Having homosexual temptations is not a sin. Acting on them is the sin. We are all tempted. Even Jesus was tempted. Our free will allows us to make a choice and resist the temptations that we have. We will be known by our acts.

Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM

See? That wasn’t so hard…it only took me about 3 times and numerous examples.
Homosexuality is not sinful, nor does it promote any kind of decay in society.
It is the acts, all of your excellent facts and figures on the degradation of society by ‘active’ gays is what is important. And important for homosexual to understand.
They are not “separated” by their feelings or what they are, but like everything else in life, they are judged by their actions.
That is what has been missing in this discourse, and I have been trying to get it out of all you guys and gals. And it took about 12 hours.
Being homosexual is okay, it is fine, it is acceptable, it is the actions that are intolerable in society.

@Christian Conservative if following the bible is so important why don’t you go set up a theocracy some where?
Zekecorlain on April 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Yeah I want to set up a theocracy like our Founders wanted a theocracy! Who is trying to change our country the Christians or the gay activists? Our country and its traditional values have been under attack since the mid-20th century. And mostly it has to be accomplished through unelected judges, because the American People do not support these attacks in spite of the libs owning public education. But it seems you would prefer the courts to strike down the votes of the American people. (And I respect the Vermont voter’s rights to vote in gay marriage if they want it, so respect the rights of Californians to ban it.) I’m not willing to concede to you the high ground. You don’t own it! No one is telling you who you can have a relationship with, long or short term. But gay marriage, as Hawthorne has so well pointed out, will only lead to further moral decline in our country, and may well lead to hate speech laws that silence free speech.

I would imagine that your view of “anti-collectivism” must include allowing people to murder each other because they feel like it. Maybe you feel that rape is a good thing. That is all about somebody taking what they want. So please explain to me how you justify that in your ideal of “collectivism.”

Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM

I will forgo the “right” I have in the state of nature to commit murder, and allow civil society to govern my actions therein. But I don’t do so for some “good of the whole”, whatever that nonsense means. I do so because for me to ask others to give up the rights they have in the state of nature (like murder, rape, etc.), I must be prepared to give up mine.

You start throwing around the “good of the whole”, and you take the first step down the collectivist road that ends in Hillary Clinton’s mantra of whatever is good for you is mandatory, and that which is bad for you is prohibited… all for the “good of the whole” after all.

Do you consider being gay inherently sinful? Is lusting after another male any different then lusting after a female?
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 6:57 PM

There is no sin in being tempted by homosexuality. The sin comes in when one gives into the temptation and lusts in his heart (for man or woman) and then acts out his lust. God loves the homosexual and the straight, but He loves us too much to let us stay in our sin. I know one guy who chose to identify with Christ instead of identifying with his homosexual temptations, and he became a devoted husband and father of several kids.
You seem to be making the case that lusting after a woman is no big deal, so why is lusting after a man? The premise is wrong, since both are sin.

Having homosexual temptations is not a sin. Acting on them is the sin. We are all tempted. Even Jesus was tempted. Our free will allows us to make a choice and resist the temptations that we have. We will be known by our acts.

Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Most of the population is never tempted by gay sex. Straight people may have one night stands that they immediately regret, but it is seldom because they went home with someone of the same gender.

Straight people are tempted by casual sex all the time. The apostle Paul thought it would be best to never have sex, but offered that marriage was where to have sex if one simply couldn’t resist. What is the option for a person whose only attraction is homosexual? Marriage? Unofficial, but committed relationship? Multiple partners? Celibacy? The Apostle Paul would likely argue celibacy, but he knows that most straight people can’t handle it.

As for tax code, I can see how the gay community might want their taxes raised by having the marriage penalty placed on them. Married couples pay more taxes than single.

Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM

The estate taxes are the big deal. Married couples get the large break there.

My point wasn’t about rights. I was addressing your assertion that gay couples can get “all that they are sking for in the vast majority of cases by filing the proper legal papers”.

right2bright on April 9, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Having homosexual temptations is not a sin. Acting on them is the sin. We are all tempted. Even Jesus was tempted. Our free will allows us to make a choice and resist the temptations that we have. We will be known by our acts.

Spoken like the truest of collectivists.

Hillary Clinton would be proud.

JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Obviously you are intentionally missing the point of my statement and choose to take it out of context as usual. You also must not have paid much attention to the body of my posts. I am VERY far from being a collectivist.

