I was going to write a post about the Alabama legislator proposing a law cutting public funding for any books that “promote homosexuality”, which would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters, and public school textbooks couldn’t present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn’t offer books with gay or bisexual characters… but Neil Gaiman has already done the work. Go.
• 
Again, I don’t support the law, but I would agree with a SCOTUS decision that found it constitutional.
MP,
I don’t think looking at the overall marketplace reduction is necessarily the best measure.
First, the library is by necessity one of the very few if not only places for lower-income people to get books. As such, if you remove things from libraries under the assumption that “well, people COULD just buy ’em”, you’re basically cutting off that end of the economic spectrum from seeing that information at all.
Second, the library is the only governmental outlet for any sort of reading material. Banning a book from libraries isn’t preventing it from being published, no, but if a governmental entity says that the book cannot be distributed by any governmental means, it’s in effect establishing a gag rule.
The latter probably wouldn’t be enough to make the rule unconstitutional, but I wonder if the former might. Mr. Bjorlin, you’re the resident constitutional law expert ’round here — any thoughts?
TWL
“Fred Phelps is an ultra-conservative Christian.
Being a Democrat doesn’t automatically make you a liberal. See Zell Miller.
Not loving Ronald Reagan doesn’t make you a liberal.
On social issues, he’s on the far right.
Deal with it.”
Hating gays is not a conservative position. Using the worst examples of humanity to try to make conclusions about any legitimate philosophy is just lazy. Hitler tells us nothing about vegetarians who love animals. No environmentalist need apologize for the Unibomber.
Actually, the platypus is perfectly well adapted to its environment. The duck bill makes perfect sense for its food, the webbed feet help it swim, the poison glands have obvious benefits. The egg laying is the amazing thing but given the fact that mammals evolved from reptiles it should be no surprise that some once layed eggs.
[I] And to any Gay posters (bloggers?)out there; do you feel that your life style is your choice or would you rather be told that it’s because of your gentic make up? [/I]
Well, first of all, I have to say that I find this question a little odd. For one thing, it seems as though you’re hinting that, if it’s genetic, it’s somehow less valid, because we’re “being told” this is who we are, rather than “deciding for ourselves.” No one tells black people their racial pride is less valid because they had no choice in the matter. Also, the idea of homosexuality being a choice is something commonly taken as offensive by the gay community, so the fact that you seem to be gay-positive and at the same time, implying that you’re leaning toward the “lifestyle choice” philosophy seems weirdly paradoxic. I’m not offended or anything, because I don’t think you meant any harm. I’m just sayin’. And maybe I read you wrong entirely, who knows.
Anyway, to your question. It seems to assume that it’s a “one or the other” scenario, which it isn’t. I mean, homosexuality can be caused by any number of things, some of which we might not even have considered at this stage yet. One theory is that it is the result of a mother’s hormone fluxuations during pregnancy. Frankly, I don’t know what the cause is. One thing I do know for certain is that it’s not a choice. And if it is, it’s certainly not a conscious decision, and it’s one made very, very early in life, because I was clearly a gay child. I grew up in the 80’s, and I always preferred She-Ra to He-Man. My Little Pony to Transformers. And I only liked G.I. Joe if Scarlett or Baroness were in it. I also remember enjoying looking through my father’s National Geography magazines with pictures of African tribesman. I didn’t know why at the time, all I knew was that it was fun to look at them. I can list more proof of My Very Gay Childhood, but I’ll spare you.
mike wrote…
…I was clearly a gay child. I grew up in the 80’s, and I always preferred She-Ra to He-Man.
That’s funny, I’d expect it to be the other way around. I mean, have you looked at He-Man lately? Loincloth…rippling biceps…massive sword…sounds pretty gay to me. =)
Yeah, I prefer She-Ra to He-Man as well…I am SO confused right now…
No one tells black people their racial pride is less valid because they had no choice in the matter.
Well, THAT’s certainly not true.
“By the way…
Speciation: observed in the field and in the lab. With finches and with plants, over a period of years. Try that obscure Pulitzer prize book, BEAK OF A FINCH for starters. Then we can go to the scientific literature for more detailed instances…”
You got to it before me, but I’m also fairly certain that evolution can be observed in the lab in such lifeforms as certain insects with short lifespans (something that’s born, reproduces and dies in 24 hours) as well as germs and viruses (hence every so many years we have to find newer or stronger vaccines).
As far as what humans evolved from, it probably ain’t walking around anymore, but humans and other primates have a common ancestor.
Monkeys.
