One Man + One Woman = Double Standard

Wired reports that the American Family Association has decided not to submit the results of their recent gay marriage poll to Congress, as their Web site had previously promised, because:

It just so happens that homosexual activist groups around the country got a hold of the poll -- it was forwarded to them -- and they decided to have a little fun, and turn their organizations around the country (onto) the poll to try to cause it to represent something other than what we wanted it to. And so far, they succeeded with that.

So, when they were just sending this around to their own anti-gay mailing lists, that was all according to Hoyle. But when "homosexual activist groups" (or libertarian weblogs and thousands of other regular folks not on the AFA blast list) get in on the action, they've "done a number" on the poll. Obviously, any poll of this kind is meaningless. But if the leaders of the AFA had half a testicle (or ovum) between them, they'd follow through on their initial statement and forward the numbers whatever the result.

Comments

[Chris]

This country suffers from manic tolerance. It will be our demise, of that I'm sure. Moral relativism is flawed logic, and it seems alot people on this board suffer from it. God dictates what is right and wrong and he has stated that perverse sexual love is wrong. I as a Christian must support that absolute truth regardless of social leanings.

[Doc]

Chris, kiss my gay hairy ass. 😉

Your irreligious piety is the true peversion.

[Julian Sanchez]

Having different moral views is not the same as moral relativism. Denying equal rights to homosexuals is stupid and wrong. There's not a jot of relativism about that stance.

[rst]

Fanatical religious people tend not to be concerned with scientific validity.

Fanatical secularists (the French minister of ed for instance) can be just as bad.

God dictates what is right and wrong and he has stated that perverse sexual love is wrong. I as a Christian must support that absolute truth regardless of social leanings.

Render unto Caesar what is his by right, and give God what God is due. As a Christian your responsibility is to live your life according to the law of the Lord. You are to be the lamp on the hill, a beacon to which others are drawn. Exactly how "upright" is a people in the eyes of the Lord when the tenets of the Christian faith are forced upon them? Silly legislation saves no one. If you cannot maintain your faith without help from a government, then your faith is not worth shit.

You can continue rendering lip service to your faith if you like, but real Christians will keep their stones to themselves, and leave judgement to the Lord.

Here endeth the sermon.

[rst]

This country suffers from manic tolerance.

Yeah, it's like dining with tax collectors and prostitutes. Unfathomable that a Christian might do such a thing.

[Randy]

Citizen said:

"Yeah, and we'd never see this kind of behavior from non-religous people, say the folks at BBC4, just for an example. Hey, they probably all like baseball and apple pie too, anyone want to blame it on that, or is being religous just an easy scapegoat?"

I didn't say that it NEVER occurs among non-religious people. However, religions are based on non-scientific data. They rely on faith (the belief that something is so even though you can't say why) to define the world and everything in it. If you're expecting anything close to scientific data from people who believe their religion should be the first and only source of justice, you're wasting your time. If a religious group has an agenda to push, there is no way anything approaching useful information will be offered. Do I expect similar practices from others? Sure, at times. People with agendas may sometimes employ this strategy. However, it is inherently wrong-headed to expect people who would ignore the law to favor their religion to have any regard for honesty or integrity. Hypocrisy is the result of zeal combined with ignorance.

[Sexually Ambiguous]

Amen.
Er, women.
Whatever.

[Will]

Did I miss something? Since when are gays allowed to participate in non-scientific internet polls? Isn?t there anything the AFA can do to keep gays from accessing their website? Like make it illegal or something? Let?s hope a law is passed soon ? other wise who knows how far the horde of degenerate, gay homosexuals will go before they spoil the entire internet!

[Madog]

Heck, I'd be happy if marriages were a religious thing that the government stayed out of, and instead the government gave civil unions to whoever wanted them, same sex or different.

[Will]

so why would Congress act on the advice of this puny segment of ass-backwards Americana

Please don't underestimate the religious right in this country. We have a sitting president who visited Bob Jones University during his 2000 campaign and has said that he supports legal language (and possible and amendment to the constitution) that specifically bans gays from marriage.

The AFA and other right wing religious groups may be in the OVERALL minority of Americans - but they are very vocal, have great voter turn out (hey, those church vans aren't just for taking seniors to the mall) and for the most part have tons of cash to throw at canidates who pimp and subvert the democratic process for them.

[Will]

God dictates what is right and wrong

Spoken like a true Muslim.

[Citizen]

Sure, at times. People with agendas may sometimes employ this strategy.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for,

If a religious group has an agenda to push, there is no way anything approaching useful information will be offered.

Randy,
This statement is the kind of thing I might expect you and Chris to agree on. But I wonder, how can you be sure that you're right? I mean, where is the imperical evidence of this? Show me the libraries of laboritory studies documenting repeatable observation. It looks to me like an awfully subjective (non-scientific, possibly non-rational!) statement that you're dumping your opinions and values into. After all, it's not a logical impossibility that a religous group would use scientific evidence to support their claims.

