Ooh, Look, A Carrie Prejean Wannabe

February 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm 149 comments

by Brian Leubitz

As if one Carrie Prejean wasn’t enough, now we have another wannabe:

Miss Beverly Hills 2010 Lauren Ashley is also speaking out in support of traditional nuptials.

“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white,” Ashley told Pop Tarts.

“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.” (Fox)

First, let’s point out that Ms. Ashley is missing a lot of the context of the Leviticus section in question. Here’s a snippet from Liberated Christians:

Leviticus does not say that a man to lie with man is wrong or a sin. Rather, it is a ritual violation, an uncleanness ; it is something dirty ritualistically, just as was eating shellfish, mixing fibers etc. Lev 18 is to distinguish the Jews from the pagans among whom they had been living, or would live. The prohibition of supposedly homosexual acts follows immediately upon a prohibition of idolatrous sexuality (the female temple prostitutes worshipping the pagan fertility gods) (often mistranslated fornication but a obvious mistranslation in the proper context).(Liberated Christians)

I highly recommend that Lauren takes a look at the Liberated Christians website on the subject, there’s a lot of background information in there, including context regarding translations from Hebrew to Greek to English. it’s actually quite interesting, no matter what your faith background is.

But the bottom line is that the Leviticus simply does not say that sex with someone of the same gender will “bring death upon you.” That is nowhere in the section of Leviticus that she is referring to, and frankly, nowhere in the Bible at all.

This isn’t about the Bible. This is about one woman’s bigotry, and the garbage that she has apparently been fed.  And sorry, the “I have gay friends” line which she uses later in the article just doesn’t work. It never did, particularly when you don’t even bother to get the facts straight from where you pull your bigotry.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Asking and Telling: Lieberman and the DADT repeal Trial Reenactment: Day 2 Episode 5

149 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Alan E.  |  February 23, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    I want Brian’s job. He gets to sit and read this blog all day!

    Reply
    • 2. Alan E.  |  February 23, 2010 at 3:53 pm

      Arg forgot to follow-up.

      Reply
  • 3. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    @Brian
    Leviticus 20:13 says that.
    What do you mean by

    Leviticus simply does not say that sex with someone of the same gender will “bring death upon you.”

    ? That lying with men is not a reference to sex? Or that translations are completely incorrect?

    I’ve heard an opinion that the sin is that a married man (the one who married a woman) should not be having extra-marital affairs — those with other women are covered by adultery clause, and those with men — by this reference in Leviticus 20:13. It means that he already shares his bed with a woman, that is why the strange phrasing (otherwise why not just say “lie with the mankind” and go to the death penalty right away, why add “as he lieth with a woman“?). Interesting opinion and I share it.

    Reply
    • 4. Bry  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:01 pm

      Someone mentioned this yesterday a few days ago I think they’ve cutely changed it to “bring death upon you” from “abomination” maybe they’ve learned that won’t fly – that abomination didn’t exist then.

      Reply
      • 5. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:40 pm

        @Bry
        You’re mixing things that should not be mixed: “abomination” refers to homosexual coitus, for which participants “shall be put to death,” and then there is an explanation that this is their fault, they knew it is forbidden, yet they ignored it and fornicated homosexually, that is why “their blood is upon them.”

        Anyway, it is such a nonsense that it shan’t be discussed further.

        Reply
    • 6. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:15 pm

      Here’s an extended definition for those interested:
      http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section05.html
      Most Fundamentalists conflate abomination with sin as being one in the same thing. In Hebrew the first is toevah the other is zimah. When the Jewish Testament was translated into Greek, they also kept the two concepts distinct. Bdelygma and anomia are terms used. The separation is roughly noted as cultural taboo (dating a 16 y/o when your are 40) and that which is against the Law. There are many articles you can google to get a deeper understanding of both the linguistic and the cultural/religious basis the Purity Code of Lev.

      Reply
    • 7. John D  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:04 pm

      The literal translation of the passage is: And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.

      Whatever that means.

      What does it mean to “lay lyings of a woman?”

      Some scholars suggest that it means that men shouldn’t have sex with men in a woman’s bed.