TWL,
A library is a public service, not a right. The phrase “free library” is not in the 1st Amendment. If a poor person wants to read a book with gay content, then they can go to a gay charitable organization and get one.
As for your second paragraph, if you are relying on the government as your primary source of information, then you are already SOL.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (physin) relations for unnatural (para physin) ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural (physin) relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.”
Romans 1:26
In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean “to go against the laws of nature”, but rather implies action which is UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR THAT PERSON. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals and not everybody is heterosexual.
wow, over 100 replys in less than 12 hours. Touched quite a nerve, did we?
MP:
A library is a public service, not a right.
Education IS a right, however, and libraries serve that function in part. Just because the phrase “free library” is not in the Constitution (why you focus only on the 1st Amendment is a bit odd to me) doesn’t mean they’re unimportant. The phrase “breathable air” isn’t in there either, but I rather expect most people assume they’ve got a right to same.
If a poor person wants to read a book with gay content, then they can go to a gay charitable organization and get one.
The “let them eat cake” quality of this statement is just astonishing to me.
Suppose we change the word “gay” to, oh … “Christian”, and therefore justify states banning the Bible from public libraries. Suppose we put in the word “scientific” instead, and remove all books that mention any hint of science.
Individual libraries can of course choose not to stock books on any particular subject (or to stock books ONLY on a particular subject), but for you to argue that it’s fine for an outside entity to mandate what they can and cannot carry based on content is something I just find both mystifying and appalling.
TWL
TWL,
Education is not a natual right. It is not an explicit right defined by the Constitution. It is a mandated responsibility only in certain states, and sometimes only because of (what I consider) gross misinterpretations of state constitutions by state judges.
I focus on the First Amendment, because original posters talked about this being a “Free Speech” issue. That implies a First Amendment right. My argument has consistently been that this is not a Constitutional “Free Speech” issue.
You appear to assume that I’m an anti-gay person of religion. I honestly couldn’t give a sh&& if the Bible was banned. I also think that the proposed Alabama law is asinine. That doesn’t make it unconstitutional.
And calling the Government an outside entity when it comes to Government run/funded libraries shows a lack of understanding of how things actually work. Private libraries are few and far between. So are truly private schools. Did you know that if a University accepts a student who uses even $1 of a government grant/loan is subject to regulation by the government? If you truly want a free country, you’d best consider shrinking the government, not continuing to expand its authority.
The issue at hand is not an outright ban, but a regulation regarding what government run/sponsored entities can do.
And BTW, if a poor person wanted to read the Bible, let them go to Church.
Actually, the platypus is perfectly well adapted to its environment. The duck bill makes perfect sense for its food, the webbed feet help it swim, the poison glands have obvious benefits. The egg laying is the amazing thing but given the fact that mammals evolved from reptiles it should be no surprise that some once layed eggs.
You didn’t read the article I mentioned did you? 🙂
I especially love the final paragraph.
MP,
Education is not a natual right. It is not an explicit right defined by the Constitution.
Ah. So you’re taking the strict-constructionist position. That explains a great deal. Me, I think the tenth amendment tends to demolish most such positions.
You appear to assume that I’m an anti-gay person of religion.
Nope. I’m simply pointing out that the same argument could be used to ban all sorts of things. I’m sure that if I decided to dig around for long enough, I could find something you’d object to banning — but frankly, that’s not the point.
There are, however, plenty of people who ARE “anti-gay people of religion”, including the dips in Alabama who came up with this lovely idea, and I thought it was worth pointing out that your argument could hurt them as much as it could help them.
Private libraries are few and far between. So are truly private schools.
Dude, I *work* at a private school — “truly private”, indeed. I frankly don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Now, if someone like David Bjorlin says I don’t get a particular element of constitutional law, that I’ll listen to, as it’s his field. So far as I can tell, you just turned up out of nowhere to blow smoke.
‘Night, all.
TWL
The latter probably wouldn’t be enough to make the rule unconstitutional, but I wonder if the former might. Mr. Bjorlin, you’re the resident constitutional law expert ’round here — any thoughts?
As far as it being illegal as well as stupid? Allen was almost clever. If he’d stuck with the “public funds” issue, he would at least have an argument that could be made with a straight face. Jonathat (the other one) alluded to the argument– courts have consistently held that the Federal spending power, at least, is unrestricted by the Constitution’s enumerated powers. At least to some extent it’s plausible that “we’re just not going to pay for it” is a constitutionally survivable position for a state government.