I would imagine that your view of “anti-collectivism” must include allowing people to murder each other because they feel like it. Maybe you feel that rape is a good thing. That is all about somebody taking what they want. So please explain to me how you justify that in your ideal of “collectivism.”

dedalus on April 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM

One more point, if an equal taxation treatment were important under the law, we would have to completely revamp our entire tax system. So you are saying that a graduated tax system is illegal?

The tax difference at the federal level can be very different, and no amount of lawyering can get a gay couple the same tax treatment as a married couple.

It isn’t possible that all gay people have exactly the same motive in wanting gay marriage–for some it mostly personal and for others it is more for a political statement. However, one couldn’t have denied rights to women or black people because a subset of them had an additional agenda.

dedalus on April 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM

There is no denial of rights. As I said before, marriage does not guarantee you parner with someone who you love. It has nothing to who you are sleeping with. It is only a legal construct abut families.

As for tax code, I can see how the gay community might want their taxes raised by having the marriage penalty placed on them. Married couples pay more taxes than single.

Why do you persist in arguing points that are irrelevant. The law does not criminalize homosexuality. I am arguing that recognizing homosexual marriage is a mistake. I am trying to point out that the agenda is not marriage at all but to remove restrictions on all types of sexual behavior. Your focus is much too narrow and contrived.

Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM

No, I was asking you, if you are a Christian, do you feel being homosexual is a sin?
That’s all…don’t be so defensive.
I have said all along I believe that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
But it is funny you won’t answer a simple question.
Is it the action or the being…
I find it interesting that you are so afraid of this question…too narrow? or to specific…

Hawthorne on April 8, 2009 at 1:16 PM

We must first understand that civilization at its core, is the practice of learning to deny our individual wants and needs for the good of the whole.

Spoken like the truest of collectivists.

Hillary Clinton would be proud.

The gay community can already get all that they are sking for in the vast majority of cases by filing the proper legal papers. The lie to your position is proven when gays will not accept civil unions. We have a mountain of proof that civil union is not sufficient to the gay community in the states where it is used. They continue to fight for “marriage” even though the legal differences are semantic.

Hawthorne on April 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM

The tax difference at the federal level can be very different, and no amount of lawyering can get a gay couple the same tax treatment as a married couple.

It isn’t possible that all gay people have exactly the same motive in wanting gay marriage–for some it mostly personal and for others it is more for a political statement. However, one couldn’t have denied rights to women or black people because a subset of them had an additional agenda.

JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Are you aware that history teaches us differently? I invite you to look at the history of homosexuality and pedagogy in both the Greek and Roman empires. History teaches us that when societies begin to accept one form of “deviant” sexual behavior as mainstream, that other types become more acceptable. You are aware that NAMBLA has already begun to challenge age of consent laws in many states?

What I am trying to get you to see is the bigger picture. It is not paranoia. It is proven by history. When societies begin to accept hedonism and become decadent, the slide does not really stop. You can claim paranoia all you want in an attempt to marginalize me. But the lessons of history are on my side.

Directory and Complete Guide to Sweden, 2000: available at: http://www.sweden.com.

Scott Shane, “Many Swedes Say ‘I Don’t’ to Nuptials; Unions” Baltimore Sun (January 16, 2004):

At a Glance: Netherlands Statistics” UNICEF:available at: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/netherlands_statistics.html.

OLR Backgrounder: Legal Recognition of Same-sex Partnerships,” OLR Research Report (October 9, 2002)

Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Weekly Standard (February 2, 2004)

There are a lot of different sources for this information and they will provide a variety of different views of it. But the most generous statistics indicate that marriage rates among some gay communities approach 25% at best. The statistics for Sweden and the Netherlands are the best to use because they have a longer history of legal gay unions to work from.

What makes you feel that the efforts we see today will not blur the lines on age of consent fifty years from now.

Except you are not talking about blurring the line on the age of consent. You are talking about society wiping out the line completely.

The age of consent is decided through the democratic process, largely through our state legislatures. The idea that we are going to wipe out the age of consent, for marriage or for any other contract, based on allowing consenting adults to enter the marriage contract, is paranoid nonsense.

And trust me, as someone on the fence, such paranoia really doesn’t help your cause.

From what I have seen and experienced, most of the gays who argue for gay marriage do so out of a desire for equal protection under law (one of the principles upon which this Republic was founded). They don’t want to destroy morality or Christianity; some of them are more devout Christians than I, but simply disagree with the Church over their teachings on homosexuality.

