Billionaire to bankroll pro-gay GOP PAC

posted at 8:01 pm on June 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

It seems to me that there was once a very basic, black and white picture being painted in the media when it comes to super PACs. Two armies of very wealthy, highly motivated partisans would set up opposing groups of slush funds marching in lockstep. On one side would be Karl Rove with Crossroads and on the other, George Soros with American Bridge or whatever it’s called.

But as time went on it’s become obvious that the picture is a lot more complicated than that. Different groups have their own agendas and aren’t always interested in toeing the line for either party as a whole. That may be the case with this news from Politico about billionaire investment banking mogul Paul Singer, who is setting up a brand new super PAC to support Republicans… with a twist.

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the GOP’s most sought-after donors, and has also been a driving force in New York State’s push for gay marriage. Along with Michael Bloomberg, Singer has used his financial resources to nudge Republican legislators in the direction of supporting same-sex unions, giving an incentive for them to buck the party line where the political down side might otherwise be too great.

And now, Singer tells the New York Times’s Frank Bruni that he’s going to bankroll a super PAC that could accomplish the same goal on the federal level

It’s apparently called American Unity PAC, and Singer is kicking it off with $1M to primarily support Republican candidates in congressional races. He’s quoted as saying that he feels there are GOP candidates out there who are either “on the fence” about gay marriage or are hiding their support for it, and part of his goal is, “helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.

Here’s another clip from Singer’s interview with the Times which seems to summarize this “third way” approach to opening up the tent a bit.

Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways. Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.

This will probably attract at least some attention, primarily in the Northeast where we regularly produce politicians along the lines of Bloomberg. How much appeal will it have in the rest of the country, particularly in the more “traditional” conservative strongholds? I wouldn’t be betting the ranch on it, but there’s no denying that it’s cheaper and easier to impact a congressional race than a national contest. And a few million dollars can go a long way in one campaign season.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Where is this “Christian” definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman written in stone? Surely, it is not in the NT…

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Reiterated by Christ:

Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Since this is the case, why do people like you insist that God only approves of your definition of “Christian” marriage? Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

It’s not the case, genius.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM

And only two adults of legal age can lawfully enter into a contract.

“Only two”? If you believe there is no restriction of marriage to males and females exclusively, where in the Constitution did you come up with a limit to two parties?

So we have every right to not take seriously someone wanting to marry a 5-year-old boy, a cat or a television. Good luck trying to change contract law for that.

TMOverbeck on June 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM

As I expected, more disingenuity.

Read my comment again. Did I say anything about minors, animals, or inanimate objects? No, I did not. You threw that in the mix and pretended I suggested it, which you know I didn’t.

My offer stands. If the SCOTUS affirms the right of people of the same sex to marry, explain why a similar challenge to the number and relation of adults in a marriage arrangement would fail.

Try harder this time.

L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 12:50 PM

You arrogantly act like I haven’t done my research, which doesn’t work well in your favor.

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Blatant wrongness has a perfect positive correlation with “did not do the research.” Though I will cede to you a shelter in “what I researched was written by other people who were claiming authority, and appeared credentialled, but who also didn’t do the research since they were also blatantly wrong.”

If you had told me proper arithmetic dictated 2 + 2 = 5, and I told you 2 + 2 = 4 is correct, and that such information is written down by authorities qualified to instruct on the matter, I would simply be curing your ignorance. No arroganct posturing would be required. You choose to insinuate arrogance on my part where none exists.

No doubt your retort is going to be “but 2 + 2 = 5 is true for certain values of 2 according to my research!” Should I amend the first sentence in my above paragraph to read 2 + 2 = 7 instead?

BKennedy on June 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Just what we need. Well-heeled liberal republicans sucking up to the left.

It’s a strange way to “broaden the base” by alienating your existing constituency.

Please ignore these David Brooks don’t-know-which-way-is-up pseudo conservatives.

virgo on June 11, 2012 at 12:58 PM

You arrogantly act like I haven’t done my research, which doesn’t work well in your favor. Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Where is this “Christian” definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman written in stone? Surely, it is not in the NT…

Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Reiterated by Christ:

Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Since this is the case, why do people like you insist that God only approves of your definition of “Christian” marriage? Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

It’s not the case, genius. Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Yeah, you’re the kin of research

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 1:00 PM

It’s not the case, genius.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Hey (supposed) genius, were all of the godly Jews in the OT who had multiple wives guilty of some kind of crime against God’s will/Word? A simple yes or no will suffice. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Blatant wrongness has a perfect positive correlation with “did not do the research.” Though I will cede to you a shelter in “what I researched was written by other people who were claiming authority, and appeared credentialled, but who also didn’t do the research since they were also blatantly wrong.”