(As a side note, Jonathan referred to the speed limit. The better example is the national 21-year-old drinking age, which was made part of the safe roads legislation of the 1980s, and was the source of much of this case law. It also provides the counter-example he wanted. Louisiana has road funding problems because its Supreme Court invalidated the 21 drinking age under its state constitution, which removed Louisiana from lots of road funding programs. That’s either a counter-example or further proof of his point, since the decision was not made by the political branches of the state government, and the road conditions explain why it was not the political branches.)
Allen blew what limited chance he had, however, by inserting the ban on “offering” the books, and commenting that they’d have to be removed, that they might need a shovel to bury the books, and all that good stuff. That’s explicit viewpoint suppression by a state government, and if the First Amendment means anything it means you can’t do that; no prior restraint of private publication, and no government viewpoint suppression. (It’s more ambiguous when you ask whether the government can endorse some policy–clearly governments do make value judgments, and have to in order to govern– but even during the Red Scare nobody thought it was legal to remove Das Kaptial from the University of Alabama libraries.) Any rational court would use the same argument to kill the funding proposal as well, but the “offer” provision is one that even John Paul Stevens could figure out.
I spent a half hour searching for a copy of the bill online. I’d be able to form a more informed opinion if I had more than the Birmingham newspaper story to go on. I’m treating this strictly as a censorship issue. If Allen was silly enough to mention religion in the bill or if it comes up in the legislative history, you get a second line of attack as an Establishment Clause case. With the caveat that the actual bill might not be as stupid as it’s reported (though based on the quotes from Allen, it probably is), this law wouldn’t even require a long hearing in front of a judge.
s yarish
wow, over 100 replys in less than 12 hours. Touched quite a nerve, did we?
And it’s been remarkably civil…at least it hasn’t devolved the way certain previous threads did…
You appear to want to argue about what the textbooks should or shouldn’t say. I’d much rather see what they actually DO say before taking much of a stance on the matter — seems more efficient somehow.
I feel like we are debating two different issues. I don’t remember the original post saying anything about textbooks. I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to understand why they entered the picture.
I 100% agree with you that text books should be precise. My complaint is that in everyday English, and even in many news articles and reports on TV, reporters are just as sloppy. When the cover of Time suggests that a “gay gene” may have been found, the average person would conclude that if such a gene was indeed found, then being gay is virtually the same as being white or black, being right or left handed, etc.
Most people today do not read a textbook, they hear short news reports and read the first 3 paragraphs of a news article.
My point is NOT to dumb down textbooks. My point was to give the author of a post the benefit of the doubt when they use terms and deal with their point more than just dealing with how they are stupid and don’t know what they are talking about in the first place.
On a different note … why exactly does it matter to you whether homosexuality has a genetic component or not? Would it change the opinion you have of gay people, and if so why?
I did not bring up the issue. My point was to be fair with those who post a point. But since you asked, here is my belief. It would not change my opinion of gay people. I believe engaging in any sex with another person outside of marriage is sinful. That includes a hetero couple living together. Whether there is a genetic component that causes someone to tend one way or another really doesn’t matter.
Jim in Iowa
Reverendsnow wrote: In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean “to go against the laws of nature”, but rather implies action which is UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR THAT PERSON. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals and not everybody is heterosexual.
This interpretation of the Greek words involved grossly distorts the meaning of the text. In the context of when Paul wrote this, it would have been clear that any form of sex between two men was being condemned. All of the major lexical tools are in agreement with the traditional understanding of this passage. You have to do a lot of acrobatics with the text to come to the conclusion suggested above.
Jim in Iowa
TWL: Education IS a right, however, and libraries serve that function in part.
Yes, but only under the Alabama constitution. (Sorry, but MP is right about that one. Take a matchbook. Write down, on the matchbook cover, all the laws ever invalidated by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution combined. Then figure out what else you’re going to use to cover your matchbook.) That’s actually a good argument why the proposed law is invalid, this time under Alabama law instead of US law. (Look at Section 256, ignoring the segregationist language that has been overtaken by Federal law. Come to think of it, this is the state that rejected an amendment to this provision last month. No wonder the legislators are screwy. http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm ) Under Alabama law the State is obligated to fund the educational system. I don’t think many judges would find authorization in the constitution for the funding to have strings attached by the legislature.
On an unrelated note, the sentence structure in my writing is needlessly convoluted tonight. Maybe I should get some sleep.
Rather than posting a long rebuttal of “ReverendSnow’s” suggestion that Romans 1 has been misunderstood, I will simply give a link that deals with the topic:
http://www.str.org/free/studies/homorom1.htm
http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/marco2.html
Jim in Iowa
Tim Lynch,
As someone whose passion (and career) is vested in the First Amendment, and someone who has strongly supported libraries and will continue to do so, let me state I strongly disapprove of this proposed law.
