the way), and
having rejected that regressive worldview that states we are born
flawed, broken, dirty, untrustworthy, needing forgiveness, etc. more
than 20 years ago, I am very familiar with the tortured and clumsy
“logic” put forth by those who somehow seem to believe that
spirituality is primarily a mental process.

Prostitute parents? Homeless parents?
The sexually mutilated? With all due respect, what are you even
talking about?

Note: that was a rhetorical question –
no response is actually requested.

“Yet what body of evidence do you have in your possession that argues philosophically that familial organizations other than those we currently value are better for humanity or a society?”

What I have in my possession is my son
and a thousand smiling photographs. And in the end that’s all I really care about. 

The reality is that my partner and I
did not adopt in order to make a political statement. We did not
adopt in order to piss off people who need above all else the
airtight certainty of a literalist religion. And we certainly did not
adopt in order to be the scapegoat for cynical, power-hungry
politicians attempting to appeal to the worst instincts of their
constituents every four years so they can enjoy first class
narcissistic ego trips.

We adopted because we had a loving and
functional home to offer a child who needed one. And everyone we
encounter in the “real world” (as FreeCommonSense referred to it)
gets that.

The good news is that people like Rick Santorum are a dying breed. There’s simply fewer and fewer of them every year. And, yes, I do applaud that.

Santorum’s views are not bigoted. They are an opinion on a social issue.

The problem is, we don’t need Presidents who wear their opinions on social issues on their sleeves. As a President, you should have very little influence on social issues. Which is why Santorum is barking up the wrong tree and has no chance.

If he wants to be taken seriously, he should just say, “these are my personal opinions on these issues. I don’t foresee, or intend for my views on these issues to be a significant focus as President of the U.S. It is not an appropriate role of being President”.

Unfortunately, he is mining for votes with Social Conservatives, and none to successfully. Oh well.

Marriage IS a civil contract. People that want same-sex marriage legalized don’t want to tamper with the traditional religious definition. Rather, they want the civil definition to be “expanded” because (in its current wording, under DOMA) they are being denied that fundamental right. Also, your use  of “almost, every culture on earth turn it’s back on the Gay life style” is laughable. People also used to reject interracial marriage, contraception, women voting, etc. Just because people reject or disagree with something doesn’t mean they get to deny other people their rights. Furthermore, your “continuing the human condition” argument is ridiculous. Only a relatively small part of the population is exclusively attracted to the same sex. Trust me, the human race will be continued, with or without gay marriage.

Thank you, I could be enjoying the weekend at the Beach, less taking care of Goats, Dogs and Cats that I didn’t ask for but my boys are ok and I thank God for that.

Do you have any experience or credentials to back up your opinion? Or are you just another one of those whose opinion is the only reasoning he has in support of his opinion?

When I chose counseling psych as a career, I had purely altruistic motives. this is a necessity because counselors don’t make much money. If I had continued, I would likely have been making as much now as I was in my on-campus student job a decade ago. I couldn’t do it because I am bound to deal with reality and facts are very stubborn things.

APA guidelines mandate the ideology of the counselor – what he can or can’t say. I ask you, how is it helpful to a person to tell him he needs to get over feeling bad about a behavior that is causing his depression? Not just talking about homosexuality here. If he was an alcoholic, drug abuser, gambler, spouse or child abuser, heterosexual sex addict or (for the time being) a pedophile the counselor is allowed to address the behavior. It is only with homosexuals that the behavior is off limits. If a patient asks, “Am I depressed because I have anonymous sex with other men in gas station restrooms? Or do I seek anonymous sex because I’m depressed?” We were told only to tell him he was okay the way he was. For me, that would be akin to saying, “Buck up little camper. Turn that frown upside-down and get down to the Sinclair & find yourself a new boyfriend for the night.” It’s completely condescending and demeaning to the patient (I’ve had several of my gay friends express this sentiment when discussing their counseling experiences with me privately). Even if he says he no longer wants to be gay (it happens more frequently than you’d guess) and wants to marry a woman and have kids, the counselor is not allowed to help him to work toward HIS OWN GOAL.

This policy would be like the AMA telling physicians, “You can use any approved means to treat a patient for any malady, except if he has a broken ulna. In that case, you can give him medication for the pain & put his arm in a sling, but under no circumstances are you to re-set the bone or put it in a cast- even if the patient asks. It’s just too painful.”

It is worth noting that the fields of abnormal psychological research and counseling are overpopulated with crazies who are more interested in normalizing their own manias rather than helping others suffering from various mental and behavioral issues. I had the suspicion this was true early on and it was verified by an uncle who had worked in the field for several decades. He said that in many cases the psychologists were as crazy as the worst of his patients.

As a Social Conservative and think he is going to hell, personally and believe Society is failing miserably, we need better options, anyone?

I am not a Santorum supporter and I find the Phelps clan hateful and loathsome. I never claimed to be an expert in psychology, but I was a psych student. As such, I have likely read and studied far more on this issue than you or any of my other critics on this page. I left the program 2 semesters before I got my degree because I found the APA to be a society of leftist hacks. I refused to sully my name by seeking their acceptance.

Can you please point out my hateful comments? All I did was share facts. I’d like to know which of them are bigoted and hateful.

Have you read it? If not then SDASTFU, until you do…

As I mentioned earlier, he is probably going to Hell, so what your point?

That is not nice!

Well, with smart people like you, it will be again, when we divide it.

I am sure that is not going to hapen, unfortunately.

Before I get banned from commenting, I so admire your research of the Bible but I must point out that all that you pointed out is Old Testament which deals explosively with the Jews and for the most part negates us Gentiles (because they rejected him) and for which he sent his Son to die for our Sins (so out of context). Try again.

If the APA really cared about bigots like yourself, they would classify people like yourself as mentally ill.

America will never again relive 1950. The times they are a changing. You better get use to it or be in for a world of hurt.

Travis Pierson,
Stick your bullsh!t Christianity where the sun does not shine.

No serious group is pushing the normalization of pedophilia and you know it.

You are quite the bigot and hater. If Jesus Christ came back, he would be ashamed at supporters such as yourself.

And who knows, maybe Jesus Christ was Gay. Jesus may have been a bottom.

There is no such thing as Hell, so do not worry.

Hell is a myth. At worse we experience our own personal Hell. it does not last forever.

People being brainwashed like you have been are just another reason I want nothing to do with Christianity.

If Catholics are “The Harlot Church of the Apocalypse”, so are Southern Baptists.
You are from South Carolina. There is a whole world that exists outside of that state. Experience it. You may feel better.

So does the FLDS schism and Warren Jeffs… has any pope ever apologised for the inquisition or Galileo?

Nature Freak prefers this “Personal Jesus”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI

Reach out and touch me!

So your a Confederate!

What is up with the water in South Carolina.

If there is another war between the states it will probably end with a nuclear war. This is not 1861 anymore. Red states have blue cities and Blue states have red regions as well.

Atlanta would turn into Stalingrad. Do not wish for a civil war.

Only when he bottomed.

I do find Mediaite to be my own personal Purgatory on occasion.

I read the entire book. I recommend Shakespeare’s collected works. Or even the collected works of Dr. Seuss over the Bible.

Do you like

green eggs and ham

I do not like them,

Sam-I-am.

I do not like

green eggs and ham.

Would you like them

Here or there?

I would not like them

here or there.

I would not like them

anywhere.

I do not like

green eggs and ham.

I do not like them,

Sam-I-am

Beats the holy Bible!

So do you discount the Torah?

For someone who hates Catholics and considers them harlots, I find it interesting that this is a view more likely to be found in the Catholic church. Not very Protestant of you.

“Before I get banned from commenting”

You are not even close. People are allowed here to have different opinions. This is what I like about this site. Relax and chill. Free speech here is encouraged.

“Could it be, that through untold generations of life, culture’s have learned through trial and error that the Gay lifestyle just doesn’t work?”

Of course people in other cultures live a gay lifestyle.  You just don’t see or hear about it often as unlike a free country, gay people in many other cultures, learn through trial and error, that they would most likely be executed if they were found out.   

Having been raised in a religiously conservative home and community obsessed with biblical literalism and inerrancy (an insidious form of idolatry in itself, by the way), and having rejected that regressive worldview that states we are born flawed, broken, dirty, untrustworthy, needing forgiveness, etc. more than 20 years ago, I am very familiar with the tortured and clumsy “logic” put forth by those who somehow seem to believe that spirituality is primarily a mental process.

Such is not at all an accurate characterization of the manner in which I am engaging you.  In fact, it’s a red herring.

Prostitute parents? Homeless parents? The sexually mutilated? With all due respect, what are you even talking about?

Note: that was a rhetorical question – no response is actually requested.

If it was with all due respect, you’d grant me the courtesy to expound on the thought. 

See, the way debate works is when something is raised or addressed, it’s incumbent on the person responding to either tackle it or pass, and not for he who raises it to draw it from the table.  I chose to address it, for it’s an important point that bears repeating.  Obviously, I bring up those scenarios (though not as far-fetched as to think that such people aren’t raising children – hell, practically anyone can do it) to demonstrate the invalidity of appeals to questionable cause. 

Such is an outgrowth of my dissection of your straw man in relation to Santorum.  You’d dare him to “look into lyour] son’s eyes and say that this child is unhappy, unloved, or in any way disadvantaged from being raised by two fathers.”  But why would you ever do such a thing, since Santorum never suggested the opposite was the case?  You attempt to score sympathy points by stuffing motivations you can decry into the mouths of those you oppose. Such persuades only those who don’t realize the appeal to illogic.

“Yet what body of evidence do you have in your possession that argues philosophically that familial organizations other than those we currently value are better for humanity or a society?”

What I have in my possession is my son and a thousand smiling photographs. And in the end, that’s all I really care about.

And with this, one might be able to understand why I went through all the trouble.

It’s an emotionalism, and disguises your (side’s) distinct failure of responsibility to the Burden of Proof that the changes you propose to society are warranted or at least without risk.  I did remind you what was invalid as a tool of structured persuasion.  Note that this was Santorum’s precise point when our good, intolerant, progressive college drone started yelling over him with some irrelevancies of a study someone told her about once.  It’s a point that often gets shouted over, for the case hasn’t been adequately and unassailablymade.  Had it been, your side would have no need to use evasive tactics and the array of logical fallacies your side commonly throws up as ‘arguments.’