If you had told me proper arithmetic dictated 2 + 2 = 5, and I told you 2 + 2 = 4 is correct, and that such information is written down by authorities qualified to instruct on the matter, I would simply be curing your ignorance. No arroganct posturing would be required. You choose to insinuate arrogance on my part where none exists.

No doubt your retort is going to be “but 2 + 2 = 5 is true for certain values of 2 according to my research!” Should I amend the first sentence in my above paragraph to read 2 + 2 = 7 instead?

BKennedy on June 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Let me sum up your mindless, rambling post for you: “Yes, I cannot refute the truth that God did not have a problem in the either the OT or the NT with polygamy, but, since I am too emotionally immature to easily admit when I am wrong in an argument, I’ll make this personal with you and I’ll pretend I’m superior to you instead!” :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I often wonder what it might have been like to have a Hotair blog & commenters during Loving v. VA –
Threads like this give one a sense.
Ultimately wouldn’t have stopped progress then..and won’t now.
I suppose though we would have had to suffer silly arguments.
I imagine something like:

“If they let a white guy marry a black girl, then that will obviously lead to a black guy marrying one white girl and 2 Asian girls!”
circa 1967 L.N. Smithee

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 9:48 AM

HA HA HA HA! You’re so funny! You kill yourself (in the comedy sense)!

OK, back to reality. I am an African-American man. I am single, but the closest I’ve come to marriage was to a woman who was NOT black, and I think of her as the love of my life.

Your argument inferring bigotry on my part are flawed. Open your brain, because here’s a consistent parallel: California’s Proposition 22, the 2000 ballot measure that changed the state’s family code to specify marriage as exclusively one man-one woman, was overturned by the state Supreme Court in May 2008 using the precedent of Perez v. Sharp, a 1948 CA decision by the same court that predated Loving by nearly two decades. It was the anticipation that Prop 22 might be overturned that inspired the placing of 2008′s Proposition 8 on the November ballot.

“Perez” was a half-Mexican woman who wanted to marry a black man, and according to the arcane miscegenation codes in place, that qualified her as “white,” thus making her marriage to her fiance prohibited. At the time the court struck down the anti-miscegenation laws, sodomy (including homosexual intercourse) was still a crime.

Consistency would suggest that the “silly argument” in 1948 might be that “progress” would dictate that someday, in a state in which people had just won the right to marry someone of the opposite sex of a different race, eventually people of the same sex would get married. Can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue from some wacko who would suggest that someday, because of the Perez decision, nobody would blink about men with men, women with women, and marriage between them? Marriage?

As Nancy Pelosi said, in endorsing same-sex marriage, advocates are trying to narrow the time between “inconceivable” and “inevitable.” She actually said that. Look it up.

L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I Timothy 3:12 makes one wife a requirement for men who are leaders in the church.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Yes, this is correct, and it’s not a condemnation of polygamy per se i.e. Christians have never been told anywhere in Scripture that polygamy is an out-and-out abomination to God. Since this is true, why do you think it is that so many Christians act like God hates polygamy, or try to carry on as though monogamy is the only acceptable kind of marriage to Him?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Polygamy was not allowed in the New Testament church. We are talking about the Christian view of marriage and 1 Timothy 3:12 makes it clear that the leaders were to only have one wife. Leaders are the examples to the church members.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I guess a gay Christian Church that accepts gays as they are and performs marriages aren’t really Christians, sort of like Mormons who believe in the Book of Mormon aren’t really Christians either? And, the only one true church is the Catholic Church and that the Pope is infallible?