But what I take issue with people on this board and elsewhere who are trying to make this
A.) A Gay Issue- When the issue is much broader than that. It is a CENSORSHIP/BANNING issue.
B.)An example of why they “want to move to Canada” and other such cliched, canned nonsense. Unless you live in Alabama, it really won’t affect you, and as many have stated I feel this guy is grandstanding and that, even in Alabama, it won’t pass.
C.) By the way, Alabama is…unique. It is the least-taxed state in the country and is last (some argue 49th) in Education spending, yet when the Republican Governor proposed to raise taxes to increase funding for schools and basic things it had to be put to a referendum, which was soundly defeated. Now the governor, despite being Republican and trying to improve his state’s education, may be in trouble.
So be careful when you say we would be better off with a “true” democracy. Especially in this system ,people get the government they deserve. But this is just another example I have seen this week of people trying to shut other people up or shut them out.
A.)Macy’s announced this week, they will not be celebrating “Christmas” or playing Christmas songs this Holiday Season. They have to stay with the commercialized, sanitized hapy Holidays.
This is being done, of course, in the interest of being multicultural and inoffensive, when what it really does is piss a lot of people off. If they were really interested in celebrating other cultures and Holidays, why not INCLUDE rather than EXCLUDE them all. Heck, I know athests who enjoy the Christmas season. They could have Hanukkah displays and Kwanzaa displays as well. It might actually educate people and have them ask questions and learn about each others’ customs.
And Lord knows, that would be a bad thing.
So we’ll take the meaning and even the spirit of the season for millions. How inoffensive (not).
B.) At my local Borders, remember loking for “How To Make Love Like A Pørņ Star” by Jena Jameson. I loked and looked and could not find it. Finally, I went to the cashier, and what did I find, but stacks of the book waay behnd him. I asked him why they weren’t on the floor, since it was a major book release that had gotten a lot of pub. he said a “few moms” were upset.So PLAYBOY can be sold on the main floor, but this book that was obviously intended for grown-ups could not. I was so upset.
C.) The whole military-funding-the Scouts issue really hits me the wrong way. As did kids not being allowed to say they were thankful for GOd ON THEIR OWN at a certain school.
I hate censorship. I stongly believe in The Frst Amendment, as much as I do The Second Amendment.
It’s why I disagree with “hate speech”. It’s why I hate campaign-finance “reform” which restricts one of if not THE most important parts of free speech, the ability to criticize the government.
Because, for every person you shut up who disagrees with you, you are making it easier for the to do the same to you.
As Tim states, libraries are the best, sometimes the only way to get chalenging words and ideas in front of some eyes. We should always support them and allow them to buy and put on shelves as wide a variety of material as possible.
I haven’t been able to find the legislation either, but I did find his web page (which includes his home phone number):
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/house/representatives/housebios/hd062.html
Interestingly, a search of Gerald Allen at http://www.google.com/unclesam brings up a fugitive from Texas, & sex offenders in Alaska & Nebraska
Howard Stern is jumping to satelite radio because there is freedom in this country in entertainment.
At least until Michael Powell gets his way and the FCC is given the power to regulate satellite radio and cable TV.
But when it goes on the public airwaves, there is a level of decency that it should meet. (We tend to discourage people from running around a public park with nothing on or from screaming obscenities because it is a public area. The same courtesy is asked of what is broadcast on the public airwaves.)
The difference is, running around naked or shouting in a public place is disruptive to other people’s enjoyment. Nobody is forced to own a TV or radio or watch programming that they don’t like. If I run naked in front of your car, I’ve created an offensive action against you. If I want to listen to Howard Stern on my drive to work, it doesn’t affect your morning commute one bit. It all comes back to my “TVs and radios have buttons” point.
Hating gays is not a conservative position.
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
Den wrote…
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
I think/hope he was trying to say something along the lines of “hating gays is not an exclusively conservative position.”
I was in two minds about if I should post because in these discussions nobody seems to be willing to accept that there stance may be wrong so it just becomes a whos loudest competition.
Firstly my favourite sin which is mentioned far more times than the two obsurce references to homosexuality in the bible is the act of userey which is the act of charging intrest on borrowed monies. I have never once hear of anybody every say that the banks and credit card companies are sinful I don’t recall anybody protesting to get these business practices stoped so until somebosy tells me American Express is an abomination of gods law I can in no way take your opinion on what consenting adults do seriously.