The reality is that my partner and I did not adopt in order to make a political statement. We did not adopt in order to piss off people who need above all else the airtight certainty of a literalist religion. And we definitely did not adopt in order to be the scapegoat for cynical power-hungry politicians attempting to appeal to the worst instincts of their constituents every four years so that they can enjoy first class narcissistic ego trips.

Your effort to appear unconcerned in the matter and unaffected by the greater debate – if not victim in it – would’ve been much more genuine had you not yourself offered a distinctly political viewpoint in support of bully tactics and in opposition to those who speak against your agenda with anti-religious strawmen in an online forum in which exchanges of views and debate are frequent components.

The burden of proof is put once again to pushers of the homosexual agenda – how is it better for society or humanity?

We adopted because we had a loving and functional home to offer a child who needed one. And everyone we encounter in the “real world” (as FreeCommonSense referred to it) gets that.

Laudable, but appeal to popularity nonetheless.  FreeCommonSense is no more qualified to lend credibility to your views than one who disagrees without reason is to detract from them.

The good news is that people like Rick Santorum are a dying breed. There’s simply fewer and fewer of them every year. And, yes, I do applaud that.

As I said above, it’s incumbent on the person to whom questions are put to either tackle them or pass up the opportunity.  I see you failed to touch upon much of anything in my first post to you, not my elucidation of your active support in pursuance of your moral authroity of interruptive & bullying behavior, the use of labling words to smear opponents, and the acceptence of derisive attitudes towards those who express deeply held beliefs not your own.  (To such, I might add a measure of religious intolerance which has been manifested in your response, as to suggest only a person’s worst, religious inspired instincts might inspire opposition to your views.)  Neither have you deigned to recognize the similarity such tactics bear to the conditions homosexuals prefer to portray themselves as victim to.  Don’t fall the the relativist fallacy at the same time as all those others you broach here or all that’s left is the emotional appeal!

To put it suscinctly, seek moral authority with the better argument, or know yourself as that which you abhor.

As a way of explanation of why I continue to probe you on this subject, I’m still looking for the evidence you said you had in your possession.  I’m looking really hard.

I have two goats, two dogs, six cats and two small nephews, I am not from SC and have traveled the world and am well read. I agree that many members of many churches will (unfortunately) go to hell, was my point. As far as the shitheads and sewers, them too, not my point. Organized Religion and Politics are what is wrong with our society, how do we fix that?

I have two goats, two dogs, six cats and two small nephews, I am not from SC and have traveled the world and am well read. I agree that many members of many churches will (unfortunately) go to hell, was my point. As far as the shitheads and sewers, them too, not my point. Organized Religion and Politics are what is wrong with our society, how do we fix that?

You have a good point and I am sure that it will not come to that, probably. I do think but not sure that this country is divided down the middle ideologically (sp) as ever before and we need to do something about that or we are going to hell, which you claim does not exist but I beg to differ, respectfully.

I am so not used to getting banned from commenting, it is new to me. I do not discount the Torah and or any other belief, I just feel my belief is right and respect any one else’s as long they respect mine. I am far from one to judge, believe me but I believe my way (God’s way) is best. Aside from that, I think we should all just get along, civilly.

not nice, he is perfect!

not nice, he is perfect!

I like to have anal sex with women who i am in a relationship with  (as long as they are into it).

I am not Gay. 

Interesting.

What a frothy debate from Rick!

“Soddom and Gamora”

I have said this once, and I will say this again:
 WHY ARE BIGOTS, HOMOPHOBES AND HATERS SUCH BAD SPELLERS?

If you hate America so much, then leave it.

And you still don’t.

I agree. I would be upset if you were banned for your opinion. You have every right to your religious beliefs.

That being said, you must realize most people on this planet are not Protestant born again Christians.

God is beyond petty “my church is better than your church” B.S.

A loving God would never send anyone to Hell (not that it exists). If one believes in God (I myself believe in some sort of higher power), one must also believe we are part of the Godhead as well. How could God send part of herself to Hell forever? Why would she?

I ‘believe’ Obama has added 4 TRILLION to that debt, am I wrong?

Well what about the part where most of you reject Jesus’ teachings? … consistently.

Marriage is not an institution, where does that even come from? Ok, since most everyone here wants to quote the old testament, then new rule, if two people get married and separate, then they should be stoned to death….bottom line, let’s go with that!

I believe my way (God’s way) is best

How convenient that God agrees with you.

It takes no thought at all.

Could “God” have been created by another God in the infinite past and so on, and is this the true meaning of infinity?

It is almost 4 in the morning EST. Think about it!

You people got me so far off track, the only point I wanted to make was I am one of six siblings that was raised with the same nature, nurture environment that likes the same sex and yet the only one not in rehab and raising my siblings offspring and from what I can tell so far they will turn out just fine. So take that, Mr. Santorum who is, I am pretty sure going to hell anyway.

As for me, I have no problem with the idea of some sort of “God”, but I do have a problem with a narrow 3000 year old Jehovah like concept. No better than worshiping Zeus or Thor. My concept of “God” is beyond sex, physical place, time, and dimension.

A vengeful and angry God makes no sense. Nor does classifying God as a particular Gender.
Portraying God as being a man is a classic case of projecting.

No better than portraying God as Black or White. I find the Christian concept of God to be limiting. Hindu’s have a better grasp of a multidimensional God encompassing other Gods and demigods.

Anthropomorphism is very limiting as well.
Personally, I believe in reincarnation. I believe it is part of the path we have chosen. And being GLBT does not matter. For some it may even be a positive part of their earthly development. It serves a positive purpose! It is a beautiful part of the human condition. Being GLBT is not a sin. It is part of being at one with a higher power.

Goodnight. I need sleep!

I suspect much of the Bible was originally meant to be symbolic. Not to be taken literally.

And the Bible we have today was abridged, altered and bowdlerized.

I got news for you, homosexual relationships exist in every mammalian species that has been viewed mating, so it’s hardly abnormal behavior.

And I got more news for you, America is not now and never was a Christian nation.  Only about 10% of the original colonists that came to this country, did so for religious reasons.  Most came here for economic reasons.  I suggest you read a little piece of paper called the Treaty of Tripoli, in which it spells out in no uncertain terms that America is NOT a Christian nation.. the people that ratified it would know.. they were pretty much the founding fathers.  The first Continental Congress was estimated to be only 10% Christian, and 90% Free Masons and Deists.  Thomas Jefferson, in his writings, wrote about loathing Christians.  George Washington, in all his writings, never once mentioned the word Jesus.

Everyone knows what happened at Soddom and Gamora?  Everyone except people who actually think with their brains, and not with a book.  No one got turned into pillars of salt, and God did not rain down fire on 2 villages as payments for their sins. IF 2 villages got destroyed by fire from the sky, (and that’s a HUGE IF) then happened as a matter of bad luck from a meteor strike.

And one more thing.  Who are you to judge other people?  You’re not God, and isn’t the fact that you’re judging other people a sin?  I suppose you’re also one of these people that think AIDS was originally a judgement for gays as well.

If God wanted sex to be used for procreation only, he wouldn’t have made it feel so damn good.  And for making it for procreation only, then why is it that in the Christian religion even babies are considered sinners?  Because their parents sinned in having sex making them. 

Rick Santorum is an A$$, and wants to know what goes on in your bedroom.. and ban it.  Look up the word santorum on the internet… you’ll love the result.

Go away Christian, you disgust me.

Wow – when was the last time you were outside of your own head? Yours is not the ivory tower – it’s the haunted attic.

By all means, feel free to respond with something equally cerebral and irrelevant. I give you the last word since you seem to need it.

Let me guess, Rick.   The APA doesn’t count, but the Heritage Foundation and the American Family Association does?

Rick Santorum and his ilk are a cancer on our society.

The Bible doesn’t instruct ANYONE to be a bigot, Rick.  

For every verse you cite against gay people, there is another verse that calls for tolerance and love.   So stop twisting the Bible to support your political agenda.

Here’s a Bible verse for you Rick:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”   Matthew 7:3

Come on outta that closet, proconserv.  It’ll do wonders for your blood pressure.

In the real world, right here, right now, countless people are engaged in happy and healthy gay relationships. Heterosexuals, last I checked, appeared not to have gone extinct, and global population was humming along at an ever-increasing rate.  I’ve applied your “survivability of the human race” model, as requested, and it looks to be working just fine.  Thanks for you concern.

Check please!

How silly of you to think that God somehow made a mistake in making gay people. You’re disgusting.

Good thing you didnt get into the field of psychology. You would probably set up a “pray the gay away” clinic. Also, I love how homophones always claim to have gay friends. Sort of how racists claim to have black friends.

So many things to say to this…

The redefinition of psychological disorders over time is inevitable, and in most cases seems warranted.  What’s the alternative? Pretending that phrenology isn’t quackery? Believing that women are weak and hysterical? Claiming that black slaves escaped captivity because they suffered from “drapetomania”?

As for your slippery slope suggestion that we’re ten years away from the “normalization of pedophilia”, you’ve gone and committed a logical fallacy, and there’s not much I can do to combat it other than to say I disagree with your supposition.

Lastly, this bit:

“They also removed narcissism as a psychological disorder about a year ago. Couldn’t have anything to do with the mental condition of the man sitting in the Oval Office at the time, could it? Didn’t think so. It must just be a coincidence.”

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but it appears that you’re suggesting that the president has used some sort of secret authority over the AMA to have narcissism removed from the DSM-5.  To what end exactly?  To insulate himself from ever being diagnosed as a narcissist? Really? If that’s the case, you needn’t fret, because although it lacks a bit of the pithiness of “narcissist,” you’re still free to self-diagnose the president as having “personality disorder with narcissistic and manipulative traits” if you like. But, really now… If you’re going around casually diagnosing people with things that aren’t in your professional capacity to begin with, why bother going by the DSM at all?

Oh, and I appreciate that you think there’s some vast conspiracy out to “move society further left” but the phenomenon you’ve noticed is actually more commonly known as progress.  And I don’t mean that snarkily, it’s actually the ineluctable consequence of the fact that you and I exist in time.  It goes.  Forward.  And so do we.  Inevitably.  No one’s out to getcha, buddy, I promise.  And seriously, don’t fight me on this one, cause the more inflated that sense of self-importance is, the more it seems like *you* might be the proverbial narcissist in the room.

I don’t try I just do. You on the other hand try way too hard to compensate for something. Whether it’s intellect or penis size (probably both) I don’t know.

I don’t recall saying there is no God.  As far as I see it, there’s only God and nothing else. That puts you and me in the same club, Larry, much as that might irk ya.