      At Religioustolerence.org, the commentary is that the verse is incomplete. We’re missing something long lost that might have made more sense of this.

      Reply
      • 8. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:07 pm

        John – THNX. That was really the link I wanted but didn’t find quickly. The whole site there is very good. An important resource for those who wish to counter the ill thought arguments of the RR.

        Reply
      • 9. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:10 pm

        I suggest this website to understand better the Bible and Homosexuality.

        http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

        The research is good and necessary.

        What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality
        By Daniel A. Helminiak

        Is also excellent. It was the book that set me free from the evils of rigid stupidity.

        http://www.visionsofdaniel.net/book3WBRS.htm

        Reply
      • 10. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:39 pm

        Felyx – I will second your recommendation of Helminiak. I originally read it about a year. With all the discussion of Biblical texts in the P8TT threads, I went to the library and got it out again to reread, will probably finish again tomorrow. Bishop John Shelby Spong has also written a number of good discussions in “Sins of the Scriptures” and “Living in Sin”. Wm. Countryman’s book “Dirt, Greed and Sex” is an excellent survey of NT/Roman/Greek cultural and thought. So many of the arguments made today using proof-texts from either the Jewish or the Christian writings would be totally foreign to those who lived in the times these were written.

        Reply
    • 11. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:04 pm

      The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality

      http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

      Passage VI: Leviticus 18:22

      Some common translations of Leviticus 18:22 include:

      KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

      NIV: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

      Living Bible: “Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.”

      In any serious study of Leviticus 18:22, one must look closely at the historical context of this law. The book of Leviticus is a part of the Hebrew Law and contains everything from commandments for men not to shave the edges of their beards (Lev 19:27); orders not to have intercourse during menstruation (Lev 18:19); not to harvest different crops in the same field (Lev 19:19); as well as numerous dietary laws.

      In order to understand this verse we will look first at the Hebrew Law and how it relates to Christians, an issue the early church faced when Gentiles were being converted. Second, we will look at the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus as a whole, and how this is a part of the Holiness Code. Finally, we will end this section with a careful examination of Leviticus 18:22.

      THE LAW:

      The early church was faced with the question of whether or not the Hebrew Law applies to Christians. Many Gentiles were being converted to Christianity, yet they were not circumcised, nor did they follow the Law that God had given to the Israelites. It was through the observation of the Law that Jews considered themselves justified before God. In reading Paul’s letters to the Romans, the Galatians, the Corinthians, the Colossians, and the Hebrews we find a consistent claim that “no one is justified before God by the law” (Galatians 3:10). Paul writes the following in reference to the law:

      “Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (RSV Romans 7:4-6).

      “Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian [i.e. The Law]. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (RSV Galatians 3:23-26).

      Other New Testament Scriptures on the Law include: 2 Corinthians 3:6; Colossians 2:13-15; Hebrews 8:8-13, Romans 10:1-4. In the second chapter of his letter to the Galatians he confronts Peter who has been forcing Gentiles to follow the Jewish law (Galatians 2:14), and he goes on to boldly assert:

      “We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (RSV Galatians 2:15-16).

      Paul was even persecuted for this deeply held conviction that as Christians, we are no longer held to the Hebrew Law, but are justified through faith in Jesus Christ.

      If we are “not under the law” does that mean we can lie, cheat, steal, etc.? In Romans 6:15 Paul answers this question himself, “By no means!” Didn’t Christ himself in Matthew 5:17 say that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it? So what is the fulfillment of the law? Jesus was once asked, “Rabbi, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). The fulfillment of the law is love. Paul would later echo this idea in Romans as he wrote:

      “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (RSV Romans 13:8-10).

      THE HOLINESS CODE:

      There are over 600 laws in the Old Testament and the book of Leviticus contains many of such laws. The book of Leviticus is a part of what is described as the Holiness Code, which was given to protect the Israelites from idolatry and to distinguish them from pagan cultures.

      Leviticus 18 begins, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Say to the people of Israel, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes. You shall do my ordinances and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God…’” (Leviticus 18:1-4). This introduction of Leviticus 18 clearly maintains that these laws were given to distinguish them from the ways of the people in Egypt and those in Canaan.