As for scientific theorey versus law I was taught that something became a scientific fact or law when a theory could be suggested and then proved in a labority with the results then published and that the experiment could then be performed independently of the first achieving the pridicted results.
Things like Newton’s theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are scientifically sound but there is no experiment that we can perform to prove that forces like gravity and time work in predicted ways anywhere in the univese so these will remain theories (But basically it’s just a word)
Censorship in all forms is wrong and the product of fear and ignorance. Knowledge is power and censorship is somebody not wanting you to have that power.
Also there is fairly good mathematic evidence out there to suggest that homosexuality is a reseive genetic trait found on the x chromosome (As far as resarchers can tell homosexuality seems to be represented in the population in similar percentages as things like Colour Blindness there is however not definitive test of homosexuality so this is far from conclusive however likely)
Hating gays is not a conservative position.
Oh, but it is. Our beloved conservative president has made hating gays one of the center pieces of his campaign. He wants to write hating gays into the Constitution.
1) Our conservative President (for whom I voted) is also spending money at a rate that would make a New Dealer blush and running up massive deficits. Be wary in your definition of “conservative,” if you don’t mind.
2) Actually, he doesn’t want to write hating gays into the Constitution. He wants to write the definition of marriage as it existed when he took office into the Constitution. That’s not the same thing. (We already had this thread once, didn’t we?) To summarize: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 vote, mandated gay marriage under the Massachusetts Constitution. I would be stunned if the Defense of Marriage Act were held constitutional. Therefore, under the Comity Clause of the US Constitution, all states have to honor marriages performed in Massachusetts, irrespective of the number of genders involved. Four residents of Massachusetts have therefore been able to rewrite the domestic relations law in 50 states, including 49 in which they’re not even permitted to practice law. It is possible to find this vexing without being motivated by anti-homosexual bias, and for what it’s worth Bush appeared to be endorsing civil unions by the end of the campaign. A constitutional amendment, either in Massachusetts or at the Federal level, is the only way to overrule the SJC.
“And it’s been remarkably civil…at least it hasn’t devolved the way certain previous threads did…”
That’s probably because Glenn posted it. If I’d posted it, very likely a different reaction would result.
“The difference is, running around naked or shouting in a public place is disruptive to other people’s enjoyment.”
How anyone could possibly NOT enjoy watching someone run around naked and shouting in a public place is beyond me. I went to school at NYU. We had naked shouting people in Washington Square at least once a week. When you’re a student on a tight budget, you learn to enjoy watching whatever no-cost entertainments present themselves.
PAD
For anyone interested in explanations of scientific methodology (given all the debate here about the use of the word “proof”) can I recommend the two volumes of The Science of Discworld, which are not only entertaining, but also hugely informative (and unlike the Science of Star Trek not entirely devoted to explaining how a world that is a disc might be possible).
They deal fairly firmly with the common misunderstandings about science, which have been perpetuated largely by (a) scientists being largely unable to communicate with the lay person (b) the media distorting anything in favour of a good story and (c) primary educators oversimplifying science to make it easier for children to understand (and sometimes because they don’t understand properly themselves because of a, b and c).
“Therefore God gave them over in the LUSTS of their hearts to impurity,”
Key word there, Jim. LUSTS. ” usually intense or unbridled sexual desire” Lust, NOT love. So, heterosexual men and women, along with gay and lesbian are all guilty of that sin. Giving into love is o.k. NOT lusts.
Matthew 19:4-5 “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh [sexual intercourse].’?” NOPE! Making a child from the aformentioned intercourse is when the flesh becomes one. Maing children is the point there. Considering the overpopulation problem we’re having today, this could be deemed as one of those “for the times” passages.
God was mad at the spilling of the seed. WHY? Not becuase every sperm is sacred, but becasue he was defying God’s will.
1:26-27 “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..
“one another?” Are you SURE this means man to man sex? I know a lot of straight people that have BURNED IN THEIR desire for one another. (Yes, I know that the first site tries to make it seemlike it is, but that’s if you read it going in LOOKING for it to say that and not considering anything else also, the second site would keep me up all night refuting and I have to work.) For women to abandon the natural function could indicate that they were engageing in sexual acts that would not make a child, not that they were having gáÿ šëx. I’m not going to say how that would happen, I’m sure we all have imaginations. I also like the way they used the word ‘function” to define the word “function” The “function” of the female is to be the life giver, I think with the whole Emmacualte conception thing, we’ve proven you don’t need to have sex to accomplish that. Men can donate sperm, so we ARE living up to the functions set for us. Going with the “function” thing, that would mean that celibacy is ALSO a sin becuase it goes against the function.