But I’d still like to be the “FOOL” if that’s cool with you.  I can think of no better compliment than being told I’m in on the cosmic joke.

Excused.  And no, but thanks for your question.

Can you please point out where I mentioned religion in any of my posts? While I am a religious person, the opinions I have formed and shared on this topic are based purely on sociological data.

I never said the president had any actual power over the APA – no more so than he has over any of his other sycophantic minions. What I was suggesting is that controlling members of the APA are ardent supporters of President Obama and his policies. After his election there were a slew of people who don’t support him claiming that he is a narcissist. Rather than showing that he isn’t, the APA simply said, “There’s nothing wrong with a whole lot of narcissism.”

Regarding the conspiracy to drag American society to the left: conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1, yet the leftward shift happens anyway. Every time the left manages to win at the ballot box, they overplay their hand and there’s an electoral backlash. Nixon won in a pair of landslides. Reagan won in a pair of landslides. Clinton lost both houses of congress yet won both of his elections with only a plurality of the votes due to a third party contender. Bush won two elections despite his lack of oratory skills. Many people saw what was coming with an Obama presidency. More people voted for McCain in ’08 than voted for Bush in ’04 – meaning that more Americans didn’t want a President Obama than did want a second term from President Bush.

Leftists in media and academia don’t face re-election every few years. They simply know so much better than all of us working stiffs so they trudge forward. I wouldn’t say it’s a conspiracy because it’s overt. The only reason you don’t see it is because you support it.

I don’t think they said “there’s nothing wrong with a whole lot of narcissism”. What they said was that narcissism doesn’t get it’s own category anymore. Instead, it can be tacked on to “personality disorder” as a descriptive qualifier. It hardly appears to make much difference one way or the other, except perhaps to take a *bit* of the semantic sting out of being called a narcissist. So maybe if we amend your comment to “there’s nothing wrong with more narcissism than we used to think was healthy” you might be onto something. It seems less a concerted effort by the APA to deflect criticism of Obama (which I think even you’ll grant is a little far-fetched) than a reflection of the fact that we live in a pretty self-obsessed world. Facebook was a decade away from existing when the DSM-4 came out. Now everyone and their mother has a “public persona” that they can – and do – craft at their will, meticulously cropping people out of their most flattering photographs and untagging themselves from their least flattering.  Narcissism got kicked off the bus ’cause it took too broad a stroke; if everyone fits the bill for a disorder, well…that looks pretty orderly all of a sudden, doesn’t it?

Regarding your second paragraph, I think you’ve proved my point more succinctly than I could have: 

“Liberals are outnumbered 2-1, yet the leftward shift happens anyway.”

Well said.

It’s inevitable, my dude.  There’s no conspiracy at all, overt, covert, or other. This is just what happens.  And for what it’s worth, I don’t “support” the march of progress.  I can’t support it any more than you can stop it.  We’re both being ferried along by it, I just happen to know so.  You seem to think that you might just be the first human in all of history to turn the clock backward.  While I respect your ambition, I know better than to fight against the movement of time and the evolution of ideas.

What about all of those Catholic priests who molested kids?  And, this is still happening.

Actually, I believe limbaugh is divorced three times.  He is on his 4th marriage!

What a great frn’ “Christian” rush is!!!

What the heck difference does it make if 2 gay people are married?

If you saw a man and a woman walking down the street, holding hands, hugging and kissing, would you know whether or not they were married?

Exactly…..you would not know.

The same is true for a gay couple. 

Based in your argument here, there is no difference between a “civil union” and “marriage.”  It’s just words, after all.  So who cares, based on your argument, if gay people get married?

I know people who are not married, yet they procreate and have children, “continuing the human condition.” 

Opinion is not proof. You’d make a poor scientist. Or a climatologist listed on Al Gore’s blackberry.

And I hardly think the world you envision is destined to live in peace – you know, what with you wishing death on people you disagree with and all.

No, no, you got it wrong again.  He referred to 2,000 years of teaching and moral theology of the Christian faith.  Because that’s how long the Christian faith has been in practice.

Maybe this explains why it’s so difficult to talk to a progressive.  It’s not just a matter of poor listening skills.  Perhaps a certain bread of progressive actually has a brain deformity in which different words are perceived than those that are said.

That’s actually had some thought to it, but you are wrong in your conclusions.  Politics and religion can easily be held very separate.  It depends on your religion.. are you getting your faith from a book, or are you getting your faith from inside?  My religion.. my faith tells me that abortions are wrong, BUT I will never tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  My faith also tells me that killing is wrong, but I will defend myself and my family to the death.  The point is that you have to mentally separate one from the other.

And as for your point regarding liberals being Christians.. I know millions of Catholics that would disagree with you… and before you say that Catholics aren’t Christians.. they only wrote that book that is the center of your faith.

To anyone who have called me hateful for describing certain, common homosexual behaviors abnormal, I have a few questions. These are not rhetorical.

Do you believe Senator Larry Craig was trolling for an anonymous sexual hook-up in the men’s room at the Minneapolis airport?

If so, do you believe it was his first time, or was he doing something he’d done before?

Do you consider this to be a normal means of pursuing and procuring sexual gratification?

If so, is it something you would do yourself if you knew the person in the next stall shared your sexual preference? Is is something you would encourage your daughter to do? How about your son? Or your mom? Or your spouse? What about the guy your daughter is dating? If not, why not? You’ve already said it’s normal behavior and there’s nothing destructive, damaging or unacceptable about behavior that is perfectly normal, right?

If you believe, as I do, that Senator Craig was acting out of habit, he must have had reason to believe there would have been an amenable person in the next stall. Who was that guy? This is yet another fact that hypocrites on the left cannot reconcile.

I challenge any of you to post your answers to these questions and rebut my logic. However, what I expect is another stream of ad hominem slurs akin to those I’ve already received.

Your logic is flawed regarding election results.  McCain only took 57,212,032 votes, while Bush took 62,028,719 votes.. meaning more people didn’t want another Republican than in 2004. And you’re saying that Perot only took votes away from Bush, when that simply isn’t the case.  Bush lost in 1992 because of the economy and unemployment.

“A big problem with the left is the homogeneity of thought – no
discordant voices are allowed. Anyone who disagrees will be shouted
down, kind of like you and all of your cohorts are doing with me here” 

I see the same tactic on the Right to.. that’s politics as usual.

You people are funny sometimes, especially when you think your convincing anybody of something that’s patently untrue.

Sticking your fingers in your ears isn’t a valid debate technique – neither is shouting over someone because they don’t like the point to the question.  And the question is still on the table.  How is it better for society to redefine marriage away from that monogamous, paired gender institution which has well sustained humanity for thousands of years?

You call it progress. I call it digression. It’s a turn toward libertine-ism and selfishness and away from individual responsibility – and only disciplined, responsible individuals are truly free. All others are slaves to their own whims.

The problem I have is that the left uses indoctrination and litigation to push its agenda rather than legislation. And, when they do (more or less) use the constitutionally proscribed legislative method, they hide behind children and the elderly to scare the mushy middle into believing the worst about their opponents. The reason for this is a difference in the way the two sides see each other. The right believes the left is wrong. The left believes the right is evil. Thus, the frequent use of the word “enemy” to describe a political opponent of the left.

If pols on the left wished to have an adult conversation, they would debate other adults face-to-face and let the undecided make up their minds based on the merits of the competing ideas, without the scare tactics. They refuse. The left’s idea of a debate with a conservative is, “Shut up!” Al Gore’s latest statements are a prime example of this. He refuses to debate anyone and is now sending his fervent acolytes out to tell those who view the AGW issue skeptically (which is a primary tenet of the scientific method) to shut up.

Do you really believe that Republicans want to kill your grandmother, starve your children and lynch black people? Do you really believe that, if the 10th amendment arguments against ObamaCare win the argument before the Supreme Court, that conservative states will really bring back segregation or slavery? There’s far less chance of any of those things happening in the next decade than of the APA removing pedophilia as a mental/sexual disorder.

It takes no thought at all.

We were sidetracked into – the better to avoid the point – discussing what constituted a valid thought here, not delving into the processes of typically unthinking emotion-based progressive-Pavlovian conditioning.

Santorum and others like him are proof that religion
and politics should be kept as far away from each
other as possible…and at all times.

you said -”My religion.. my faith tells me that abortions are wrong, BUT I will
never tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.”
my response- My faith tells me abortion is infanticide. So as we can tell someone they cannot murder another adult or child we should also be able to tell a woman she cannot murder the child within her body. The point is that it is not telling the woman what she cannot do with her body. It is telling the woman what she cannot do with a separate living body. A separate set of DNA is within her. A being that is genetically distinct from the mother is within the womb. So, as the government should be very small and should stay out of peoples personal lives and it shouldnt be able to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, it does have the responsibility to protect individuals from doing harm to each other(whether or not the other person is someones child or not). Unborn children should have even more protection than others. Just as we protect the elderly with laws against abusing them, we should do the same for the unborn. So in conclusion, your statement does not apply here, because the body is not hers, but her child’s.

you said, “My faith also tells me that killing is wrong, but I will defend myself
and my family to the death.  The point is that you have to mentally
separate one from the other.”
my response – You are in error here as well because you do not know the ancient texts used in the Old Testament that is translated to, “Though shalt not kill”. should actually be translated to, “Though shalt not  murder”. The Greek Septuagint uses the term, fonemseis– to murder, rather than sxotono–to kill. This tells me that the Bible is not telling us it wrong to kill and defend ourselves. After all, even Jesus commanded his disciples to buy weapons before his death. “Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse,
bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag;
and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell
you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is
reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,”
he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)”
It is telling us not to murder. It is not telling us we cannot defend our families.

You said, “before you say that Catholics aren’t Christians.. they only wrote that book that is the center of your faith.”
my response – I am unsure of why you think the Catholics wrote the new testament. That is inaccurate as well. Let me tell you why. First off, Early Christians Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and James wrote the New Testament. These authors were early Christians. They were not traditional Catholics as you would think of a Catholic. Modern day Catholics do a lot of things that are traditions passed down by men and that are not found in the Bible. The first Christians and modern day Catholics are nothing alike. Its comparing apples to oranges. The midevil Catholic church wouldnt let the people read the Bible. Catholics pray to saints which is the complete opposite of what God commands. There were no alter boys during these times. Christians were too busy being persecuted. There was no “first communion” ceremony. There is no confession to priests in the Bible. The Catholic church that was responsible for the inquisition was a far reach from Christianity. There are definitely some Catholics who are great Christians. Many of them are not though. Going through rituals and traditions and telling the priest your sins or calling oneself a Catholic or Christian does not make one a Christian. Being Christ like is what makes one a Christian. So saying that Catholics wrote the new testament is a bit misleading. They are only responsible for deciding the “Cannon”.