For clarification, are we gonna get into it, or are we just talking about getting into it? Neither of us needs to be flamed for being the "religion debater on a nonreligious website assholes."

The reality is that the AFA started a bogus poll that was high-jacked by folks wanting to make fools of the AFA and their poll. It worked. Hurrah. It's been done before by activists of all stripes and will continue to be used. Shame.

[Will]

I'd be happy if marriages were a religious thing that the government stayed out of

Madog, I agree entirely. I find it interesting that conservatives are so anxious to privatize everything under the sun, yet look to the government to enforce a strict rule on who and what marriage is all about.

I say - let marriage be privatized. The government can do the civil union paper work and let the churches sort out who can and can't be married. For example - if you're gay and want a religious ceremony - you should seek out a willing church... the government at no point should be involved.

Further, as a non-believer... I wonder where this religious intolerance will stop. Will there come a day in this country where atheists will not be able to wed? What about pagans or other non-Christians? Freaky stuff...

Oh, yeah - I've posted a lot to this thread... it's only because I think this issue is a loosing battle for the religious fuck-wits in this country and I like to kick'em when their down. 😉

[Citizen]

Will,
So which is it? Is America stuck in a perpetual spiral to religous intolerance or is it "a loosing battle for the religious fuck-wits in this country"?

As a religious person, I also agree with Maddog and I think there are a lot of others like me. One point of contention though, Will, do we really need gov't to "do the civil union paper work" or can't we toss that, too?

[David McElroy]

This isn't even anything to get excited about, in my view. Why? Because it's a standard thing that just about every group does. Some people might laugh at this one because it's a religious group, but it could just as easily be something like the ACLU or People for the American Way. Heck, even news organizations have "polls" on their sites of this same kind. These sorts of self-selecting things have about as much validity as if I polled my cats and dogs about presidential preferences. (I suspect the cats would tend to be libertarian, but who knows?)

Without wading into the flamefest that always ensues from the mention of any religious group, though, it continues to amaze me that otherwise rational libertarians have such incredible prejudice about religious people -- and can't seem to understand that there is no more fertile ground for recruiting potential libertarians than among conservative Christians, if they're recruited in the right way instead of being ridiculed.

[B.P.]

Hey Will -- GWB's pronouncements on gays and marriage aren't necessarily a specific pander to the religious right. There's a huge mass of people in this country that are not of the religious right who oppose gay marriage for various irreligious reasons; much of it based on the ick factor alone, I would guess.

[late for the boom]

B.P I find kimche and the consumption of it horribly gross, the smell of it, the way someone smells after years of eating it, its enough to make me want to gag. I find there are plenty of people who feel as strongly or more about the issue then I do. Can I get a law against the manufacture or consumption of it, because of the ick factor and all.

Heck, seeing 2 lesbians kiss on the sidewalk is not nearly as gross as kimche.

Sounds pretty absurd dont you think??

You know for a nation that preaches tolerance, there is little tolerance really going on. And as for Christians, you know, the love compassion and tolerance religion, they dont have much tolerance for anyone that does not share in thier beliefs, gays, athiests, pro-choicers, muslims, etc. etc.

I have the fortune, or disfortune, however you want to look at it, of living in Colorado Springs, home of Focus on the Family. Weekly our airwaves are polluted by Dr. Dobson and his radio address. I have listened to it, just to see what he has to say, and let me tell you, short of a KKK meeting, I havent heard someone preach of hate and intolerance as much as this crazy fanatic preaches. Death to homosexuals and atheists, laws forbiding just about anything fun or something that he personaly dislikes etc. etc.

There is a reason why religious people are held in such contempt by circles such as reason, a large majority of them ARE crazy, and thier faith allows for such fanatisisim that rational minded people have a hard time respecting thier views.

Chris's post above is a great example of this....

[Warren]

hehehe That's pretty darn funny.
Actually I admire the honesty (if not the courage) of the AFA for coming right out and saying; We're not going to present the results because they "represent something other than what we wanted it to."

What's less funny, is a flagrant equal protection violation being perpetuated by intolerant bigots in the name of divine mandate.

[Lonewacko]

Presumably, their poll came with the unstated assumption that it was for their members or others who would access their website not just to vote in the poll. If I say I'm going to send a big postcard to the troops in support of their efforts, and it's subsequently defaced by "peace" protesters, I have not reneged on my promise to send the card.

Every law or statement, even legal agreements, includes a set of assumptions.

[joe]

"If you're expecting anything close to scientific data from people who believe their religion should be the first and only source of justice, you're wasting your time." Where do you get the idea that being a believer means you believe your religion is the only source of truth? OK, I know where you get it, but it ain't so. Newton was a believer. Heck, Galileo was a believer. Just because some religious authorities set it up as either/or doesn't mean you have to pick reason or religion.