So, if married couples have sex for fun, this is a sin too? Because they’re not going to be procreating?
It all depends on what and HOW you read it.
Basically, it REALLY all comes down to this. I have always been told that God has a plan for us all. We are to never know what his plan is, just that we all have our place in it. God is infallable and cannot make a mistake. Using that in mind, who’s to say that the way you interupret the Bible isn’t God’s plan for you and the way I interpret the Bible isn’t God’s plan for me? Wouldn’t that mean you were questioning God? Doesn’t that technically make you more of a heathen?
I’m not against religion. Heck, look at my name! Zealotry and the inability of MOST(not including you, Jim. I actually have respect for the way you’ve presented your ideas and beleifs.) of those follwing their leaders without thinking for themselves is what I have a problem with.
As long as you have actually READ the Bible and made your own beliefs from it and not have a preconcieved notion going in, then I have no real beef with you, even though your beliefs are different from mine.
BUT, when people seek to take from gays and lesbians the same rights that other people have, it makes me sick. They say that it’s not natural, but I sure has HÊLL don’t know any person that picked this lifestyle. Why would a gay man want to live in a society where people hate him? Why be gay? For the Quieche? If someone’s using the “it’s not natural” argument using natural to mean majority, well then, neither is being left handed but I don’t see any hate crimes against Southpaws.
If you feel that I have done gymnastics to make my point then in some cases, it’s probably true. But, in all reality when people quote the Bible to me, they’re just going by what their Reverend said and not making that descision for themselves and honestly? That’s when some gymnastics really begin.
Peace,
Larry
**
Creationism is not a scientific theory, despite what many of its supporters claim. Creationism starts with a conclusion (God created the world 6000 years ago) and then tries to tailor observations to fit that conclusion. That is the cardinal sin (excuse the phrase) of the scientific method. Read scientists accept that their theories may be overturned by new data that contradicts their previsiously held assumptions. Could some new observations that contradicts evolution be found? Sure, but given that 99% of our current understanding of biology and genetics is based on the assumption that evolution is a process by which species find ways to adapt to a changing environmental, such an observation would be equivalent to conclusive proof that the world is indeed flat./b> **
Den, what you are talking about here is not Creationism per se, but the Young Earthers interpretation of it. A fair chunk of Creationists, perhaps even the majority of them, have no problem putting a billions-year-old universe and evolution together with Genisis. They believe that when both science and religion are both properly understood that they do not contradict each other but are in harmony. Thus, if the hard evidence keeps saying ’10 billion years’ is the answer to the question ‘How old is the universe?’ then obviously the seven days of creation referred to in Genisis cannot have been 24-hour days (at least as how humans percieve and measure time); and if the hard evidence says humans decended from ape-like critters, then obviously the Genisis writers left out a few steps between ‘God played with some mud’ and ‘created Man’ (probably to keep their audience from falling asleep on them during storyhour 😉 ). And so on. The Young Earthers just get more airtime because extremist positions play better in the media than the more moderate ones.
A question about the whole ‘banning books & such with gays in them’ discussion that I haven’t seen addressed here yet: who is the final authority supposed to be on which characters/real people really are gay and which aren’t when is is not specifially stated anyplace. or outright denied that a paticular charater or person is gay? In recent years I have seen various reports about/articles by gay activists that say fictional charaters like Bugs Bunny and Elmore Fudd are a gay couple (based on the fact that Bugs dressed Fudd in dresses in some of their cartoons, implying Fudd is also a transexual) and that the purple Teletubbie is gay based on the fact that it is, well, purple, and carries a purse everywhere with it. The Spongebob Squarepants movie implies that there is a fair amount of speculation floating around about what the ‘true’ relationship is between him and Patrick the Starfish. In cases such as these, who is supposed to have the final say as to whether these are really ‘gay’ characters or not? The gay activists who have an overwhelming desire in making it seem like every pop culture icon is really a homosexual icon just below the surface, or the creators of said charaters who emphatically denied any such intent, either overtly or subvertly? (The Warners creators have publicly denied that the Bugs/Fudd relationship was ever intended to be seen as gay; I think I have seen someplace that the Teletubbies creator(s) never intended the purple one to be percieved as gay; I have no clue about what the Spongebob creators have said about the Spongebob/Patrick thing.) In cases involving historical people such as Michaelangelo, who is supposed to have the final say about whether he was homosexual or not — gay activists (who again would have a vested interest in making him one of ‘their own’) or art historians (who would provide an alternate in-culture answer to what he was trying to accomplish in certain of his paintings and drawings)? Or in cases such as Siegfried & Roy, who have never PUBLICLY stated one way or the other what their private relationship has been/currently is; would the librarians be required to take an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ stance (so to speak) when is comes to public people who are percieved as being gay, or would they be required to take every ‘mind your own @#$%$% business!’ answer and non-answer to the ‘are you gay?’ question as an automatic ‘yes’ and act accordingly?