If anyone is Catholic please do not think I am saying that you are not a Christian. I am merely saying that calling oneself a Catholic or Christian and doing rituals does not qualify a person. Being a Christian takes place in a persons spirit/heart and is not accomplished through works. The good deeds will come if the faith is there. “For it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not
by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance
for us to do ” (Eph. 2:8,9).

Well God does love homosexuals just as much as He loves anyone. I dont know why anyone tries to dispute what the Bible says about homosexuality. Here is a quote:
Romans 1:24-27New International Version (NIV)
 ”24 Therefore
God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual
impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served
created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.  26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
error.”Ok now Im sure you are going to call me names and tell me im a homophobe because I posted scripture but you are so wrong. Jesus teaches me to love all people whether saints or sinners. Someone being gay doesnt make them a bad person. Their sexuality is a sin. That is between them and God though. It is my responsibility as a Christian to show them love and kindness. It is my responsibility to show them how Jesus would have treated them. So you can call me all of the names you want to. You are just showing your own intolerance(surely me quoting a Bible verse makes me intolerant though, right?)

You want to talk about compensating?  You’re the one chasing me all over the thread because you disagreed with something I said, but don’t have the confidence in your abilities to engage me on it.

I just wanted to get at something – and I believe I have.  For all your ‘evidence,’ you’ve nothing but empty emotionalisms and an assortment o logical fallacies.  You can slam others for having a defined moral code and think to put forward your own but have not the wherewithal to back it up.  And you failed to engage on any point, least of all the main one – explain how, besides it being simply convenient to you for who you are, society is improved by ditching and redefining one of mankind’s fundamental social institutions.

Oh, we weren’t arguing that those words aren’t in there.  They clearly are.  We were merely suggesting that they are sort of stupid.

@de36ed58271e1324a0e1cabf7b7dc222:disqus Sorry I should have specified. I was refering to Princewonder1975′s comment. This person seemed to be implying that the Bible did not say these things. Sorry about that.

I challenge you to actually look into the history of the marriage rite. This “fundamental social institution,” as you call it, and its obsession with female virginity was really just the most reliable way to assure a man that the children his wife gave birth to were biologically his. With no DNA tests (obviously), and a long 9 months between the sex act and the the time the proverbial bun pops out the oven, land- and property-ownership obsessed men had to figure out a way to guarantee paternity.

Enter: marriage.

Love and all the gooey romantic stuff doesn’t show up for a long time.

I find it fascinating that tradition-obsessed people will only look so far in any direction for their behavioral cues.  Marriage is a practice whose motivations and manifestations are radically different today than when it was first blurrily conceived of before recorded history, and it will obviously continue to change long into the future.  Selectively adjusting your lens to view the world as it existed in 1950 and calling that “tradition” is a little disingenuous, don’t you think?

You should Google Santorum!!!

Google Santorum!!!

It really is something like 6000-7000 years But whats the diff?

“opinionated jerk”….. You mean Santorum, Right?

Google Santorum !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please Google Santorum!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you please just keep Jesus and the bible out of the arguement. Religion is like a decease.Has caused more harm then good ie: 9/11, The Crusades, Ethnic cleansing and most wars. I think you all have the right to believe and worship any god you wish.All Religious based countries have the Death penalty. Religion separates people. Not unites them.With all that said I’m not trying to hurt you or put you down.

Nope.  I mean the ‘liberal’ who started shouting about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 for little reason but to interrupt the speaker and vent some anger after her objection and ‘evidence’ was shown to be nothing but political opinion.

It’s already been pointed out in what way Darladoon’s commentary is flawed, but hey; why let easily observable facts get in the way of a snarky, hate-based critique.

They’ve never thought of it, most likely – it’s just seen by them as fodder for slams on Republicans.  At least in some threads one can expect the more reasonable libs to engage in a debate of ideas – but on this topic the bully behavior is so ingrained and pervasive by now nobody reasonable bothers to defend it.  The homosexual normative agenda has been charging hard ever since 1970 with the diagnosis change and as long as educational standards are such that they are, it’s not liable to be seen for the bullying PC snow job that it is.  These people here would see that comment as homophobic.  I just want them to see the pushers of the agenda are all about gay recruit and not actually helping people that may need it.

Good job, though, with your presentation despite all the flak.  It actually is persuasive, though few here are of a mind to be persuaded.

I challenge you to actually look into the history of the marriage rite. This “fundamental social institution,” as you call it, and its obsession with female virginity was really just the most reliable way to assure a man that the children his wife gave birth to were biologically his. With no DNA tests (obviously), and a long 9 months between the sex act and the the time the proverbial bun pops out the oven, land- and property-ownership obsessed men had to figure out a way to guarantee paternity.

Enter: marriage.

Those are still good reasons for marriage, as it currently stands, to this day, for the impact still serves to lower disruption of society.  Those who enter marriage virgins are more likely to have a successful ones.  Not to mention that individuals of such marriages are far less prone to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases (which improves longevity and lowers medical costs).  (BTW, DNA tests are not readily available in most areas of the world.)  Child support laws being as they are, there’s still a good incentive for “property-ownership obsessed men” (and women) to marry (and work towards a successful marriage), lest he have a drain on his finances with no equivalent recompensement.

Love and all the gooey romantic stuff doesn’t show up for a long time.

Western concepts of romanticism, first expressed in literature from the poetry of the late middle ages, is what I believe you’re getting at here.  Yet what’s represented in those are altruistic, unrealistic idealisms, unconnected with working relationships (and really had more to do with lusting after noble women the authors couldn’t obtain – for the object of their desires were already married to another).  However, if you mean to say there never had been an emotional support component to marriages until the modern era, I highly doubt you can find a study to support such.  In fact, ancient literature across cultures is replete with tales of love.  It ain’t all about ‘males obsessed with property transference.’  Even so, this is all a side issue.

I find it fascinating that tradition-obsessed people will only look so far in any direction for their behavioral cues.  Marriage is a practice whose motivations and manifestations are radically different today than when it was first blurrily conceived of before recorded history, and it will obviously continue to change long into the future.  Selectively adjusting your lens to view the world as it existed in 1950 and calling that “tradition” is a little disingenuous, don’t you think?

The institution at its core has remained remarkably consistent in effect pretty much down the line of recorded history.  The paired-gender, monogamous institutionalized relationship was independently developed in many different societies with little or no cultural contact with each other – and, indeed, some with insurmountable barriers to casual contact in the ancient world.  It remains the predominant form of pair bonding across the globe for a reason.  Smugly throwing ’1950′s’ at someone in a debate – even as they’ve said nothing remotely along those lines – is lazy as one can be.

Please someone prove to me god is real and then maybe I’ll agree with this idiot, maybe the end of the world is near too. These individuals who take everything in the bible literally obviously never studied world religion and culture, try it once and you will realize that most religions have bled into one another because of cultural influences. And for all you crazy ass Christian fanatics, get over yourself, according to yout religion “god” is forgiving, and please stop acting like you live A perfect life, because you don’t

But Santorum is wrong to suggest they just happen to agree with each other.  There have been studies done and it is in analyzing those studies that they came to their conclusion. Compare that to his 2000 years of theology. He’s saying , it’s true not because of reasoning , or any statistical evidence, but because the Catholic church said so. An educated informed opinion is far more valid than one informed by superstitious tradition.
Speaking generally,
So can faith be bigotry? When you are taught the church has all authority and X is morally absolute, is that bigotry.   When a Dad teaches his son to be xenophobic is that bigotry? Yes it is. Should we offer respect to archaic ignorance taught by any religion,..simply because it’s religion? I think those days need to be over. If you choose to ignore the evidence {yes Rick, the studies are evidence, compared to your, let’s say, none, zero, zip} that is available and can’t offer a well reasoned informed argument, that’s bigotry. It’s laughable how he tries to paint himself and religion as the victims here. They have victimized people for centuries and justified it by waving the Bible. Now when people won’t take it anymore suddenly they are the victims.

Santorum’s views are not bigoted. They are an opinion on a social issue. He has valid and logical arguments

Well no he doesn’t. Pointing to the Bible for a reason to deny people equal rights is neither valid nor logical. refusing to acknowledge valid studies on the subject by professionals is not logical.

The rest of your post makes a valid point. however; when a group of people are petitioning Washington and the president for equal rights, he has to respond, and is very much within his role. That doesn’t mean his or her personal opinion should become law, but it certainly helps facilitate the discussion.

and then you wonder why you volunteered right?   I’m feeling it.

No, organized religion and politics are just vehicles people and society use. We are the drivers and sometimes we arrive safely and sometimes we crash and burn. We simply have to work on being better drivers.
I’m not sure why you combined positive anecdotal evidence with the “going to hell” nonsense. I’m no fan of organized religion but I see it as I do humanity in general. A mix of positive and negative.

Maybe this explains why it’s so difficult to talk to a progressive.  It’s not just a matter of poor listening skills.

  Oh please. It’s pretty clear reading this site that both sides could use some improvement in their listening and communication skills.

ftr;   mental health is not like other hard sciences, so claiming scientists proved something is inaccurate.
IMO, the relevant factors are that studies done and statistical evidence gathered by professionals does constitute evidence , {RS is dead wrong about that} and his citing 2000 years of theology is zxero evidence of anything. The student was right and he was foolish.

I have. You’re welcome to your beliefs but when you sit at the table as a citizen helping to shape policy and dealing with civil rights and equality, you need something other than a Bible verse and an opinion to outweigh statistical evidence from studies by professionals. My favorite verse?

“The truth will set you free”   and ion this case, it will set others free as well.

Your implication that all homosexuals behave in this same manner is offensive and illogical. The actions of one, or even a few, individuals should not be used to flatly categorize an entire group of people. Following your argument, you could argue that heteroxual people have similar issues stemming from a small portion of men seeking out prostitutes selling themaelves on the corner in some seedy part of town.

I don’t think anyone would argue that seeking a sexual encounter in such a way as Senator Craig was healthy or acceptable. But this type of behavior is hardly contained to the homosexual community.