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM

The only one true church is the church of believers who base all doctrine on the New Testament. It is no particular denomination, and no particular church building, but a collective of all those who accept the New Testament as the final authority regarding all doctrine.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 1:31 PM

L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 1:15 PM

My comment was not intended to suggest bigotry.
I was instead implying that arguments similar to yours will some day seems archaic…and ‘silly’.
We also have to suffer though the ‘this will lead to legalization of people marrying pets’ b.s. (which would imply that current law should lead to marrying pets – provided they are the opposite sex) – and I’ll assume you do not make that leap.
My preference remains that there just be no legal ‘marriage’ at all. Let folks have whatever ceremonies they want.
But constitutional, no more carving out exceptions to constitutional rights.
My own experience as unmarried only in the legal sense (opposite sex long term relationship, 2 kids, own our house together, etc.) – affords me the opportunity to fully understand what it means to be denied federal benefits because I don’t have some piece of paper. That’s what this is about.
Of course we have the option to walk into a courthouse- not true for many others.
Logic dictates…and someday logic will rule.

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the GOP’s most sought-after donors, and has also been a driving force in New York State’s push for gay marriage. Along with Michael Bloomberg, Singer has used his financial resources to nudge Republican legislators in the direction of supporting same-sex unions, giving an incentive for them to buck the party line where the political down side might otherwise be too great.

And now, Singer tells the New York Times’s Frank Bruni that he’s going to bankroll a super PAC that could accomplish the same goal on the federal level

Note to Mitt Romney: Stay away from Singer and his $$$.

Steve Z on June 11, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Hey (supposed) genius, were all of the godly Jews in the OT who had multiple wives guilty of some kind of crime against God’s will/Word? A simple yes or no will suffice. :) Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Uh, yes.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The only one true church is the church of believers who base all doctrine on the New Testament. It is no particular denomination, and no particular church building, but a collective of all those who accept the New Testament as the final authority regarding all doctrine. – Rose on June 11, 2012 at 1:31 PM

And, just how many Protestant churches have different interpretations of the New Testament and the doctrine?

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM

And, just how many Protestant churches have different interpretations of the New Testament and the doctrine?
SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 2:01 PM

If they adhere to the faith as expressed in Apostles’ Creed, rightly administer the sacraments, and enforce moral discipline, their differences are considered adiaphora for the most part.

Allowing homosexuals to be ordained or married in their churches excludes them from Christianity despite their trappings, just as e.g. denial of the divinity of Christ does.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The New Testament is clear on the teachings of salvation and issues of morality. The only area I have seen where churches who only accept the New Testament as final authority differ is with the issue of spiritual gifts, as to whether or not they died with the apostles. From my own study I believe they did not, and are available to the church today. However, this area does not affect our salvation or morality. So it is up to the believer to study the New Testament and choose a church which is the most true to its teachings.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Polygamy was not allowed in the New Testament church. We are talking about the Christian view of marriage and 1 Timothy 3:12 makes it clear that the leaders were to only have one wife. Leaders are the examples to the church members.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Where does it say anywhere in the NT that polygamy is not allowed in the Church? If polygamy were prohibited for non-leaders, it would flat-out say that.

To argue that frowned upon=prohibited is not intellectually honest i.e. it’s a rationalization. Please, try again! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Uh, yes.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Ok, then, it should be effortlessly easy for you find a verse saying that God had a problem with any of those men who had more than one wife.

PS I can tell you right now that you will have as much luck finding such a verse as you will finding a condemnation of lesbianism in the Mosaic Law! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Where does it say anywhere in the NT that polygamy is not allowed in the Church? If polygamy were prohibited for non-leaders, it would flat-out say that. To argue that frowned upon=prohibited is not intellectually honest i.e. it’s a rationalization. Please, try again! :) Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I gave you this an hour ago:

Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Do you admit that you were wrong when you argued, “Where is this “Christian” definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman written in stone? Surely, it is not in the NT…”

The NT doesn’t explicitly condemn beastiality, but I think we’re safe operating on inference there, and on the issue of homosexual marriage, since homosexuality itself is strongly condemned in both Testaments.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The New Testament speaks very strongly against adultery. If polygamy was acceptable, why wouldn’t a man just marry any woman he was attracted to? The argument that polygamy was acceptable just isn’t supported.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

My comment was not intended to suggest bigotry.

Well, it did.

I was instead implying that arguments similar to yours will some day seems archaic…and ‘silly’.

We also have to suffer though the ‘this will lead to legalization of people marrying pets’ b.s. (which would imply that current law should lead to marrying pets – provided they are the opposite sex) – and I’ll assume you do not make that leap.