Chris
Jerome says:
“At my local Borders, remember looking for “How To Make Love Like A Pørņ Star” by Jena Jameson.”
Jerome, you stud! 🙂 I’ll bet you used to write fake letters to Penthouse with your buddies in college, you know, the ones that always started with “I never thought this would happen to me” or “I guess it was my lucky day”. Or maybe that was me…
“Interestingly, a search of Gerald Allen at http://www.google.com/unclesam brings up a fugitive from Texas, & sex offenders in Alaska & Nebraska”
Not to slander Rep. Allen since he is (coff coff) OBVIOUSLY not one of the men mentioned above…but I notice that some of the folks who are most obsessed with homosexuality are sometimes struggling with the issue themselves. No, I’m not pointing a finger at anyone on this thread, but when you devote your life to an issue, as Fred Phelps has, it is probably near and dear to your heart.
Jeff says:
“I think/hope he was trying to say something along the lines of “hating gays is not an exclusively conservative position.”
Well thanks, but I would argue that it is not a conservative position OR a liberal one, though there are many conservatives and liberals who do hate gays. So Den’s statement that hating gays is a conservative position because he believes that Bush hates gays makes as much sense as saying it is a liberal position because Castro hates gays. A poor argument.
//Posted by: REVERENDSNOW
If someone’s using the “it’s not natural” argument using natural to mean majority, well then, neither is being left handed but I don’t see any hate crimes against Southpaws.//
I’m not sure it would qualify as a hate crime in this day and age, but during the first part of the 20th century (and maybe decades earlier?) it was the commom practice, ordered and enforced by various doctors and scientests, to take Southpaws and ‘train’ them to make their right hands their dominate hand rather than their left hands, lest they become degenerates or something like that. Thankfully that is no longer the case. This Southpaw is messed up enough as it is without having to deal with what that kind of ‘reprogramming’ would have done to my brain. 🙂
Chris
I said Prove that evolution is a fact Luigi.
to which TWL said You really didn’t bother reading any of the discussion, did you? Prove to me that we didn’t all appear five minutes ago with implanted memories after being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
I did read it as a matter of fact, thanks for asking. Did you read my post? It was directed at Luigi since he stated evolution was a fact, but thanks for adding your two cents though.
Novafan
I said Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from and if I accidentally step on these creatures when I go outside. I wouldn’t want to accidentally destroy some potential new civilization that might evolve over time.
to which TWL said Well, then, you’re pretty much screwed from the git-go, pilgrim. Given that for the overwhelming majority of Earth’s history, all life was one-celled and overwhelmingly bacterial, you’re potentially killing off future civilizations every time you take a breath, take a step, or take a bite of food. Just pretend they’re Democrats — given your past opinions, that should certainly get rid of any guilt you might have about killing them.
That’s a pretty crappy thing to say. You justify killing by having someone pretend it’s someone you have a difference of opinion with. Hmmm. I bet that’s the justification for a lot of bad things people do.
This was said “And it’s been remarkably civil…at least it hasn’t devolved the way certain previous threads did…”
to which Peter said That’s probably because Glenn posted it. If I’d posted it, very likely a different reaction would result.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t you have Glenn post all threads that are potentially controversial, that way you never have to worry about it. :0)
Is there such a thing as the “gay agenda”? And if so, is this proposed law an aid or a detriment to the cause?
Enquiring minds want to know. :0)
Novafan
Den, what you are talking about here is not Creationism per se, but the Young Earthers interpretation of it. A fair chunk of Creationists, perhaps even the majority of them, have no problem putting a billions-year-old universe and evolution together with Genisis.
The date of the earth is not at issue. At issue is the creationists assumption that all life can only exist because of divine intervention. A real scientist will not take any preconceived notion until the data collected have been found to support it.
Den said The date of the earth is not at issue. At issue is the creationists assumption that all life can only exist because of divine intervention. A real scientist will not take any preconceived notion until the data collected have been found to support it.
So, are you saying that there are no creationists that are real scientists?
1) Our conservative President (for whom I voted) is also spending money at a rate that would make a New Dealer blush and running up massive deficits. Be wary in your definition of “conservative,” if you don’t mind.
He calls himself a conservative. I’m just taking him at his word. You aren’t suggesting that our beloved president would lie, now are you?