We are not a theocratic society.  He is an arrogant man who should know that not everybody holds the same viewpoint. I would prefer a man/woman relationship, but I know a gay couple who adopted 2 children of mixed race that no one else wanted. So far the children have adopted pretty well.  It is not a perfect situation, but the kids are loved.

This is where America is headed. Think one way or be called a bigot. No debate allowed.

Problem is Santorum would not allow the debate. He ended it. The student did not.

The homosexuals of this earth have lived under almost all conditions over time. Today, being homosexual is at best difficult for the majority of self described homosexuals thru out our planet. To engage in homoseuxal acts triggers so many penalties by the  majority of independany nations, from imprisonment to death. Further, homosexual acts also have a marked propensity for passing on many STD’s due to the fragility of the rectum, and the tissues types found with in. Oral sex beteen 2 men, where one has one of several STD’s is another acute form of disease transmission. Monogamy among homosexuals is to be encouraged at all points, however, the nature of homoxsexual behavior seems to preclude that. Encounters are frequent, short lived, and can be nothing more than 15 minutes of intimacy, in the dark, anywhere, with a man you dont know, and likely will never meet again. The issue of marraige/civil unions is argued by homosexuals in the western world. I am a firm believer in equal rights, and if homosexuality is now longer considered a mental disease, or a behavioral disease, or even illegal, then the homosexuals must be afforded equal rights in all aspects, by the government. The Government however, has no ability to dictate religious acceptance, or to ask any relegion to perform ceremonys involving same sex partners. That limits all actions, civil unions, of course, with all the rights it can entail. marraiges, conducted by a religious leader? only if the relegion accepts and supports that couple.

I’ve only been reading this slew of comments and you, sir, are certainly one to not be tossing out terms like “hater” given that all you’ve done spew personal attacks against someone that has a different opinion than you. Moreover, I would say that is true of all of your ilk. Sure Travis may have a different and unpopular view, but at least he is able to present true dialog and discourse. As is always the case, you liberal types have shown that you are indeed the most intolerant and hate filled people that exist. 

I like how earlier he was essentially called a Nazi, which connotes extreme intolerance and a desire to lock away people that he is in disagreement with. However, isn’t it the all caring and tolerant liberals that will label as bigoted, destroy, and ostracize anyone that disagrees with them. Yes, if you say the wrong thing then you will find yourself having to apologize repeatedly and attend sensitivity training if you hope to retain your career. Seems reminiscent of reeducation camps and the like employed in China and other totalitarian regimes.

Oh, and before any of you jerkoffs attack me as some kind of Jesus freak you need know that I am a devout Atheist and find all religion to be an awful joke that has, and will continue to be a detriment to humanity. The difference between me and you “tolerant” folk is that I am able to deal with individuals that I have profound disagreement with. You folks make anthropologists look like children when it comes to the level of hate concealed by your supposed care for all people. It is at times like this that I wish there actually was a doG, an Old Testament type, to smite you all where you stand. 

Seriously, Perot had nothing to do with Clinton winning in 1992? As I recall, Perot took nearly 19% of the votes, and I doubt that many of those come off of Clinton’s side. You could argue that Perot ran because of Bush’s ineptness on economic issues, but without him in the race Clinton loses.

You should stop drinking the Tea from Palin’s teet. Now that’s a detrimental movement that can produce no good for anyone except dimwitted, not completely unattractive women. 

For a discussion of the studies the girl brings up (which I contend are a red herring to the discussion), their relative value and motivating rationality, see Travis Pierson’s input elsewhere in the thread.  Very informative.

As for the ‘theology thing.’  You say there’s no reasoning to religious teachings.  But is that true?  Putting aside eastern religions that are practically pure philosophy (a strong indicator that a lot of thought had gone into their construct), it’s credibility derives – if one denies, as you clearly and aggressively do, divine inspiration – not from studied science nor from the esoteric discipline of a modern social science (the practitioners of which, in their attempts to habituate society to accommodate the proclivities of aberrant individuals, are probably more concerned with increasing numbers of gays for them to bugger than they are in holding themselves to the true calling of their discipline to normalize individuals to be functioning members of society) but from a great wealth of experience and accumulated knowledge of what works and what doesn’t.  As far as marriage goes, I prefer to see it that religion is confirming the validity of the most common preexisting type – the monogamous, paired-gender relationship – as beneficial to society and sanctifying, or imbuing, the institution with doctrinal approval.  For one of the basic impetuses for most religions – not just Christianity – is to promulgate a codified set of moral precepts which seeks to improve society (by improving individuals within it), lend it peace and stability and preserve institutions that sustain the culture of that religion.  No reasoning?  How singularly, ignorantly even, dismissive.

Even so, Santorum isn’t making the case here that everyone ought to live by the teachings of the Catholic church.  The point of complaint wherein the notion of bigotry was raised was in relation to his adherence to that faith as supportive cause for his opposition to gay marriage. The debate is to the point that people now feel free to attack believers in those teachings as bigots.  And therein lies the danger Santorum sees, not over the issue of gay marriage itself, but of the hostile attitudes some in society hold towards religion and increasing effects such attack portend.  For if religion expression is subject to attack, Santorum is exactly right and the issue at hand is far more important than whether gays can wed.  It shouldn’t bear mentioning that freedom of religious expression is foundational to the country, and our notions of freedom.

Is it likewise bigotry to reject the moral code of a group of people based on nothing but opposition to the organizing principle of that people?  Why yes, yes it is.

Back to the subject of gay marriage, the framework which served to illuminate the earlier discussion.  You may say that Santorum brings no evidence of his own – and that may be true.  But it’s incumbent not on the position which stands for well-accepted tradition to prove itself but the forces that push for change.  They must make the case that that which they wish to alter is for no transient cause and serves to improve society.  It’s called the Burden of Proof, and it lies on the advocate of change.

Else they can appeal to the status of the oppressed PCism provides to a minority in which the perceived ‘collective rights’ of peoples are elevated above individual rights of others – as bad a situation as that is – leading to a situation in which the minority can freely bully people into silence.  Even as nothing distinguishes homosexuals as a minority but behavior.

In all of those world religions you studied, which ones were all on board with gay marriage?

Of course, there already is equality under the law in states that have decided to define marriage as being between a man and a woman in that it applies to everybody equally.  It is what it is.  Criminal laws, for example, don’t exempt certain people based on their behavior to engage in criminal activity.  Homosexuals are not ‘a people.’  They engage in behavior.  Everybody is under the same laws.

That part of me which is paleo is accepting of this (correct) judgement of the states as the expressed will of the people.  That part of me which is libertarian is accepting of the will of the free individual to make decisions regarding their own life and would seek to impose no laws against sexual behavior.  This way, everybody wins.

Perhaps, but I’m not in the business of dissecting the arguments of conservatives.

For someone feeling the need to tell someone else about love, I sure hear a great amount of hate in your words. Please re-read your first two sentences. You go from “You’re fucking stupid” to the hypocrisy of their judgemental ways. Freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion, as you do, I will always defend. But I will also defend the rights of those that differ from my viewpoint. You would do well by containing your passion for other peoples opinions. It only makes your point of view look bad. Have a good day.

You don’t have to be in the business to notice a barrage of egregious errors on both sides. People use bad logic and unverified talking points all the time, on both sides. I’m not interested in trying to measure who does it the most.
Maybe the issue is you have learned to ignore bad arguments from conservatives, {by your own admission} but more inclined to point them out coming from liberal posters. 

After reading your other post I think you are over estimating your ability to separate your religious views from your analysis of data. I say this because your entire post seems to be based on assuming as fact that being a homosexual is some sort of emotional and mental disorder. That is not an established fact. In fact, the data seems to indicate quite the opposite.

You make a casual reference about anonymous sex in bathrooms and depression. Wouldn’t the issue there be irresponsible promiscuity rather than what gender you’re having that sex with?  Homosexuals are clearly capable of having long term loving monogamous relationships. Your reference seems to imply otherwise and falsely identifies sexual orientation as the problem. Surely any dangerously promiscuous hetero might be counseled to examine why they are promiscuous rather than their sexual orientation. 

I would say a responsible counselor would want to help a patient discover the true source of their unhappiness and depression. If any person is experiencing depression because of persecution and rejection based on religion or race, should the counselor advise them to change their race or religion. Does the patient dictate what the treatment should be? If an anorexic comes in and wants to lose weight should the counselor help them do that?

The counselor’s job should be to help then patient discover the source of their depression and the best path to deal with it. It may mean distancing themselves from toxic relationships, even among their own family members.
“My Mom rejects me because I want to be a musician and she wants me to be a lawyer. Please help me lose my desire to be a musician and be happy being a doctor so my Mom will stop rejecting me”

Does a responsible counselor just say okay follow the patients instructions? I know better without ever taking a course.  I appreciate the polite tone of your post, but I find the logic deeply flawed.

I personally think Santorum is an idiot.  I thought the Bilbe taught love and acceptance.  I guess the Bible I was taught as a child does not exist.  What people do in their own homes is THEIR business.  If a homosexual couple wants to have a child/children why not?  Do you not see the headlines of what heterosexual couples can do to their children?  In Santorum’s state of PA their is a heterosexual couple going on trial for KILLING their adopted Russian child because they could not control him.  So they figured killing him would be easier than gettting him the help he needed or ANYTHING else.  Why are the politicians so concerned with gay marriage and it being a sin or not?  Why are they not concerned with the rising unemployment rate, Americans that still are so poor they do not have electricity or running water?  Are these not the issues we are electing them to try and fix??  We are supposed to be the richest country in the nation but yet we have millions with no health insurance and cannot put food on the table.  I just don’t get it!!! 

see Travis Pierson’s input elsewhere in the thread.  Very informative.

I read his first two in the thread and responded. I find his reasoning pretty flawed.
Santorum said nobody is arguing that it’s right or good. That is clearly false and what the student called him on.

You say there’s no reasoning to religious
teachings.

Not exactly.  I’m saying religion must be examined with a critical mind and compared and contrasted with other elements , including science. It deserves no special reverence or privilege of unaccountability because it’s someone’s faith. It affects too many people in society for that. 
When people choose religious tradition with zero subjective evidence over contemporary evidence that contradicts tradition, they have abandoned reason {and often truth} for the sake of tradition.
If someone said , “I’ve always been taught that the world is flat. We’ve been taught that for generations. I reject any suggestion it’s round” We wouldn’t applaud their critical thinking.

