Republicans have a platform well-suited for the full recognition of civil-rights for all citizens. It’s sad (and interesting) to watch so many Republicans squirm at the prospect of their party doing the right thing regarding gay-Americans.

The Race Card on February 23, 2010 at 1:51 AM

There’s quite a bit of difference between civil rights for race and civil rights for a perversion which has caused the rampant communication of a disease for which we still have no cure.

If Libertarians were true to their word they wouldn’t condone either. There is either freedom and democracy to associate with those you want, or speak as you feel for everyone or someone’s rights and freedoms gets tramples on.

Sultry Beauty on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Hmm. The God-given right to fist responsibly, eh?

Republicans have a platform well-suited for the full recognition of civil-rights for all citizens. It’s sad (and interesting) to watch so many Republicans squirm at the prospect of their party doing the right thing regarding gay-Americans.

including black disadvantaged youths who enjoy the benefits of Long Beach Gangs for they’re ethnic pride

Ethnic/racial pride sucks. There is nothing to be proud of about being born with a particular skin-tone. Pride, aside from being one of the seven deadlies, is nothing more than ego-cheerleading.

Oh yeah, many kids in Long Beach do a lot more than join gangs or prance around in parades…even black ones. Imagine that; stop the presses!

***
PS. You drew an astute distinction the other day during our brief tete-a-tete. You statement was factually correct.

I’m with Ryan Sorba. Some of us still believe in timeless morals. Ed’s a sellout.

apacalyps on February 19, 2010 at 10:20 PM

What’s your favorite sin?

And let’s also remember how horrible and religious and insidious the Boy’s Scouts of America is because it doesn’t want single adult males going off alone with a group of young boys and it’s absolutely horrible for a group of parents to ask the question, “Why is it so important for this adult males to have that right.” It’s so horrible, in fact, that we must make sure there are no such BSA clubs in the public schools.
Sultry Beauty on February 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Didn’t the BSA win BSA v Dale at SCOTUS? It seemed like a victory for the First Amendment against intrusive anti-discrimination legislation.

Ahhhh. But that’s not how it ends up now does it? Religious people need to shut up and accept things they don’t agree with. Sexuality should be explicit like the Gay Pride Parades I’ve lived with all my life growing up in Long Beach or the gay business http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadway_Corridor,_Long_Beach,_California in Long Beach; or their own Center like seniors get. They get more attention and help than any other sector of people in that community including black disadvantaged youths who enjoy the benefits of Long Beach Gangs for they’re ethnic pride. But heck, Gay people getting Gay Marriage passed nation-wide because it’s such an important thing that we all be able to have their groups on Public Schools and actively spoken about in school curriculum because it’s the most important social issue of our time.

And let’s also remember how horrible and religious and insidious the Boy’s Scouts of America is because it doesn’t want single adult males going off alone with a group of young boys and it’s absolutely horrible for a group of parents to ask the question, “Why is it so important for this adult males to have that right.” It’s so horrible, in fact, that we must make sure there are no such BSA clubs in the public schools.

If Libertarians were true to their word they wouldn’t condone either. There is either freedom and democracy to associate with those you want, or speak as you feel for everyone or someone’s rights and freedoms gets tramples on. The way this meme is set out Gays are the underdog is the story. With the entire Left and Democrat Party on their side and now Centrists and Libertarians on the other, I beg to differ. Good luck to religious freedom. That’s a thing of the past now. Just scrap that amendment anyway.

Over and over, I hear from my liberal friends how homophobic conservatives are. They don’t want gay people protected in hate crimes laws. (Might this be because many think that hate crime laws in general are ill conceived?) They aren’t……

CPAC straw poll:
Just one percent list stopping gay marriage as a top priority
A nugget mined from the PDF
of the full results. This does jibe with the gay-friendly-ish
vibe to this year’s proceedings, but how seriously should we take……

My observation arises from reading Paul and seeing the influence of his Greek education and his desire to unlock Christ’s message from its local cultural moorings. He taught the message to a Roman and Greek audience, and to that end used as many figures of speech from Platonism as from the OT.

dedalus on February 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Certainly true.

Paul used elements of Plato’s works to explain Christianity to his Greek audience.

But simile based on Plato does not translate into Plato speaking through Paul. Paul is indeed speaking using Plato.

To see this, contrast Paul’s view of homosexuality (in Romans 1) and Plato’s (Socrates). They are diametrically opposed.

Again, the places where Paul “pared down” the law are identical to the places where Jesus did the same. Jesus calls us to far exceed the moral law, while calling at the same time for us to not engage in the retribution called for in the ritual law.

You are welcome to your beliefs. I believe differently. My Church believes differently too. In the three year cycle of the Mass, we will, every Sunday, read at least three passages of OT Scripture, and, on occasion, use at least one more as a response. We will not read or speak one line of anything written by Plato.

unclesmrgol on February 21, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your many posts so far. I didn’t mean to assert a point of belief, or to imply that worship was at all misplaced.

My observation arises from reading Paul and seeing the influence of his Greek education and his desire to unlock Christ’s message from its local cultural moorings. He taught the message to a Roman and Greek audience, and to that end used as many figures of speech from Platonism as from the OT.

dedalus on February 21, 2010 at 10:16 AM

You are welcome to your beliefs. I believe differently. My Church believes differently too. In the three year cycle of the Mass, we will, every Sunday, read at least three passages of OT Scripture, and, on occasion, use at least one more as a response. We will not read or speak one line of anything written by Plato.

Now, how does this relate to male homosexuality? The moral law says don’t do it. The ritual law says what the response of the people should be if they discover one doing it. In the OT, that response is not nice — the men willingly participating are to be put to death.

But Jesus and Paul are unified in what the response should be. Do not trade evil for evil. But the NT is quite emphatic as to what needs to be done when encountering evil. One does not accommodate it. One does not support it. An individual persisting in it is expelled from the community until he or she changes their behavior.

I see no problem with Paul — he merely reiterates the extensions Jesus made to the moral law.

unclesmrgol on February 20, 2010 at 11:08 PM

There’s no relation to homosexuality in my comment. The prohibition on gay sex, if anything, seems to be reinforced following the Council of Jerusalem, which tossed aside the majority of Mosaic laws, narrowing restrictions down to the 7 Laws of Noah.

I was responding to the notion that the OT is needed to understand the NT. I wasn’t thinking of Marcion, but Paul’s view of Christ (while, I think, correct) certainly caused significant conflict with the Apostle Peter in Antioch, not to mention the many Jews who were open to Christ’s teaching but who also held to Mosaic Law.

Yes the OT helps to understand the NT, but Paul’s paring down of the law makes parts of the OT either anecdotal or irrelevant. If one is preparing to read the NT, Plato is a more valuable prerequisite than Leviticus.

Ampersand, if you truly do object to what Snyder has to say, you wish to state your objection in a less uncouth manner.

thuja on February 20, 2010 at 8:20 AM

I thought I was extremely eloquent for a drunk guy posting at 3am… but even sober I stand by my post.

“Bring it.”

Oh, it’s already been brought-t.

(NSFW)