I am sorry, but nothing stops a gay person from vetting married now. They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have a family just as any heterosexual couple does. The equal protection argument is the strawman here.

The institution of marriage is not created in order to determine who you can have sex with. You need no marriage license for that.

The gay community can already get all that they are (a)sking for in the vast majority of cases by filing the proper legal papers.

“Vast majority” is not “equal protection”. Equal protection either is, or it ain’t.

Many gay leaders have openly stated that their goal is not just recognition or equal protection, but to fundamentally change the fabric of society. Do a little research and enlighten yourself. I have give quotes previously.

And I have the opinions of actual gay people, not “gay leaders” and their political agendas. People who only want what every one else has. My research is with the people, not from the ivory tower behind a computer screen.

In countries where gays already have the right to marry, less than 3% of the gay community chooses to participate, This is strong proof that the right to marry is not the agenda at all.

First of all, please link to that statistic. I find it hard to quantify, especially given that we’re really not sure, even in the most open societies, how many gays, much less gay couples, there really are.

Second, all that indicates is that gays aren’t getting married. Any relation to it and the motives behind the push for recognition of gay marriage is merely coming from the voices in your head.

Yes, what you are saying is what the gay community claims in the sound bites.

I have heartfelt conversations with gays over this issue. Given your attitude towards gays, I seriously doubt that you do.

Now, which one of us is more likely listening to the gay community sound bites?

JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Then you have proven my point. Because I am not saying that homosexuality legitimizes all of these other activities. I am saying that gay rights groups are trying to open the debate on them. That is how it always starts. Not long ago there was no debate on gay marriage either and the idea of it would have been anathema. What makes you feel that the efforts we see today will not blur the lines on age of consent fifty years from now.

You need to realize that the battles over these issues are not fought as a single issue. The legal precedents that are established by one are used as the foundations for the next. As a society, we need to decide how far we will let this go and be aware of the long view. We need to stop the movement at a sensible and legally defensible place and refuse to give any more.

I choose to draw the line NOW.

right2bright on April 9, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Why do you persist in arguing points that are irrelevant. The law does not criminalize homosexuality. I am arguing that recognizing homosexual marriage is a mistake. I am trying to point out that the agenda is not marriage at all but to remove restrictions on all types of sexual behavior. Your focus is much too narrow and contrived.

Hawthorne on April 7, 2009 at 7:45 PM

We draw arbitrary lines on sexual behavior all the time. Are you saying that incest, pedagogy, bestiality, and polygamy should all be legal too?

Half of this is a strawman argument, disingenuously employed by opponents of gay marriage far too frequently, and with far too much vigor.

Clearly the ban on pedagogy is not arbitrary. We, as a society have drawn a fairly bright line as to when an individual is old enough to grant consent, to enter into the marriage contract. That is no more arbitrary than setting a sufficient age as to when they can drive an automobile, join the military, or enter into any other valid contract. The recognition of the marriage of homosexuals doesn’t affect that one whit.

Likewise, we do not grant beasts the right to enter contracts, and we do pass laws to protect them from needless harm. How the recognition of marriage of two sentient individuals affects that is unclear, to say the least.

Incest… well, that’s a dicey proposal, involving both a series of moral and public health issues that I, for one, am not prepared to tackle in this missive.

However, the polygamy argument is absolutely valid. If we recognize gay marriage, I find it very difficult to honestly sustain a ban on polygamy, assuming that we are talking about consenting adults.

JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM

I have already debunked your premise in previous posts. The gay community can already get all that they are sking for in the vast majority of cases by filing the proper legal papers. The lie to your position is proven when gays will not accept civil unions. We have a mountain of proof that civil union is not sufficient to the gay community in the states where it is used. They continue to fight for “marriage” even though the legal differences are semantic.

Many gay leaders have openly stated that their goal is not just recognition or equal protection, but to fundamentally change the fabric of society. Do a little research and enlighten yourself. I have give quotes previously.

In countries where gays already have the right to marry, less than 3% of the gay community chooses to participate, This is strong proof that the right to marry is not the agenda at all. If it mattered that much to the gay rank and file, more gay couples would do it. The noise you are hearing is political positioning by activists.

Yes, what you are saying is what the gay community claims in the sound bites. But when you look further you can easily discover that it is all a smokescreen.