- if one denies, as you clearly and aggressively do, divine inspiration

I do not. I question how we apply perceived divine inspiration to real life and how that perceived inspiration  fits with our search for the truth. I’m rather partial to the Bahai view, that if there is truth, scientific truth and spiritual truth must agree.

Work calls , I’ll finish later.

Some random person shouting irrelevant things as she was (Fugitive slave law, accusations Santorum would end the bill of rights, etc) is not a debate.  It’s an interruption (owing to her political loyalties) of an event at which someone was invited to speak.  Her off-point, for what she offered did not address the question being raised (how is it better for society), was invalid, based on opinion, and it upset her when he pointed that out.

Very well put!

Neither do the other sane Americans

Other thoughts on divine inspiration. It’s pretty obvious that many people who believe in divine inspiration don’t agree on which holy books contain divine inspiration and which ones have the final authority? How do you suppose we reconcile that? Aside from that even those who happen to agree on one book don’t agree on the degree of inspiration and what the divine words mean for mankind. How do we reconcile that? As a former Christian I realized some time ago that my interpretation of the Bible is just as valid as anyone’s when it comes to deciding what is correct.

The debate is at that point where people now feel free to attack believers in those teachings as bigots.

I believe I’ve already addressed that. Claiming it as a religious belief does not in any way free you from the realities and accusations of bigotry and playing the victim card will not work. You don’t get to believe anything you choose to and call it divine truth with no expectation of being challenged. Were Southern Christians bigots when they refused to allow blacks in their churches or to eat at their diner, drink from their fountain? Were Christians bigots when they quoted Bible verses to object to interracial marriage? Just because it’s a matter of religious tradition doesn’t exempt you from the  label of bigot, especially when choosing beliefs handed down by tradition over contemporary studies.
{no evidence, vs  actual evidence} Look at the definition of bigot again and you’ll understand what I’m saying. If you have no reason to decry gays except of a traditional religious teaching that absolutely fits the definition of bigotry. As uncomfortable as that is.

For if religion expression is subject to attack

  Of course it is. Why do you even consider otherwise? You have freedom of worship in the constitution, but not freedom to go unchallenged , especially if you actively campaign against a group based only on your religious tradition.
If I choose to sacrifice live animals because of my religion am I free to do so? Are Mormons free to marry multiple wives? What makes you think your particular beliefs shouldn’t be questioned or challenged?

Is it likewise bigotry to reject the moral code of a group of people
based on nothing but opposition to the organizing principle of that
people?  Why yes, yes it is.

That’s not what it’s based on. It’s not based on you’re a Christian and therefore I reject your moral code, since all Christians do n ot have the same moral code concerning this subject. Is there bigotry against religion? Sure. But in this case Santorum is wrong.

Can you point out where I said that ALL homosexuals behave in this manner. What I said is that it is a common behavior – which it is – enough so that cops are now hanging out in men’s restrooms waiting for the proposition and aren’t seen as wasting resources doing so.

You are correct that it is not limited to the homosexual population, but it is most prevalent among homosexual males.

This space reserved for tomorrow.  I’ve been fishing for rational debate in this thread going on 3 days, but now don’t have the time for it.

You are a biggoted, ultraconservative douchebag. . .  You represent everything that is presently wrong with this great country of ours. 

But it’s incumbent not on the position which stands for well-accepted
tradition to prove itself but the forces that push for change.

Really? Who made that rule? Are you saying black people had to prove they were not inferior before they could demand equality? Woman had to prove they were just as smart and had good judgement before they could vote? Interracial couples have to prove that such a marriage will not ultimately harm society and corrupt the next generation? Does that seem reasonable to you? Isn’t equality the standard we shoot for when it comes to human rights? Isn’t that the default correct position?
I’d say when tradition is finally challenged strongly enough it is on those who defend it to show that it has substance beyond “We;ve always done it that way”

That said; Certain objections used by those who supported tradition have been shattered. It’s not a choice to be gay. It doesn’t turn children gay to be exposed to gay people or have gay parents. In short, when examined we see the tradition is based on false notions and knee jerk emotional reactions rather than reason and compassion toward our fellow humans.

leading to a situation in which the minority can freely bully people into silence.

Is that what’s happened to racists and chauvinists? They’ve been largely bullied into silence. No. What’s happened is that the ignorance and hatefulness of a once commonly held position has become more and more obvious to society as a whole as we gain knowledge and generations pass. They can’t support their position with anything of substance , and yet insist on the right to voice it. Okay voice it, and expect a response. This strikes me as the majority who has been in control and oppressed and damaged their fellow citizens, now crying victim because they are being more aggressively challenged. Its a huge fail.

Even as nothing distinguishes homosexuals as a minority but behavior.

Are you claiming it has to be something else? The reason they are a minority, other than just numbers, is the fact that that behavior has been demonized and they have been oppressed precisely because of their behavior that poses no threat to society or their fellow citizens. There’s no need for a minority to fight for equality if the majority hadn’t acted to deny them, correct.

Is the American Communist party a minority politically?   And that’s just their thoughts, just ideas.

I already addressed this. You are allowed to search out the reason for the depression with anyone. If a promiscuous heterosexual is depressed because he can’t maintain a relationship because his girlfriends hate that he sleeps around, you’re allowed to address his lack of ability to commit and work on the promiscuity. If a homosexual comes to you with the exact same problem, we were told we were not allowed to address the promiscuity. In both cases, the patient would likely benefit by receiving treatment for sexual addiction but the APA will only allow the counselor to offer that treatment to the heterosexual. 

I have doubts that’s correct.I’d have to see the APA material on that.  Previously you specifically addressed homosexuals not wanting to be gay, which is quite different. It’s the counselor’s job to help the patient explore the reason’s for depression not simply take the patient’s word for it, or make a personal moral judgement on their behavior.
IMO, if the patient is struggling with depression the councilor needs to help the patient to understand where it comes from. Is it their own behavior or is it dealing with the judgement and criticism of others that is the problem.
I looked at your links about the APA regarding child molesting. I didn’t have time to study them in depth but from what I remember and read it seemed they were talking about some things that might be listed as child abuse or molestation. For example, if an adult teacher has a “consensual” physical relationship with a 15 year old . it wouldn’t be as emotionally traumatic for the teen as other cases might be.

If your own moral code as a religious person doesn’t agree with the more neutral position of the APA for counselors I can understand that you couldn’t continue. If you think gay people can and should be counseled to not be gay, that’s not the profession for you. That kind of “counseling”  sometimes done by centers that stress religion, is dangerous and discredited.

Why is the government trying to control something that happens in a church to begin with?  Why don’t the states preform the ‘partnerships’ of two people and the churches handle the marriage issue.  Let the church decide whom they want to marry. 

I keep hearing that homosexuals were not made to reproduce children.  Well if hetrosexuals that have to adopt because of infertility problems, what makes that different?  Just the sex of the persons, which is then discrimination, correct?

9megs

So if a man and woman can not bear a child and adopt. You are saying that is ok, even though God did not give them the means to reproduce?

This thread is as good as dead, but still…

Really? Who made that rule? Are you saying black people had to prove they were not inferior before they could demand equality? Woman had to prove they were just as smart and had good judgement before they could vote? Interracial couples have to prove that such a marriage will not ultimately harm society and corrupt the next generation? Does that seem reasonable to you? Isn’t equality the standard we shoot for when it comes to human rights? Isn’t that the default correct position?

Burden of proof being on the party in favor of change is inherent to the concept, especially when matters of fact are part of the of debate.  Your example meant to shed a different light on this only confirms.  For not only did abolitionists have to prove their case before the majority changed their minds on the long held institution of slavery – supported by such as the Bible – they accomplished this, and with a religious people.  On the scales both large and small, debates were held and arguments had over a long period of time.  Framed within the accepted philosophy of the day of the enlightenment, and American concepts of inherent individual rights, the great majority came to accept the abolitionist position except in those areas most dependent on slave labor (and then, only specifically in the class which benefited from it.  Most who fought the Civil War fought for south did so for reasons other than slavery or racial supremacy).

Burden of proof always rests with the challenger in legal circumstances, or one with a claim in scientific circles.  Its the reason why in law defendants are presumed innocent and the prosecution must prove otherwise.

I’d say when tradition is finally challenged strongly enough it is on those who defend it to show that it has substance beyond “We;ve always done it that way

Progressives, as a matter of course, seem to prefer to throw the above concept on its ear, as if the collective shout of enough of them carries some sort of value.  Appeal to tradition without reason IS a logical fallacy, yet only if the tradition is without rationality.  Its as much a logical fallacy as is appeals to novelty.  Progressives, however, love to choose novelty over tradition, and profess its inherent superiority as a matter of course.  Holders of tradition, to them, are detestable, and representative of that which is bad.  But just as, in a vacuum, old ideas aren’t necessarily better than new ones, new ones aren’t necessarily better than old ones.  They’re simply ideas, without proofs.

This reversal of the burden is also the way progressives can easily convince fellow travelers of talking points.  In their circles, a person is ‘guilty’ of racism or some such (if accused by the right people) unless the object of the accusation can prove otherwise.

That said; Certain objections used by those who supported tradition have been shattered. It’s not a choice to be gay. It doesn’t turn children gay to be exposed to gay people or have gay parents. In short, when examined we see the tradition is based on false notions and knee jerk emotional reactions rather than reason and compassion toward our fellow humans.

In that vein, it may have been proved to your satisfaction that homosexuality is not a choice, for that’s the new take.  It hasn’t to mine.  To be sure, I believe it not a conscious choice of will (though even that can’t be discounted in a minority of cases) but one that most likely had been foisted on a person at some stage in their psycho-sexual development.  It shouldn’t ever have been proved to the satisfaction of one with a truly skeptical mind.  Ancillary evidence by agenda prone scientists, universally behavioral scientists (note that the value of this was the genesis of this particular subthread), suggests that homosexuality exists in nature.  Yet none of these have been able to do anything but theorize as to cause.

Is that what’s happened to racists and chauvinists? They’ve been largely bullied into silence. No. What’s happened is that the ignorance and hatefulness of a once commonly held position has become more and more obvious to society as a whole as we gain knowledge and generations pass. They can’t support their position with anything of substance , and yet insist on the right to voice it. Okay voice it, and expect a response. This strikes me as the majority who has been in control and oppressed and damaged their fellow citizens, now crying victim because they are being more aggressively challenged. Its a huge fail.