      The Old Testament, as has been mentioned, was initially a part of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jewish people. The Septuagint was an ancient translation of the Old Testament (circa 200 B.C.) from its original Hebrew into Greek. It was the “version” of the Old Testament that the New Testament writers quoted from when they cited Old Testament scriptures. The Hebrew word in this specific law we are looking at that was translated into English as “abomination” was translated in the Septuagint into the Greek word bdelugma. A quick search through a lexicon for the word bdelugma brings up the following definition:

      1. a foul thing, a detestable thing

      a. of idols and things pertaining to idolatry

      This also seems to point to the idea that this specific law has to do with a matter of ritual purity and with the Hebrews not being like the idolatrous Babylonians or Canaanites. It is probably referring to either the sacred orgies involved in the worship of the god Baal, or some other form of idolatry.

      ABUSIVE SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS:

      KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a women; it is an abomination.”

      NIV: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

      Translated literally from Hebrew Leviticus 18:22 reads: “And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman.” The only way of making sense of this is to insert something to produce a smoother, more coherent English translation. For example, one can insert “as the” or “in the” after the first lay as showed below:

      “And with a male you shall not lay [as the] lyings of a woman.”

      “And with a male you shall not lay [in the] lyings of a woman.”

      Even if we accept the NIV or KJV translations, (KJV: “Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.”) we still must understand the historical context of how a man laid with a women, for this is the qualifier of the phrase. Some affirm that this law is quite straightforward. Clearly from the previous sixteen verses, we know that these laws are written to men. Thus, some may say, this law forbids men to “lie with”, or have sex with, other men. This interpretation is flawed as it entirely ignores the phrase “as with a woman.” These four words cannot simply be understood to refer to lying sexually, since that is already indicated in the Hebrew word
      translated “to lie with.” If the above interpretation were what the author means he could have just written, “Thou shalt not lie with a man; it is an abomination.”

      “As with a woman” must have been added for some reason, and we must understand the context of this law to understand it fully. The status of women in that time was much lower than that of men, and women were even considered property of the men. This belief regarding gender relations is rejected by most of the Christian church
      today, but in order to make sense of this specific Jewish law we must keep in mind this context in which it was written.

      Rabbi Arthur Waskow explains, “The whole structure of sexuality in the Torah assumes a dominant male and a subordinate female.”4 In other words, women were obedient to men, and men in that time would have been dominating and controlling in sexual encounters. The woman did what the man wanted and how the man wanted it. For a man in a sexual encounter to be treated in that way, within the Jewish culture of the time, the man would have be taking a lower status, as well as being sexually dominated and controlled. To do so would have been reducing him to property and in effect defiling the image of God, which man was considered in that culture. This, however, is exactly how men would have treated the male temple prostitutes—in a controlling and abusive manner, and also is how individuals would have been treated in the sacred sexual orgies with which Baal was worshiped. They would have lied with other men “as with a women.”

      Conclusion on Leviticus 18:22

      As we see, this law isn’t as simple as it appears. First of all, we know from Paul’s writing that we have “died to” and are “discharged from the law” (Romans 7:4-6). We also know that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:10). Second, we understand that Leviticus is a part of the Holiness code, which was written to distinguish the Israelites from the Canaanites and Moabites. Lastly, we see that Leviticus 18:22 has to do with abusive cultic practices, and says nothing pertaining the issue we are faced with today—that of loving and committed homosexual relationships.

      http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

      Reply
      • 12. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:58 pm

        Felyx, I appreciate your feelings on this.

        But I have to be honest – I really do not care what the bible says (so I am in complete agreement with AC here). It has pretty much no relevance for me. I was raised catholic, and soon saw by the time I was 10 the contradictions – and the sheer fallacy of the institution – it’s attempt to describe the universe in 5th century terms, to completely ignore the scientific understanding of the day, to define absolute truth for me. No thanks.

        Fundamentally it seems, to me at least, that most anti-gay hate is based on fundamentalist religious interpretations of ancient texts.

        While there is much to be learned about the human experience in these texts, I just can not see any relevance to my life as it is. Just let me live.