[Chris]

I knew I'd get flamed for my views especially from non Christians and those who "think" they know the Bible. I'm totally surprised no one brought out the old "judge not, lest ye be judged" line. That's the biggest hook they have...a pretextual misused quote from the Bible. As a Christian we are called to be the salt and the light of the world and should call a wrong a wrong regardless who it offends.

BTW, there is no proof of any gay gene. Most researchers will tell you its due to choice, or past experience. Why is everything OK as long as it doens't affect you personally? When my neighbor gets robbed it doens't affect me but it is still wrong. I don't want my kid growing up being told that 2% of the population represents a "form of normal". They are sexual deviants and should be looking for a cure, not an excuse. Go check out Exodus International for success stories of ex homos turning away from their lifestyle.

Think gays are truly happy?? Think again.

[joe]

So Chris, is the founder of Exodus gay this week, or not? It's so hard to keep up.

[B.P.]

Excellent troll, Chris! I'll let all of my gay friends know that they're not happy.

[Jim Walsh]

I voted on the poll, and ever since I've been getting email, and even phone calls (how'd they get my numer?) from "pro-family" groups asking for my support in fighting the "homosexual agenda" and helping out poor Judge Roy Moore. I've had a lot of fun telling them where to go, but I'm getting kind of tired of it now, and I just wish they'd just go away.

[Mohammad]

Hey, jesus is too gay. I should know since we're butt buddies up here!

[Justin Barstow]

Do folks who trot out the whole "sex with a man is an abomination" line from the bible also not suffer a witch to live? Miss Cleo seems to be doing OK, and the Wiccans are thriving in the southwest. Not eat a kid boiled in it's own mother's milk? OK, that's not so hard. What about the lines in the same book aout the appropriateness of slavery? Or how having sex with an animal is also an abomination. Are you ready to keep farmboys out of the army cause they get a little too comfy with their critters? Jeez, that would ban basically the entire south and midwest from serving their country!

I've always found it strange how folks pick and choose from the bible. I can respect folks who live by all the rules, but only the ones you like? You're no different than any of these other idiots and heretics posting on Hit & Run.

[Russ]

Hey Chris...

I'm aware that the Word of God clearly prohibits homosexual acts (Lev 18:22), but the Word of God also prohibits a whole lot of other things...

I hope you're not fond of eating bacon? The Bible has something to say about that, if I recall correctly. (Lev. 11:7)

or eating beef fat for that matter... (Lev. 7:22)

or ordering your steak rare... (Lev 19:26)

or eating seafood... (Lev 11:10)

or wearing polyester/cotton blends... (Lev. 19:19)

or getting tattoos (Lev. 19:28)

I hope that you're not just selectively picking out the rules that you want to follow and dismissing the rest.

Because, wouldn't you know... the Word of God has something to say about that too:

Lev 19:27 " 'Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD .' "

[Russ]

Whoops... that last one should have been (Lev. 19:37).

I guess I will have to offer the high priests a sacrifice of atonement.

[late for the boom]

Chris, let me remind you, and your christian fundies, GOD did not write the Constitution, I am under no obligation to follow god or his followers laws.

Let me also remind you, that the law of this land, at least for now is based on the Constitution, not the bible, and not gods word.

Furthermore, I, as an american citizen am guarenteed the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, whatever those pursuits might be, as long as those pursuits are lawful. Homosexuality is legal in the US, and the Supreme Court recently struck down sodamy laws as unconstitutional. You might feel that homosexuals are imoral and wrong, thats your perogative, and a right given to you by the Constitution. You do NOT have the right to push that view on me, another great thing about the freedoms of our great country.

The Constitution gives us many rights and freedoms, the one you DO NOT HAVE is freedom from offense, there is a good reason for that... enjoy it.

[dhex]

gay people are very unhappy. that's why they're called gay.

see? it's ironic!

[rst]

Chris, I hope that kid of yours grows up to be a bird-puffer. Then you can actually make a moral distinction for yourself, instead of letting priests and senators do it for you.

[rst]

there is no proof of any gay gene.

There is no proof of God, either. Most researchers will tell you that he doesn't exist.

Why is everything OK as long as it doens't affect you personally?

My neighbor being robbed would affect me personally. As a Christian I should rightly protect my neighbor from harm. So should I beat the shit out of him because he's gay? Is that loving my neighbor as myself? Or is that concept a part of the Christian message you choose to deny?