No, those people who deeply held to their racism weren’t convinced otherwise and bullying them off the stage (not the same thing as allowing the rights of others, as discussed below) only made it easier for different racists to hold sway .  For if you believe among those voices who decry white racism there aren’t among them those who hold inveterate hatred of whites, you’re a fool.  Racism thrives in non-white communities – not only directed at whites but at other ethnicities.  Nor has it disappeared from white communities (with the understanding that it wasn’t nearly as prevalent as depicted – though organized as a matter of law by those who felt them) and individuals.  Its an attitude endemic mostly to the lower class, under direct pressures of socioeconomic competition.  Only, according to the rules of PCism, under which the media is run, if its covered at all, folks are instructed to understand and accept virulent racism from non-whites as normal.  Racism itself was never bullied away.

Bullying isn’t a tactic you should champion in any case, for any reason, and I don’t know why you do here.  The least of the reasons to stand against it is that it doesn’t work.  It only fosters resentments and counter antipathies.

That’s the esoteric discussion.  To relate it back to framework in which it was raised, the rights of ‘minorities’ are best upheld as individuals with inherent rights.  Related to my condemnation of homosexual appeals to minority status under PC definitions are that it’s a violation of that basic understanding in fostering an idea that there even are such a thing as collective rights (of minorities or otherwise).  You credit bullying as that which did away with racism.  Only that’s not what really happened (besides the fact that racism never went away).  Instead, legal avenues were opened after having been dealt with as matters of law.  Civil rights leaders of the day (those that mattered, such as MLK) were not bullies.  They were proponents of legal change, making their case from moral arguments within the structure of our particular system.  The civil rights movement was a product of American concepts of individualism.  ‘Minority rights’ are that which upheld Apartheid.

One more point of interest…

more and more obvious to society as a whole as we gain knowledge and generations pass.

You’ve a fundementally flawed understanding of human development.  The human condition hasn’t ‘evolved’ the “more and more” we go through the generations.  Our technology builds from the last invention, yet these are constructs of man, not men.  Is man different than he was a hundred years ago, a thousand?  Ten thousand?  Only in the tools he uses, not physiologically.  Even his technical knowledge base is impermanent, and (has) can suffer ‘reversals,’ or dark ages.  We exchange ideas one generation after the other; our capacity to retain them over time doesn’t alter.  For example, you’ve in the course of your life learned to use a computer as a tool.  Yet you’ve likely never been instructed in how to grow your own food.  Most used to know the latter, now the situation is switched.  Each is a good thing to know in today’s society, but because we as individuals don’t have the capacity to retain them both (among all the assortments of other things we consider more valuable) we leave it to others – we haven’t ‘evolved’ a greater capacity.

Likewise moral authority.  On the whole, we as individuals abdicate our moral code to the definition and direction of others.  Knowing this, others seek to define it according to their will and agenda.  You, for example, have been indoctrinated with the idea that, in some fashion, bulling behavior is a good thing to partake of.

Fuck You Very Much
Lily Allen

Look inside, look inside your tiny mind
Then look a bit harder
‘Cause we’re so uninspired, so sick and tired
Of all the hatred you harbor

So you say it’s not okay to be gay
Well, I think you’re just evil
You’re just some racist who can’t tie my laces
Your point of view is medieval

Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
‘Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don’t stay in touch

Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
‘Cause your words don’t translate
And it’s getting quite late
So please don’t stay in touch

Do you get, do you get a little kick
Out of being small minded?
You want to be like your father
It’s approval you’re after
Well, that’s not how you find it

Do you, do you really enjoy
Living a life that’s so hateful?
‘Cause there’s a hole where your soul should be
You’re losing control a bit
And it’s really distasteful

Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
‘Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don’t stay in touch

Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
‘Cause your words don’t translate
And it’s getting quite late
So please don’t stay in touch

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Fuck you

You say you think we need to go to war
Well, you’re already in one
‘Cause it’s people like you that need to get slew
No one wants your opinion

Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
‘Cause we hate what you do
And we hate your whole crew
So please don’t stay in touch

Fuck you, fuck you very, very much
‘Cause your words don’t translate
And it’s getting quite late
So please don’t stay in touch

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you

In response to the 1st part;

Let me clarify what I meant by addressing burden of proof. It’s the word proof I object to. Social change does not require proof in the sense of “beyond reasonable doubt” It requires a a shift in awareness of the citizens that outweighs those traditions. In legal term sit would be akin to a preponderance of evidence. or more likely than not.
Concerning this subject traditional beliefs have zero evidence while those urging social change and equality have significant evidence. That’s a preponderance by any measure. Ignoring real evidence for the sake of tradition with no evidence is also an example of a rejection of reason.
Also, as I previously mentioned, equality, as enshrined in our founding documents, trumps any tradition that appears to violate that principle. It has been a steady and consistent path that we have followed as we have overcome our failings. Slavery, and civil rights, women’s rights, etc. I think out history in the area of civil rights places a burden on those who resist change to provide an argument of substance and evidence.
If you maintain that it is not a civil rights issue then you need to provide an argument of substance to support that position.

Progressives, as a matter of course, seem to prefer to throw the above
concept on its ear, as if the collective shout of enough of them carries
some sort of value.

I’m not interested in getting off subject and dealing with your questionable opinions on progressives. I will mention again that on this subject progressives seem to be the only ones with credible evidence to back their position.

old ideas aren’t necessarily better than new ones, new ones aren’t
necessarily better than old ones.  They’re simply ideas, without proofs.

Agreed. However; equality is not a new idea, it is a founding principle. One hat we have had to work at to live up to as groups sought that promise. Let’s add, again, that in this case, the evidence is on the side proposing change with zero evidence on those who hold with tradition.

In that vein, it may have been proved to your satisfaction that
homosexuality is not a choice, for that’s the new take.  It hasn’t to
mine.

Once again, all the available evidence indicates it’s not a choice. Those who cling to the traditional view have zero. I think you’re underestimating how strong the evidence is that it is not a choice. There have been many tests , tests of twins both fraternal and paternal. While the exact mix of nature and nurture cannot be identified, the evidence that it is some mix of the two rather than a choice is very strong. And that is compared to none. seriously supporting choice.

Compassion, or lack of it, has no place in deciding whether or not being gay is natural or hypothesis as to its causes.

Correct, That’s not where it comes in. Compassion comes in regardless of the cause to stop persecution, and violence both physical and emotional against people who do no harm to others. Compassion comes in in living up to our founding principle of equality and taking the plight of our fellow citizens seriously.

I’ll deal with the 2nd part in the morning.   

I agree with proconserv and yes this nation has always been a christian nation and  one day we will all be on our knees and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, praise God

response to part 2.

No, those people who deeply held to their racism weren’t convinced otherwise and bullying them off the stage

  I’m not claiming that racism ceased when the civil rights act was signed. I’m saying that the struggle for equality takes time, the years of protest that make more people aware of the issue, the change of laws, and ultimately , after generations, what started as an idea of the minority, becomes a widely accepted truth, and the racism, the commonly held myths and bad information that supported racism, is dispelled. Look at our own history and you’ll see what I mean.

Your use of bullying is surprising and interesting. You consider it bullying for those oppressed and denied equality to fight back against that oppression? More often the bullying is seen to be the strong bullying the weak rather than the other way around. I’m curious about what you specifically see as bullying. I’m also wondering what you expect people seeking equality to do. Should they wait politely for people to change their minds and grant them equality? If that’s your thought you should read MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail again. Is there any equality achieved by any group that didn’t come without them fighting for it?

Racism itself was never bullied away.

I never made the claim it was, or that it was gone. I’m only noting that our struggle to grow as a society and dealing with prejudice has presented itself in a fairly consistent way that includes some painful struggle.

Bullying isn’t a tactic you should champion in any case, for any reason,
and I don’t know why you do here.  The least of the reasons to stand
against it is that it doesn’t work.  It only fosters resentments and
counter antipathies.

Again, I question your use of the term bullying and wonder what reasonable alternatives you propose. IMO, it is the oppressed who have been bullied for generations. Don’t you suppose oppression fosters resentment and anger? Do you think widespread oppression as a traditional belief somehow isn’t bullying? How do you expect the oppressed to react? How do you expect them to gain equality without fighting back and demanding it, and venting that anger and resentment? The whole idea that calling a bigot a bigot, or naming bigotry, is somehow MORE hateful than what’s being supported by their bigotry doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m not a religious person but I do understand that returning hate for hate is not the solution , and that at some point people have to foster understanding, acceptance, and forgiveness, I support that ideal, but let’s be realistic about where we are as humans

from what I see Santorum thinks that religious tradition ought to be exempt from accusations of bigotry. It isn’t and IMO, it shouldn’t be. People’s religious beliefs have too much impact on society to go unchallenged.

forgot something.

You’ve a fundementally flawed understanding of human development.  The
human condition hasn’t ‘evolved’ the “more and more” we go through the
generations.  Our technology builds from the last invention, yet
these are constructs of man, not men.  Is man different than he was a
hundred years ago, a thousand?  Ten thousand?  Only in the tools he
uses, not physiologically.

I don’t believe I do, and I think it’s clear to see from looking at history. Just look at our own, and then at the world , and you’ll see a repeating pattern. In the same way that new technology is built upon the discoveries of the past, new generations build on the progress of past generations. When the “all men are created equal , and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was coined we were far from perfect at it, but through generations of Americans we’ve gotten better. Slavery, and racial superiority , once widely supported and held to be true has largely disappeared. Generations built on the end of slavery toward equality through the civil rights era and to the election of our 1st black president. Mankind is slowly evolving socially and it’s fairly plain to see.

For example, you’ve in the course of your life learned to use a computer
as a tool.  Yet you’ve likely never been instructed in how to grow your
own food.  Most used to know the latter, now the situation is
switched.

I grew up on a farm so that’s not quite true. 

but because we as individuals don’t have the capacity to retain them both

What?? So farmers don’t use computers? You lost me.

On the whole, we as individuals abdicate our moral code to the definition and direction of others.

That’s true to some extent but it is also a process and we have the potential to learn and grow and also changes with generations as old traditions are questioned.

You, for example, have been indoctrinated with the idea that, in some
fashion, bully behavior is sometimes a good thing to use in order to
effect change. I doubt, though, you’ve given it that much thought.

You’d be wrong in that. I also question your use of bullying and would be interested in you defending that premise. I don’t endorse it and reject that it’s being used to effect change.  I haven’t been indoctrinated at all. I was a very sincere Christian in the past , but have since come to reject Christian doctrine while still honoring the teachings of Christ. I’ve thought it through and continue to do so.