I am speaking specifically regarding the short term implications of disposing of the exclusivity of marriage to two people of the opposite sex, which impacts laws that prohibit other types of marriage, i.e. polygamy and incestuous unions. Like clockwork, SSM advocates just pretend they don’t get it and go right to “marrying pets” and televisions. That would suggest severe mental disorders, or, more likely, dishonesty.

My preference remains that there just be no legal ‘marriage’ at all. Let folks have whatever ceremonies they want.
But constitutional, no more carving out exceptions to constitutional rights.
My own experience as unmarried only in the legal sense (opposite sex long term relationship, 2 kids, own our house together, etc.) – affords me the opportunity to fully understand what it means to be denied federal benefits because I don’t have some piece of paper. That’s what this is about.

Of course we have the option to walk into a courthouse- not true for many others.

Logic dictates…and someday logic will rule.

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Hold on a minute! This is amusing. It is exactly YOUR stance that may someday lead to “people marrying pets”!

Why? Because you would like ‘marriage’ — which you don’t personally choose to engage in — not to be a legal arrangement whatsoever. When that “logic” takes hold, marriage will have devolved from the foundation of the nuclear family into just another excuse to party.

Thanks for helping illustrate my point.

L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Ok, then, it should be effortlessly easy for you find a verse saying that God had a problem with any of those men who had more than one wife. PS I can tell you right now that you will have as much luck finding such a verse as you will finding a condemnation of lesbianism in the Mosaic Law! :) Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Deuteronomy 17:16-17 forbids the kings of Israel from multiplying wives, gold, and horses. They did, however, and both subsequent kingdoms were overthrown.

Polygamy is not condemned as a sin worthy of death as homosexuality was. Polygamy is at least a man marrying a woman, even if serially. The NT prohibition on church leaders being polygamists stems from the fact that there were converted pagans in the churches who had multiple wives. There’s no direction in the NT to force such men to divorce all but one of their wives, they just couldn’t be bishops or deacons.

As for your remark about lesbians, in the prohibition against sodomy we infer a prohibition of lesbianism. As noted, there’s no NT prohibition of beastiality, yet there was never a problem with people militating for horse marriage because most people with functioning brains and a sense of fairness understand what an inference is.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

When that “logic” takes hold, marriage will have devolved from the foundation of the nuclear family into just another excuse to party. L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM

!!!

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM

L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM

You are all over the place –
Aghast at imagined aspersions cast…while casting your own (‘That would suggest severe mental disorders’).
With respect to whatever it is you are saying, I may have illustrated something…but it wasn’t any ‘point’ you were able to make.
Appreciate your time, but indeed pointless to engage in intellectually dishonest banter.
(e.g. ‘marriage will have devolved from the foundation of the nuclear family into just another excuse to party’ – ha)

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Allowing homosexuals to be ordained or married in their churches excludes them from Christianity despite their trappings, just as e.g. denial of the divinity of Christ does. – Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:10 PM

And, you claim to know thousands of ex-gays. You are a remarkable man. Did you help them just pray the gay away?

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

To those knocking the idea that acceptance of ‘gay’ marriage will lead to acceptance of pedophilia, I ask you to look up ‘B4U ACT’. They’re using the exact playbook of the militant homosexual activists. First, decriminalize it, and explain it away as a mental illness. Then use political pressure (NOT science) to declassify it as a mental illness (while it is still decriminalized). Then use leftist tactics to force public toleration. Finally, use big government to force people to affirm your ‘lifestyle’.

Add to that the long, sordid relationship between pedophiles and homosexuals(ILGA had NAMBLA as a member until nineteen friggin ninety four, and only stopped because the money was about to be cut off), as well as the common overlap (Catholic priest scandal, anyone?), and it only makes perfect sense.

avgjo on June 11, 2012 at 2:56 PM

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM

What courage. “You kicked my butt eight ways from Sunday are too stupid to argue with so I’m going home.”

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM

And, you claim to know thousands of ex-gays. You are a remarkable man. Did you help them just pray the gay away? SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I don’t know thousands of anyone, dearie. I do know people who have stopped acting on sinful urges of all kind.

There are no sinful urges a Christian cannot resist.

As I recall, unless I’m mistaken, you could testify to the truth of that statement yourself.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Aghast at imagined aspersions cast…while casting your own (‘That would suggest severe mental disorders’).