[Chris]

Russ, your ignorance of the Bible is astounding. It amazes me how well you can quote the Old Testament but not know anything about the Bible as a whole. The dietary guidlines were for the safety and cleanliness of the people...they were for their own good, not to punish. Christ changed the guidlines when said that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out of his mouth. Plus when Christ died on the cross we came under a new covenant with God sealed with the blood of Christ.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind as to teh absolute truthfullness of the Bible. You all are blinded by your lack of faith. I only plant the seed, the rest is up to God. Let me say though that is is very unwise not to secure your eternal future thru faith in Christ. He is the ONLY way to God.

[Jon H]

If the ick factor were good enough to ban marriage, fat people would be unable to marry, and couples would have to break up after getting old. Perhaps there should be a requirement to get your marriage license renewed every 5 years, at which time you'll be trotted out naked before some judges and rated on your attractiveness.

Just to piss off the AFA, someone should impersonate them and send Congress the "results of an AFA poll", stating that its members strongly believe bathroom stalls in public buildings should have glory holes drilled in the walls.

[late for the boom]

Chris,
I dont think anyone is trying to change your mind... I think we have all dealt enough with Fundies to know its fruitless...

What we are trying to do is, once again remind you that, GOD did not write the constitution or the laws here in the US, we are under no obligation to follow them, nor is there concequence for not.

I know its a concept that is hard for Fundies of any religion to understand, but its a very basic principle.

As to my following of gods law, if there is a day that I must stand in front of some god and account for my actions, I am prepared, and take full responsability for my life, I dont need a crutch to lean on or a savior to help me.

[rst]

You all are blinded by your lack of faith.

As you are blinded by your plentitude thereof. Nothing about your faith makes you right. You read a book, you believed it. Good for you. Fortunately for the rest of us, we don't have to agree with you. So you and yours can run along with your unenforceable opinions while the rest of us watch the world sink into the ninth level of Gehenna and enjoy every minute of it. There ain't shit you can do about it. Your child is going to grow up in a permissive society. Homosexuality isn't going to be made illegal all of the sudden just because you're worried about what your kid is going to be exposed to. Popular opinion does not sway the Supreme Court. If you're really afraid, lock him/her/it in a closet or something. Maybe if you go set up a Christian Caliphate somewhere the 700 Club will flock to you. But as far as the U.S. goes, the slide is towards the left. Keep your hands to yourself and enjoy the ride.

[B.P.]

I wasn't suggesting that the ick factor is a good reason for banning gay marriage, but it's nonetheless a justification that many nonreligious folk use to justify support for a gay marriage ban. They usually dress it up with talk of norms and nature and such, but "ick" is the underlying thrust of the argument.

[rst]

It's not ick, it's just, "why?" There's no need. There are already civil unions. No need to ban it, no need to redefine it, no need to do any of that silly philosophical shit. A practical solution for a quasi-problem. Is that too hard for folks to grasp? It just goes away, and eventually society warms to it and accepts it like everything else. Is it going to be tough for "newlywed" gays? Sure. But if you want it easy, don't be different. Society is not obliged to accomodate you. We're just obliged not to beat the shit out of or harass you.

[Randy]

Joe, you're a little slow, my friend. You'll notice I was speaking about people who believe their religion should be the FIRST AND ONLY source of justice. There's a difference between being a believer and attempting to thrust your belief upon everyone else.

Until some deity or deities appear and get voted into office, and subsequently amend the Constitution to include religious doctrine, the first, but not only, source of justice is secular law, as determined by the Constitution.

I never said the problem was believers in general. It's people who believe their religion is not only their supreme source of justice, but should be everyone's first, only, and supreme source of justice. It's too bad you couldn't understand that. I'll type slower next time.

[Aaron]

Chris says:

I don't want my kids growing up being told that it is acceptable to believe in nonexistant beings or that having conversations with people that can't be proven to exist represents a "form of normal". They are likely theists and should be looking for a cure. Maybe we should outlaw the practice of religion too.

[Aaron]

Actually Chris didn't say that. I did in rebuttal to his statement. Apparently the posting software didn't like my HTML italic tag

[Russ]

So Chris,

Just to be clear here...

The Bible is the absolute and true Word of God.

Except for that first part, that's not really the Word of God, or at least it was until God changed His mind, thereby making only the latter part of the Bible, when spoken by Jesus of Nazareth or his followers, the absolute and true Word of God. Is that about right?

Then how do you account for this little gem from the Sermon on the Mount:

(Matt 5:17-19) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law..."

And don't be so sure that I'm ignorant of the Bible. This here atheist spent 15 years in Catholic schools.

[Steve in CO]

"And don't be so sure that I'm ignorant of the Bible. This here atheist spent 15 years in Catholic schools."

Russ,

The most knowledgable ones always do.

Regards,

Steve

🙂

[some smartass]

Chris: ... it is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out of his mouth ...

So I guess you're okay, as long as you swallow.

[grylliade]

You all are blinded by your lack of faith.