2) Actually, he doesn’t want to write hating gays into the Constitution. He wants to write the definition of marriage as it existed when he took office into the Constitution. That’s not the same thing. (We already had this thread once, didn’t we?)
And why is this such a burning issue? Because he and his key supporters hate gays!
As for Castro hating gays, remember that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” don’t necessarily mean the same thing in other countries as they do in the US. In America, the party that hates gays is the conservative party.
Deal with it.
I think it’s fairly obvious that Tinky Winky is not gay.
I mean, what gay man would ever accessorize purple fur with a red purse?? Eewwww….
On the other hand, Dipsy prances every bit as much, loves to wear that silly-looking cow-pattern hat (leather?), and has what appears to be a giant dìldø growing out of his head.
Did Rev. Wildmon spot the wrong gay Teletubbie? 🙂
So, are you saying that there are no creationists that are real scientists?
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Tell him what he’s won, Don Pardo!
Well, Den, Novafan has won a hundred copies of Youngblood #1, signed by Rob Liefeld himself!
That Phinn guy is one smart cookie:
“Think what you will of homosexuals, their children (adopted or otherwise) should not be subject to ridicule and humiliation by their peers; teaching acceptance is what the Bible is all about and I find it ridiculous that modern “Christians” often forget the heart of the message that Jesus preached. He was a pacifist who taght his followers to turn the other cheek.”
I just felt it needed to be repeated.
Peace,
Doug
Novafan: Please let us know what we supposedly evolved from
Jim in Iowa —
I feel like we are debating two different issues. I don’t remember the original post saying anything about textbooks. I am not trying to be difficult, but just trying to understand why they entered the picture.
Take a look at (a) Glenn’s original post at the top of the thread, and (b) EClark’s initial question about things being “taught as proof”. Textbooks are explicitly mentioned in the first, and implied in the second. The media (e.g. Time magazine, which you’re bringing up here) didn’t enter into the initial discussion at all.
That’s where the textbook issue came up. You still want to claim I’m being unfair to people, that’s your call, but don’t expect much agreement on this end.
David — thanks for the clarifications and corrections.
Jerome —
1) My school struggles with the “holiday” issue every year, and in the last couple of years has generally come down on the side of “mention ’em all”, as you suggest. There are still all sorts of perceived imbalances on many sides, but on balance it seems to be working out pretty well. (Personally, as an atheist I’d be happier not to have umpty-ump assemblies cutting into class time while celebrating belief systems I happen not to share, but I’ve no doubt other people have a similar reaction to school events I find fascinating, so that’s pretty much a wash.)
2) I’m surprised at the Borders story you mention. I’m certainly not questioning it, but my local Borders had the book on very prominent display last time I happened to be in there.
(Hey, given how well she’s done with that title, should PAD consider titling his next book “How to Make Love Like a Writer”?)
TWL
“In America, the party that hates gays is the conservative party.”
But Bush is a Republican. I think you’re confused.
If being against gay marriage means you “hate gays”, then both candidates in the last election (ok, both MAJOR candidates) hate gays.
Considering that the new RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman, is being “accused” of being gay by some Democrats (because, you see, anyone who is 38, single, and keeps his personal life to himself, MUST be gay, dontcha know?)there are plenty of bigots to be found on both sides.
If he is gay…gosh, how could the “gay hating” party possibly nominate him for the post? If he isn’t gay…gosh, how could the “gay friendly” party possibly think that homosexuality is the worst smear they could come up with?
There’s good and bad on both sides. Deal with that. Or don’t, if it rocks your world too much.
Seems that many scientists follow the preconceived notion that matter suddenly appeared from absolute nothingness without the collected data supporting it.
Well, Luigi Novi convinced me.
I started somewhere up this thread denying that there could be such a thing as a scientific fact. My legal background gave me a bias, because, from a courtroom/lawyer perspective, facts are absolutes. They are the things that are not left to a jury to decide. If ballistic evidence indicates that this gun, with the suspects prints and DNA all over it, was the very weapon used to kill the victim, that is a legal fact, and not for the jury to decide.
Luigi presents a very good explanation for scientific facts. Although I think to a point we’re line-walking. A scientific fact only remains so until some new piece of information comes along and contradicts the old information. For example, it was once a scientific fact that the sun and moon and stars once rotated around a stationary Earth. Until astronomical science reached a sophistication level that revealed otherwise.
So, from that point of view, I’ll agree that evolution is a scientific fact.
That doesn’t mean it’s correct. It’s just the best we can do with the information we’ve been able to uncover so far.