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM

All right, then. If it’s NOT a severe mental disorder that’s the cause, YOU explain it. Why do pro-SSM people ignore specific, relevant questions about their desired victory and its future effect (intended or not) on current prohibition of plural marriage and/or incestuous marriage of adults, and instead — without provocation — create straw man arguments about marrying children, animals, and inanimate objects?

If you know of a same-sex marriage advocate who addresses that issue specifically and honestly, I’d be happy to read or hear it. As of now — especially on this thread — the silence is deafening.

L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM

As I recall, unless I’m mistaken, you could testify to the truth of that statement yourself. – Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Much to my determent of my mental health and near suicide.

I don’t know thousands of anyone, dearie. I do know people who have stopped acting on sinful urges of all kind. – Akzed

Perhaps I am mistaken. I am not “the church”. I am fallible. But then I have never burned anyone at the stake or condoned slavery, among other things. It is my belief that the Catholic Church’s and other Christan Churches who hold the same beliefs on homosexuality is in my opinion wrong and harmful to homosexuals.

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I gave you this an hour ago:

Mark 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

When you consider that Mark 10:7 is quoting the OT (Genesis 2:24), and that the OT not only doesn’t condemn polygamy, it explictly tolerates & supports it, your inference that Mark 10:7 is some kind of justification for monogamy/condemnation of polygamy does not make any sense.

The New Testament speaks very strongly against adultery. If polygamy was acceptable, why wouldn’t a man just marry any woman he was attracted to? The argument that polygamy was acceptable just isn’t supported.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

You aren’t very aware of all of King David’s wives and concubines in the OT, are you? He had 7 completely legitimate wives, excluding Bathsheba, besides numerous concubines.

Do you know what 1 Kings 15:3 says? Here: “because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.”

Do you see that it states that David always did what God told him, except in the case of Bathsheba? The obvious, rational conclusion, then, is that God never told him to avoid all of those wives/concubines, meaning that God must not have cared about him having so many – otherwise, he would have told him to knock his tomcattin’ off, wouldn’t He have?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Oops that was supposed to 1 Kings 15:5, not 3!

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Why are Christians so anti-Gay yet Pro-Haircut? Both things are forbidden in the Bible.

CoffeeMan on June 11, 2012 at 3:34 PM

The fact that David in spite of his wives was allowed to be king, but would not have met the requirement to be a leader in the New Testament church shows that the custom of having multiple wives was no longer accepted.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Why do pro-SSM people ignore specific, relevant questions about their desired victory and its future effect (intended or not) on current prohibition of plural marriage and/or incestuous marriage of adults, and instead — without provocation — create straw man arguments about marrying children, animals, and inanimate objects?

L.N. Smithee on June 11, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Huh?
You do know those straw man arguments come from the anti-SSM crowd, right? I referenced only as parody/critique.
Again…you are all over the place here.
Maybe you have a point that you’re having trouble articulating.

“If you know of a same-sex marriage advocate who addresses that issue specifically and honestly, I’d be happy to read or hear it. As of now — especially on this thread — the silence is deafening.”

I think you won’t find that, as SSM advocates rightly ignore the ‘inanimate object’ inanity.

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Deuteronomy 17:16-17 forbids the kings of Israel from multiplying wives, gold, and horses. They did, however, and both subsequent kingdoms were overthrown.

If you noticed in my last post, I pointed out that King David had many wives and concubines, and didn’t make God unhappy by doing so – “multiplying wives” can’t/doesn’t mean what you think it does

As for your remark about lesbians, in the prohibition against sodomy we infer a prohibition of lesbianism. As noted, there’s no NT prohibition of beastiality, yet there was never a problem with people militating for horse marriage because most people with functioning brains and a sense of fairness understand what an inference is.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM

You are making an inference about sodomy that the OT doesn’t support. Male homosexuality, like beastiality, was explicitly condemned in the OT – female homosexuality never was, neither explicitly nor implicitly…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 3:55 PM

The fact that David in spite of his wives was allowed to be king, but would not have met the requirement to be a leader in the New Testament church shows that the custom of having multiple wives was no longer accepted.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 3:40 PM

It seems to me you’re shifting the lines here.

1) you can’t rationally deny that God not only did not have a problem with David having numerous wives, He didn’t have a problem with him having numerous concubines, either – God clearly wasn’t opposed to polygamy in the OT!