Not all of us, thank you very much. Some of us just think that what the Bible says about God's law and what civil law should be are two entirely different things. Let us assume for the moment that homosexuality is a sin (I'm not persuaded that it is, but we'll assume it anyways). Whether or not it is illegal in the U.S., God will judge those who are gay. If it is legal, do you seriously think that God will judge those of us who wanted it to be legal? Do you think that all who lived in the U.S. when slavery was legal will be judged by God the same as slaveowners are? As far as I can tell, the Bible teaches individual responsiblity; no one will be held to account for anyone's sins other than their own. So why are you so concerned about homosexuals being allowed to marry? How in the world does it really affect you?

Plus when Christ died on the cross we came under a new covenant with God sealed with the blood of Christ.

So why are so many Christians still acting as if we're all subject to the old covenant? Just a question.

[parochial taugh, self-educated]

I think the problem with religion in this country in general is that most 'religious people' do not fully understand the tenets of their own faith, and act soley on broad generalizations that have no real support anywhere in the doctrines they suppossedly hold so dear. I do not see how allowing gay marriage in any way interferes with the daily lives of anyone else, except that they may beleive it might lead to a moral decline in society. But any argument made in this vein is absolutely ridiculous at best (I actually heard someone say that gay marriage will lead to a society that would condone pedophilia, don't ask me how). Maybe the reason the theists are so concerned is that this increased tolerance will only highlight their own intolerance and and make their arguments and themselves increasingly obsolete. This idea of course clearly leaves out those whose faith is a deeply personal matter that they wish to keep private.

(a different) Chris

[Phil]

Chris:

BTW, there is no proof of any gay gene. Most researchers will tell you its due to choice, or past experience.

I would like a citation for both of these statements, please. And they'd better be from a refereed genetic research publication and social science publication, respectively, or I will assume that you are exactly as stupid as you present yourself to be.

Why is everything OK as long as it doens't affect you personally? When my neighbor gets robbed it doens't affect me but it is still wrong.

Actually, it does affect you, particularly if the perpetrator is not arrested. Can you explain for me now how your neighbor getting robbed and your neighbor spending an evening at home with his boyfriend are remotely analogous?

grylliade:

So why are so many Christians still acting as if we're all subject to the old covenant?

In regards to the gay issue, it's because of one word in in verse of one book of the New Testament.

[parochial taught, self-educate]

Oh yeah, I forgot. Official Catholic teaching is that homosexuality is not a sin in and of itself. It is only when homosexual desires are acted upon that they become sinful. So what if two impotent old gay men wanted to get married, is there anything wrong with that? Just a thought.

(a different) Chris

[Les]

I'm hardly a theology expert, but why is it the God worshipped by fundamentalists (of all stripes) is an asshole? I mean, if you read the Old Testament literally (hundreds of contradictions and all), that Guy is just an asshole, isn't He?

I often wonder why a person would choose to worship an Asshole.

[Rich]

BTW, there is no proof of any gay gene.

Actually, the whole concept of a "gay gene" is pretty scientifically uninformed. Anyone with an rudimentary understanding of genetics could tell you that there is no gay gene just as there is no tall gene, short gene, red haired gene or risk-taker gene. The talk of genes for this and that are really just short-hand used by the media (who rarely understand the concepts) to communicate with a scientifically uninformed public.

There are certain alleles which encode for the manufacture of certain polypeptides and these alleles in certain combinations may manifest themselves in various ways in the context of the organism (possibly influencing one's sexual orientation - though these claims are considered very controversal in biological circles as are most claims of genes for this or that). Claims that a given allele encodes for the production of a certain protein, on the other hand, are far more reasonable and generally this is where the real science is taking place. Certainly, one day, we will have a greater idea of how these proteins work together to create the structure and behaviour of organisms but we are not there. And we are starting simple - figuring out the encoding for behaviour as complex as sexual orientation is quite beyond us for now - though with newer technologies (better algorithms, AI, quantum computing) it might not be too long.

That said, I'm fully agnostic on whether gayness is nature or nuture. And Chris is full of shit anyhow.

[Rich]

Les,
Look up Gnostics/Demiurge - Great stuff. Yes, I agree, God is certainly an asshole. One of the greatest fictional villans of all time I'd say.

[jon]

When I got married, I had to do two things: pay a filing fee and sign a contract. How this civil act is God's domain is beyond me. My wife and I didn't get married in a church, no clergy were present (unless a judge counts as a secular priest), and we didn't have a single mention of God. And somehow, we've had eight years (and soon four children) of marital bliss.

My wife's cousin had an official marriage which was a sham. It was no more a sham than a Britney Spears or a Liza Minelli wedding, but somehow her gay cousin marrying a woman was legal. It lasted a bit longer than those celebrity marriages, but still ended in divorce. He has since unofficially married his boyfriend. They've been happy for over four years now.