Farmers use computers (among all assortments of other things we consider valuable).  It was a rhetorical device so don’t try to lose the point, which was to say that people have to make choices in the knowledge they choose to retain – because they don’t as individuals have the capacity (and haven’t evolved it) to become storehouses of knowledge or (more importantly and on point) wisdom – as supportive case for the following paragraph.  That being that the moral code of today’s man is a reedy thing and in the hands of others, what with his fascination with other things in his life, is subject to rapid change.  This last century can very well be described as the bloodiest in man’s history.

To wit.  One further point is your expressed belief that racism or supremacism is for the most part off the stage.  It’s not.  In your observances of the United States, though we’ve made strides in consideration of our core shared philosophy (but in which I contend you turn a blind eye to large doses of evident racism), your focus has become much too narrow.  Look to east Asia nowadays – the region is rife with disagreement (especially as China rises in power) – to see huge antipathies many in those countries hold for each other at play – whether it be Chinese mobs smashing Japanese products over an island dispute or another such dispute resulting in Vietnamese marching daily against China suppressed only by the government.  Look to the Mid East to see the basest of racial propaganda used to fuel the intifada’s and terror.  Look to Africa and see mixed Arabian descendents waring with indigenous blacks, even as those blacks elsewhere are dispossessing white farmers of their land on nothing but racial resentment and in disregard to their own supply of food.  Almost on every continent in the last decade, some reason has arisen in which people who otherwise lived in peaceful coexistence suddenly begin to butcher each other over the slimmest of loyalties.

Most significantly, the driving force behind the revitalized march of politicized Islam is their core belief in cultural supremacism (of which religion plays only a supportive role).  And, perhaps as a portend of things to come, it was reactive European cultural supremacist thought what resulted in the Oslo massacre.  If the world is trending in any direction, it’s in the Islamic nations regaining vitality through their leaders engendering a culture which rejects those things you believe are in the ascendency.

As observably wrong as the notion is (to my eyes, anyway) that equal rights and civil rights are world concepts on the march, it should come as little surprise from whence the idea of historical progression came – a Hegelian dialectic view supportive of the later linear progression of man theories meant to lend credence to the concept of the inevitability of world socialism.  Marxist thinkers of the day latched onto a popular scientific idea making the rounds, evolution of the species, and wedged it into their theories of social history.  Warmed over socialism still being a favorite philosophy of modern leftist thinkers, the ideas of ‘social evolution’ you hold are regularly disseminated through the various venues where they hold sway.

Credit my belief that you were in full throated support of bullying behavior to your inclusion of a period and not a question mark in a critical sentence when last this topic was discussed.  And in my eagerness to get at that second point that’s more foundational to ideological differences – perceptions of humanity and its development.  My misunderstanding, however, was facilitated in your ignoring other points to argue that which had been a running theme of my argument in the thread.

As with my last post, rather than attempt to go too deeply in counter point in a week old thread, I’ll try to summarize and avoid point by point dissections.

The tumult which was the civil rights movement was a case of people exercising lawfully obtained rights, on the heels of a national debate in which the great many of people were persuasively lobbied, under the force of law – or bringing focus onto patently unfair laws via individual acts of civil disobedience.  ‘Gay rights,’ on the other hand, had never had such force of moral authority.  The definition of what it is to be homosexual was flipped in 1970 due to a select group of politically motivated psychologists, perhaps influenced more by their own personal interests than their concern for mental health as has been contended here.  Political Correctness was taking hold around this time, and from that point received almost no structured opposition for one of the tenants of PCism is to stifle debate.  The only thing remotely akin to the civil rights movement were the striking of sodomy laws in the 70s and 80s.  Since then its been one long (literal) parade of ‘pride,’ not a struggle, and much of the ‘agenda’ has been about opening up ever new areas of society to gay recruit efforts and bullying silent those people who believe sexual preference considerations don’t belong in their particular area.  Homosexuals in eastern cultures, for example, content to exist in a hetero-normative society with little friction; they’re not in the rest of societiy’s face demanding access to everybody’s kids in order, as in California, to teach (indoctrinate) them with ‘gay history.’

It may seem like semantics to you that I contend collective rights are that which sustains the likes of Apartheid, but that’s what it was and my bringing it up was meant to call attention to what’s made possible when the notion of individual rights are skewed (as is the concept of minority rights under a PC philosophy).  Rule based on the collective rights of the minority.

Credit my belief that you were in full throated support of bullying behavior to
your inclusion of a period and not a question mark in a critical sentence when
last this topic was discussed.

So I’m a punctuation bully?

My misunderstanding, however, was facilitated in your ignoring other points to
argue that which had been a running theme of my argument in the thread.

In an attempt to stay on subject I did skip over things I felt were a tangent such as your view of how progressive’s communicate.
If there’s some point you’d like me to address I’ll look at it again.

The tumult which was the civil rights movement was a case of people exercising
lawfully obtained rights, on the heels of a national debate in which the great
many of people were persuasively lobbied, under the force of law – or bringing
focus onto patently unfair laws via individual acts of civil disobedience.

Which , IMO is exactly what has and is happening in gay rights. Protests, Marches , addressing the issue in media,  legal battles , all that.

‘Gay rights,’ on the other hand, had never had such force of moral authority. 
The definition of what it is to be homosexual was flipped in 1970 due to a
select group of politically motivated psychologists, perhaps influenced more by
their own personal interests than their concern for mental health as has been
contended here

You need to make this argument with something other than your assertion. Who says their definition was politically motivated and what evidence supports that? Science has a habit of challenging our perceptions, especially those that have no medical or scientific support. Now, decades from 1970, the majority of reputable experts agree, rather than having exposed a politically motivated lie.  That’s a serious problem for your argument.

Since then its been one long (literal) parade of ‘pride,’ not a struggle, and
much of the ‘agenda’ has been about opening up ever new areas of society to gay
recruit efforts and bullying silent those people who believe sexual preference
considerations don’t belong in their particular area.

Again, IMO you’re misusing the term bullying. In almost all cases it is the stronger group who deny or attack the weaker who are the bullies.
One major difference is homosexuals have been so demonized that many have chosen to remain hidden , many even from themselves, from their families. You’re mistaken if you think the struggle hasn’t been incredibly painful. If you’re interested in considering a pov look for “The Bible tells me so” It’s a documentary about how generations of teaching homosexuality as a sin and perversion has affected real people. It reminds me a lot of segregation. As long as gays remained out of sight and didn’t try to mix with decent folk, they were kindly left alone {with only the occasional beating, or unnecessary death}

to teach (indoctrinate) them with ‘gay history.’

and there’s a black history month too. It’s disgusting.
The effort is to remove the stigma and the label of perversion and sick, from being gay. There are so many ignorant myths around. People worry that their children might ask a question if they see two men kissing in public as if it’s traumatic and damaging to the kids. Utter nonsense. After generations of false perceptions being passed on people feel it’s their right to pass these attitudes on to their children and have them not be challenged. I’m sure the racists felt the same way. No such right exists.

when the notion of individual rights are skewed

that notion is skewed when people insist that they, as the majority, get to decide what rights others can and can’t have based on nothing but their feelings and outdated notions and traditions. 

The idea of individual rights not being outweighed by the opinions of the majority is foundational and minority groups are named and recognized as not having those rights. Equality and individual rights is exactly what gay rights is about. It’s a civil rights issue. The fact that the minority being denied is recognized doesn’t help your argument.

  One further point is your expressed belief that racism or supremacism is for
the most part off the stage.

That’s not what I said or meant. I’m saying that looking at recorded history, or even just the brief history of the United States, we see a slow and painful struggle, and progress toward certain principles, one of them being the equality expressed in our own founding documents. On a side note those are similar principles taught long ago by Jesus, Buddha, and other religious icons. Generations pass and new generations build on the progress of the past. Slavery was abhorred by many at the time of our founding but it took generations and a war to finally abolish it. Then it took generations building on that to get us to the civil rights movement of the 60s. and so on. As generations pass, earlier concepts such as the inferiority of certain races, the acceptability of slavery, oppression, become unacceptable by more and more people. That’s not to say it doesn’t still exist. I think education and the availability of information has contributed. The printing press allowed more people to have access to more information and the general public became more literate and informed. Now computers and the internet allow average citizens to access more information.
All this to say IMO, the assertion of equality for homosexuals and the shattering of false traditional ideas about them is inevitable and a similar generational process as all struggles for equality have been. The arguments against it are just as empty and free of evidence as the ones that came before.
For all your complaints about bullying and indoctrination you have yet to offer any credible evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society in any way, because none exists. That’s why your arguments and those who agree with you will eventually be on the same side as those who supported segregation , the Jim Crow laws, etc.  

As observably wrong as the notion is (to my eyes, anyway) that equal rights and
civil rights are world concepts on the march

  Progress does not occur in a linear fashion , nor is it without pain and bloodshed. Ultimately we could not resolve the slavery issue in our own country without an a horrible price in blood. Corruption and the lust for power will exist, and the struggle will continue. In every modern culture that has access to information you see the citizens making the push for equality. Students , and women in Arab nations pushing back against dictators.

Warmed over socialism still being a favorite philosophy of modern leftist
thinkers, the ideas of ‘social evolution’ you hold are regularly disseminated
through the various venues where they hold sway.

IMO social evolution is a pretty observable phenomenon if we look factually at mankind’s recorded history. Pointing at the problems that still exist doesn’t change the facts. It’s a long term and painful process , but an observable one even just within the brief history of the US.

and ftr; My concept of a pattern of social growth and evolution that includes struggle and progress passed on by generations has nothing to do with socialism or Marxism. It’s a simple observation and conclusion from reading about civil rights, religion, and history. I’d never heard of THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC until you mentioned it. 

I find it interesting that Mr. Santorum is concerned about the effect of gay marriage on children, but, presumably, he’s FOR home schooling.  Every survey that comes out tells us that children around the world are doing better in school than American children.  Yet, home schooling is somehow OK.

If you believe in God, you must believe he created homosexuals and would not wish their hearts, minds or bodies hurt by those who believe themselves to be causing this pain in Gods name…please, stop and think. If you were born heterosexual and raised in a world where the bible and mankind preached homosexuality could you change your feelings, go without the love a partner would bring you, hide who you are from the world??? I am an athiest, but I don’t believe if your God exists his desire is for such his children to cause such anguish for others of his children….