2) saying that God completely changed His standards about polygamous marriage isn’t borne out by the NT – if God had changed them, Paul or one of the other NT authors would have directly stated that Christian men were prohibited, not just discouraged, from having multiple wives. Anything short of that would speculation into God’s “intent”, and I can’t believe you‘d believe that’s how God would choose to operate…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The standards for church leaders is a very strong indication of what is expected of adherents to Christianity. Remember that much of the New Testament is written to gentiles, people who had no knowledge of the Old Testament. These people had no knowledge of the history of the kings or the law. Jesus talks of a man leaving his family and a woman leaving her home. No one ever speaks of multiple spouses. There is just no New Testament basis for polygamy.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 4:20 PM

It is my belief that the Catholic Church’s and other Christan Churches who hold the same beliefs on homosexuality is in my opinion wrong and harmful to homosexuals. SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 3:16 PM

No one else’s belief has ever harmed you. I guess there should be no preaching against covetousness so as not to hurt the feelings of those who covet.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM
Rose on June 11, 2012 at 3:40 PM

And it seems God didn’t object to David’s relationship with Jonathan – with whom he enjoyed a love ‘more wonderful’ than that with a woman.
Who knows…right?

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM

When you consider that Mark 10:7 is quoting the OT (Genesis 2:24), and that the OT not only doesn’t condemn polygamy, it explictly tolerates & supports it, your inference that Mark 10:7 is some kind of justification for monogamy/condemnation of polygamy does not make any sense. MJB

The Genesis text Jesus quoted was uttered before the fall. The fall resulted in not only sin, but in things like divorce which God hates but tolerated due to “the hardness of your hearts” as Jesus put it. Jesus tightened the regulation on divorce as being allowable only for fornication, and reiterated the one man / one woman mandate for marriage. It’s undeniable.

Disobeying the monogamous marriage mandate in Genesis didn’t cause one to end up like Uzzah, who died instantly for touching the ark.

As a prophet Jesus’ job was to preach Moses, which is basically all any prophet did post-Moses. The marriage ideal was one man, one woman as reaffirmed by Jesus, and the things God formerly “winked at” are no longer to be tolerated; multiple wives, concubines, cavalier divorce.

It’s really not rocket surgery.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 4:38 PM

You are making an inference about sodomy that the OT doesn’t support. Male homosexuality, like beastiality, was explicitly condemned in the OT – female homosexuality never was, neither explicitly nor implicitly… Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 3:55 PM

This is Pharisaical hair splitting.

I can hear you now, in the very presence of Christ, who says, “Love your neighbor,” and you reply, “But… who is my neighbor, after all? Is he just the guy who lives next door, or also the guy across the street, and what about the people in the next block, and two blocks away…?”

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 4:42 PM

No one else’s belief has ever harmed you. I guess there should be no preaching against covetousness so as not to hurt the feelings of those who covet. – Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM

So the discrimination and persecution that homosexuals have experienced for centuries is just my imagination. Christian beliefs on homosexuality had nothing to do with such discrimination and persecution. I suppose that I just didn’t pray hard enough to God to make me heterosexual. My self-hate, anxiety, depression the desire to be just be normal is all my fault. And, of course the bout of major depression that almost ended in suicide is all my fault too. I guess I should apologize for not being successful. Thanks for letting me know. You are so thoughtful and Christian./s

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Christianity is what it is. Christians have been persecuted to the point of torture and death for their beliefs. Sure, they don’t have to believe, they make that choice, but once that choice is made it becomes a lifetime commitment. If a person is able to put any desires they have aside for that commitment, then great. If someone feels that their physical desires are more important, the choice is theirs. But you cannot force Christians to set aside their commitment to Christian doctrine just because that doctrine does not allow for the choices you make that contradict it.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Oops, again, I am not perfect. I did not put Akzed’s comment in quotes.

No one else’s belief has ever harmed you. I guess there should be no preaching against covetousness so as not to hurt the feelings of those who covet. – Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM

So the discrimination and persecution that homosexuals have experienced for centuries is just my imagination. Christian beliefs on homosexuality had nothing to do with such discrimination and persecution. I suppose that I just didn’t pray hard enough to God to make me heterosexual. My self-hate, anxiety, depression the desire to be just be normal is all my fault. And, of course the bout of major depression that almost ended in suicide is all my fault too. I guess I should apologize for not being successful. Thanks for letting me know. You are so thoughtful and Christian./s

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 6:41 PM

And it seems God didn’t object to David’s relationship with Jonathan – with whom he enjoyed a love ‘more wonderful’ than that with a woman.
Who knows…right?