And my marriage hasn't suffered one bit. My wife and I still trust, love, respect, and care for each other just as much as we did before her cousin entered his "marriage" with his paramour.

If anyone can pinpoint the exact damage to my marriage that their horrible civilisation-destroying "marriage" has done to me, please post.

[davidf]

kinda like the bbc4 and guns poll.

thanks to Tim Sandefur & Eric for the link.

(from: sandefur.blogspot.com/2004_01_11_sandefur_archive.htm)
"Too good to be true: British MP Stephen Pound promised to enact whichever piece of legislation was voted most popular by BBC Radio 4 listeners. When they voted for the Martin Law, which permits homeowners to use lethal force in confronting intruders, he petulantly called them ?bastards?.

The Sun now reports that the Dishonorable Pound has broken his promise, refusing to enact he Martin Law. Of course, this is only Britain?s latest affront in its century-long campaign to disarm its citizens and leave them unable to defend themselves against criminals."

additional links:
(198.30.217.73/noleftturns/default.asp?archiveID=3374)
(techcentralstation.com/081902M.html)

[amr]

"ovum" = egg. The proper female analog to testicle would be ovary.

[rst]

"...to try to cause it to represent something other than what we wanted it to."

So essentially AFA wanted to take a sampling of its readers, who would all or for the most part by ideological definition oppose gay marriage, and present it to Congress as an indicator of what path they should take in "defending marriage". If you don't want something controversial ruined by the public, don't put it in a public place.

So here we are caught in a catfight between bible bangers and fags over a social institution that's got a coin toss' chance of success anyway. Why this is more important than education and health care, who knows.

[A Typical]

Ha ha.
No "good" deed goes unpunished.

[Randy]

This was hardly a surprise. Fanatical religious people tend not to be concerned with scientific validity. The survey was invalid because the sample group was hand-picked instead of random. Surveys are not meant to bolster a personal opinion; they're meant to portray the opinion of a cross section of the population at large. Just goes to show that there is no non-religious purpose for banning same-sex marriage.

[Mikiel]

Just for fun, click on the link to the site again. When I do it I get this error:

You are not authorized to view this page
Background:
This error is caused when the server has a list of IP addresses that are not allowed to access the site, and the IP address you are using is in this list.

I filled out their petition in favor of gay marriage back when it was posted in the blog, and I have a static IP address. 🙂

To be fair, I don't think it's very nice to criticize religious groups for being inconsistent when it's one of the few things they do well.

[Satan Here]

Wasn't Jesus gay?
He looks kinda gay.
That's funny, he doesn't look Jewish...

[anon]

Hmmm, has anyone, or know anyone, that has ever been called by Gallup or Zogby for their surveys?

[Mikiel]

Seems I spoke too soon. A few minutes later I'm able to access the site again. Good thing too, since I desperately need more religious indoctrination!

[Steve]

I've just filed a comment with afa.net. (Find the form at http://www.afa.net/contact.asp) This is what I've sent them:

---------------snip------------

Dear Sirs:

I have just read that you have reneged on your promise to send the results of the Marriage Poll to members of Congress. I am badly hurt by your breach of faith. I had placed great trust in the integrity and honesty of the upstanding members of the American Family Association, and it pains me to see such values subverted in the name of political gain.

I voted in the Marriage Poll in a genuine effort to have my views, and the consensus of the community, presented as promised. Even though the community consensus comes as a surprise to many, that surprise does not and can not release you from your obligation to follow through on your promise. I fear that in light of your reversal, I can no longer trust your word. You have betrayed my trust, and have fallen to the level of your enemies' expectations. Shame on you!

---------------snip---------------

That ought to get their panties in a twist.

[rst]

they're meant to portray the opinion of a cross section of the population at large.

Exactly, so why would Congress act on the advice of this puny segment of ass-backwards Americana over a different puny segment of it? I think they fully intended to misrepresent the survey to Congress.

Personally I'm ready to move on to more important things. Civil unions will spread (especially if Mass adopts them alongside VT). Gays who want to couple up for however long their little walk in the cloud lasts will be able to do so. The crapshoot of marriage will endure. This doesn't require half as much debate as it has been given.

[Kevin Carson]

Hilarious.

Atrios has a regular feature called "Torture Lou," in which he links to a Lou Dobbs poll.

The practice is called Fristing, going back to a poll on judicial confirmations Bill Frist had on his website. He changed the wording of the question ("Should the Senate faithfully execute its constitutional duty...?") several times in the middle of the process, to get the outcome he wanted. But still, he wound up getting about 90% the other way, just from people deliberately sabotaging it.

[Zounds!]

All of you are going to hell!
I'll bring the keg.

[Citizen]

This was hardly a surprise. Fanatical religious people tend not to be concerned with scientific validity.

Yeah, and we'd never see this kind of behavior from non-religous people, say the folks at BBC4, just for an example. Hey, they probably all like baseball and apple pie too, anyone want to blame it on that, or is being religous just an easy scapegoat?

[asg]

Another small irony is that Chris thinks he's not a moral relativist and the rest of us are, but of course *he* is the moral relativist, since he thinks the morality of an action depends on someone's perspective or opinion (namely, God's). Divine command theory is just a disguised form of moral relativism. How's it feel to be postmodern, Chris?

Of course, it is entirely possible that Chris, despite hurling the accusation of moral relativism, actually has no idea what moral relativism is. In this case, he is merely clueless, rather than a hypocrite. On reflection this is probably more likely.

[Randy]

No no, Jon. It's not Jesus; it's God. God can shove it. Jesus is just the messenger.

[jon]

I guess God shoves all things, if you want to see things that way.

[Dan]

but of course *he* is the moral relativist, since he thinks the morality of an action depends on someone's perspective or opinion (namely, God's).

Um, God doesn't have "opinions" about morality. What he says is moral is, by (Christian) definition, what is moral. He created the universe; he created morality. As a parallel -- lots of different people can have lots of different opinions about what the motivations of a character in a novel are, but the author knows the correct answer. The motivations of the character aren't "relative"; there is one correct set of motivations, and a lot of irrelevant opinion about them.

However, even if you don't buy into the whole "God created the universe" thing, Christian morality wouldn't be relative. If you pick one guy, and say "everything HE says to do is moral; everything else is WRONG", you aren't following relativistic morality. You're following an objective, if almost-certain-inconsistent, moral system.

[asg]

First of all, I did not say Christian morality was relativistic, so you are attributing to me a view I did not express. I did say divine command theory was relativistic, so unless you feel that divine command theory is essential to Christianity -- a claim I suspect many Christian theologians would have their doubts about -- then you are barking up the wrong tree.

In any case, moral relativism is simply the view that the truth or falsity of a moral proposition depends on some observer's -- not necessarily the individual's -- perspective (there is a subspecies of moral relativism which says that the truth or falsity of a moral proposition depends on *each* individual's perspective, but that is not the only sort). That's what it is. You can go by a personal definition, of course, but you would be using a definition not shared by the past few generations of moral philosophers (and indeed the term "moral relativism" is not any older than a few generations).

To see why your analogy fails, consider an author who writes a book in which something very evil (e.g. lynching black men for looking at white women, etc.) is good. Not "is considered good", *is* good. This is not possible. An author cannot force his readers to alter their moral views simply by creating the universe a particular way. He can persuade them, or fool them, as many great books do, but he can't just say in the foreword, "In this book, doing this very bad thing is fine and dandy." Or rather, he could do that, but his readers would quite correctly view the book as unrealistic.

[dj of raleigh]

I went to this site but didn't vote.
It seemed to me to be a vehicle
for gathering e-mail addresses.
It didn't want to let go of my connection, either. Is it legit?

[Dan]

In any case, moral relativism is simply the view that the truth or falsity of a moral proposition depends on some observer's -- not necessarily the individual's -- perspective

Yes, I know that. The obvious flaw in your argument is that the Christian God is not an observer of moral propositions; he is the creator of moral propositions. There are no "observers", from a Christian perspective -- you're a creation, not an observer of creation.

An author cannot force his readers to alter their moral views simply by creating the universe a particular way

The author obviously cannot control what is "right" or "wrong" *outside* of his creation. However, he has perfect control of what is "right" or "wrong" on the inside of that creation. According to Christianity, you, and everything else, are inside God's creation. There is no "outside", nor are there any "outside observers" to make relativistic judgements.

Metaphorically speaking, the Christian God is an author of a book that can never actually be read by anything.

[Jennifer]

Chris says God is the source of all good and evil. Not to beat a dead horse here about all the evil stuff in the Bible, but I must point out that nowhere in the Judeo-Christian Bible is it forbidden to rape a woman. Does this mean that it's okay for guys to be rapists, so long as they don't do it on the Sabbath?

As a woman, maybe I shouldn't have pointed out that loophole. . . . .

[crimethink]

Jesus gets a lot of positive spin, but look at what he actually said and did. Did he say that (for example) adulterous women didn't deserve to be killed? No -- he said that HUMANS weren't free enough from sin to do the job. The woman in question is still in Really Deep Shit with God; she just has to wait until after she dies for the other shoe to drop.

Actually he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Since in Christian theology, Jesus is sinless, he could have satisfied that criterion. But he chose to tell her to go home and "sin no more" instead. He wasn't telling her her punishment would wait till she died; he was essentially telling her she was forgiven.

[Randy]

"Since in Christian theology, Jesus is sinless..."