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Verbaluce, honestly, homosexualists are pretty pathetic when they attempt to reduce everything, every reference to “love” as sex. Love is not sex, and sex is not love. Homosexualists pathetically have tried to infer that the biblical story of Ruth and Naomi, is about “lesbians”. Naomi was the daughter in-law of Ruth, and when Ruth returned to her homeland, Naomi, as the widowed wife of Ruth’s son, knows that she is obliged to care for her mother in-law, just as her son, would have done had he lived. Homosexualists also try and infer that the story of David and Jonathan has to be about a homosexual relationship, because we all know that two men can not love one another without there being something sexual about it. David and Jonathan had a brotherly love, the love Christ called for all human beings to have for one another, to love and treat one another as we would like to be treated. Thus, it’s a more wonderful love. It wasn’t a reference to a sexual relationship.

One thing I’ve noticed is, all these radical homosexual activists demand that all things be reduced to sex. If there are homosexual characters on a show or movie, it all has to be sexual. It’s all about imposing sex on others. It’s not about human beings, it’s all about sexualizing everything, which isn’t normal, it’s not sane.

As to SC Charlie, if you believe that no one has a right to believe what they will, then that applies to you as well. How would you feel if you were told you don’t have a right to your beliefs as a gay man? You want to attack Christians, you want to blame Christians, yet it’s not Christians putting homosexuals to death, it’s Islamists, yet hypocrite extremists like you, refuse to criticize the real homophobia of Islamists. That’s very revealing. What I do realize is this, any GOP candidate that falls for Paul Singer’s scam, which is in aid of re-electing Obama, that GOP politician doesn’t deserve to be elected. Singer wants to bribe GOP politicians into alienating their base, so Obama gets re-elected. Any politician fool enough to fall for that, will lose.

Ceolas on June 11, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Who knows…right? verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Riiiight. And “Philadelphia” means brotherlyincest.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 7:16 PM

So the discrimination and persecution that homosexuals have experienced for centuries is just my imagination.

“If not for the cops and judges, I wouldn’t be in jail,” -Convict in denial.

Christian beliefs on homosexuality had nothing to do with such discrimination and persecution.

If by “Christian belief” you mean “God’s revealed will,” yes. Therefore your beef is with God.

I suppose that I just didn’t pray hard enough to God to make me heterosexual.

Praying to win the lottery without buying a ticket is an act of futility. As a Christian, you are enabled not to sin, but Christians are not robots. Entertaining sinful thoughts, allowing yourself into dangerous, tempting situations was your doing, not God’s.

My self-hate, anxiety, depression the desire to be just be normal is all my fault.

Yes, no one is responsible for my sin but me. I wouldn’t dare blame anyone else and neither should you.

And, of course the bout of major depression that almost ended in suicide is all my fault too.

See what you’re doing?

“It’s not my fault, the woman you gave me tempted me, and I did eat. -Adam.

“Hey, don’t blame me, it was the serpent’s fault,” -Eve.

I guess I should apologize for not being successful. Thanks for letting me know. You are so thoughtful and Christian./s SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Romans 8:1. You can turn from sin and death whenever you want. If God or anyone else made you do it against your will, you’d just resent it, since you’re not a robot.

Akzed on June 11, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Akzed, you are certainly insistent. However, being homosexual is not a sin in my opinion. You use your Bible as you people read it to condemn homosexuality. However some Christian Churches now question that interruption of the Bible which has to do do with homosexuality. And, recognize the harm it has done to the gay minority and take the position opposite to yours. Bible scholars fight over the interpretations of many verses contained in the Bible. Some anti-gay forces say homosexuality just goes against natural law. Some say it is just icky. The Christian Church by insisting that homosexuality is a sin has been complicit in the discrimination and persecution of homosexuals for centuries. There can be no denial on that issue.

Even with all the imperfections in the Christian church over the last two thousand years it has been on the whole, a force for the betterment of mankind. I find that horrible when Christians are persecuted and discriminated in other countries around the world, whether it was in the communist countries early in my life or now in the Muslim countries.

SC.Charlie on June 12, 2012 at 6:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6