Incorrect. He was born without the taint of original sin by being born of a virgin who was born of a virgin (sort of like the seventh son of a seventh son). Nowhere in the Bible does it say he was without sin in life; just that he was born free of sin. We are all sinners - even Jesus.

[joe]

Many Old Testament prohibitions were specific to their time and place. The restriction on boiling a goat in its mother's milk is not a cookbook! It's most likely a statement not to engage in the religious practices of the so-and-sos, who boil goats in milk. Similarly, the Old (and New) Testament prohibitions on gay sex were admonitions not to engage in hedonsitic behavior. If rich Romans were stroking their thangs with olive loaf instead of teen aged boys, then the prohibition would have been against that.

Unfortunately, way too many Christians are determined to read the Bible without knowing the context that its authors assumed the reader would know. To me, that's little better than the people who assign each letter a number, play some numerological games, and discover "I am the Walrus" written in Leviticus.

[dhex]

Les: re: the why people would worship an asshole.

the same reason someone of a certain political stripe will overlook actions they find unnacceptable in others.

it's our side. "our" team.

go listen to people argue about sports. they identify with a team whose games they receive nothing but entertainment from, often at highly inflated prices. (imo, obviously.) the same thing shows up between people arguing about bands or genres and the identity therein.

and especially when you're dealing with the mythology of a small desert tribe in heavy competition with the theologies and physical boundries of those around them, you get a certain "us versus them" flavor. so it's ok to murder, rape and kill so long as you're doing it to the right people. the right people being "not us." and best of all those wrong people get to be punished in perpetuity for being wrong, which makes it doubly swell to murder the fuck out of them.

there is a certain romantic simplicity to gnosticism (i.e. it's certainly the first and most obvious conclusion if one is going to postulate a force which actively and consciously meddles in the affairs of the world - must be either crazy and evil or crazy and incompetent) but they largely turned out to be raving lunatic fuckheads too.

humans love myths. secular or religious we love myths and spinning myths. and then pretending the myths just showed up one day without any help from us.

"oh, hi there mr. myth! yeah, those sodomites have my TV on the fritz again, thanks to the filthy supreme court. dammit."

[Dan]

In regards to the gay issue, it's because of one word in in verse of one book of the New Testament.

No, it's because of a complete lack of words in any books of the New Testament refuting the Old Testament idea that homosexuality was against God's will.

Jesus gets a lot of positive spin, but look at what he actually said and did. Did he say that (for example) adulterous women didn't deserve to be killed? No -- he said that HUMANS weren't free enough from sin to do the job. The woman in question is still in Really Deep Shit with God; she just has to wait until after she dies for the other shoe to drop.

Similarly, the Old Testament said (shorthand) "Kill gays". Christians looked at that commandment, then looked at the "let he who is without sin, etc etc" rule, and concluded that God still considered homosexuality sinful, but reserved the right to pass *final* judgement for Himself.

Biblically speaking, Christians *should* consider homosexuals the equivalent of rapists and murderers. I'm not saying it's rational or smart (because, hey, I'm an atheist), but it's theologically accurate.

[Randy]

"Biblically speaking, Christians *should* consider homosexuals the equivalent of rapists and murderers. I'm not saying it's rational or smart (because, hey, I'm an atheist), but it's theologically accurate."

Same goes for money lenders, people who cook the meat of goat in the milk of its mother, and people who eat bugs. So, remember, kids: because the FDA allows a certain amount of insect matter in many foods, YOU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL.

[jon]

If I round the corner of my beard, that's as bad as murder? That Jesus guy can shove it.

[parochial taught, self-educate]

Randy

In the gospel attributed to John it says that (and I'm paraphrasing) Jesus was the Word, and that the Word was with God and that the Word was God. How can God sin? He made up the rules. I still think Christians and most other religious people are nuts, but its their book, and lots of the time, they have their shit in order.

(a different) Chris

[thoreau]

I often wonder why a person would choose to worship an Asshole.

I ask myself the same question every time Republicans make burnt offerings to Reagan and Democrats say that Clinton created the prosperity of the 1990's. 😉

I was married in the Catholic church last summer. My wife and I managed to get married just before the Massachusettes supreme court ruined the whole thing by letting gays in. We're not entirely sure how our marriage will be ruined, but we've been assured by all the leading figures on the right that gays will ruin our marriage. And if you can't trust leading right wing pundits, whom can you trust? 😉

As long as the gays mind their own business and my wife and I mind our business, I have a hunch things will work out just fine. Gee, who'd've thunk that things can work out nicely when everybody minds his or her own business?

[thoreau]

I did not say Christian morality was relativistic

It had darn well better be relativistic! Otherwise a person in a rocket ship traveling near the speed of light could kill somebody without it being considered a sin! Relativistic invariance is a key requirement of any moral system. If something is a sin in one inertial frame, it must be a sin in all inertial frames.

Sorry, physics humor got the better of me 😉