        Reply
      • 13. fern  |  February 24, 2010 at 1:12 am

        I’m impressed by your knowledge, I also understand the importance of history which I love (really). I can also babble in four languages, mother tongue being French.
        My views of the scriptures are such: people (writers) are subjective not objective, then there is translation, interpretation and culture, these three factors taken into consideration renders the scriptures almost irrelevant and at best could be considered as rumors of course there may be some truth in a rumor but where is it?
        The French don’t understand Canadian French, the U.K. English do not understand U.S. English and vice versa.

        On anti-gay forum one can read a lot of the scriptures especially Leviticus to whom I oppose Asinius 5:1
        “If thou fall asleep an idiot thou shalt wake up the same”.

        Reply
      • 14. Felyx  |  February 24, 2010 at 5:42 am

        Obviously you don’t pay attention very well JonT…on numerous occasions I have states how I feel about stupidity and using archaic books to justify idiocy.

        I think the Bible is good for historical research, cultural research, mythology and philosophy.

        I had to memorize it at one time….now I burn them just for the heat. Felyx

        Reply
      • 15. Felyx  |  February 24, 2010 at 5:59 am

        One more thing JonT, what I posted here was for those who would be helped by it. If you didn’t like it then it wasn’t for you. Say thank you and move along, but don’t be an ass and berate knowledge to those WHO WERE ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS!!!

        I will post useful on topic site appropriate Biblical research here if I think it will make the world a better place. Why don’t you go rag on waxr and his verse for a day….or better yet, why don’t you just remind youself about the freedoms of speech and religion and just be thankful!!! No one is forcing you to read anything!!

        I will point out something else as well…AC says he is a Christian who doesn’t like ancient philosophy running his life. This ariticle is about that very idea he expressed. Maybe he appreciated a refreshing scholarly viewpoint that confirms what he has said all along. Who are you to take his words out of context!!

        Don’t whine that you need me to just let you live….go live….don’t hang around here and whine and complain be insulting!

        If you want to say anything back to this then a short sweet, ‘oh I see now, I’m sorry’ will be more than adequtate….otherwise don’t bother….I have no interest in responding.

        Not one to be chastised lightly,
        Felyx

        Reply
      • 16. JonT  |  February 24, 2010 at 2:49 pm

        My apologies Felyx, I meant no offense. I was just expressing my opinion – though perhaps I could have done so in a less confrontational way. My bad.

        Reply
      • 17. Felyx  |  February 24, 2010 at 3:08 pm

        JonT,
        I guess I am just touchy about the Bible thing. I try to stay as far away from it as possible. In this instance I just felt it was necessary to arm others with good scholarship so that they could defend themselves from the very thing you and I both feel is unworthy of our time.

        It was Daniel’s authoritative work that freed me from my religulous prison. I don’t want that anyone else should suffer.

        Again, I felt that you were insinuating that I was pushing Bible verse or doctrine when in fact I felt I was trying to counter it with rational thought and good scholarship. I also felt that you were implying that my contribution was unwelcome and unnecessary. That was what was behind the heatedness of my comments.

        As it stands, there is no ‘animus’ here….except for some dogs and cats…but definitely no hard feelings.

        Peace! Felyx

        Reply
  • 18. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    With the dozens of translations and revisions of the Bible out there, it’s easy to twist it to say whatever you want. Or you can do like she does, and just make something up.

    It’s a load of crap regardless. Her god has no place in my government.

    Reply
    • 19. Sheryl  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:41 pm

      No one’s god has a place in government. And government has no place in religion. Isn’t that the separation of church and state the founding fathers wanted.

      I don’t want to live in a country where laws are based on one groups religious views. I don’t want government telling when, where, who, and or how I can worship (as long as that form of worship does not harm others).

      Reply
  • 20. AC  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    To be honest I am sickened by Gay activists who indulge these Biblical bigots with redefining their biblical quotes. “That only affects Christians”, not all homosexuals are Christian. I am a Christian, but some of us happen to be of other faiths. Who cares what the Bible sais anyway? The issue is about equality and civil rights not about religious beliefs. If we pander to their bigoted religious egos we fall right in to their trap. Religion is what you make of it and it is entirely personal between one and a higher power. Attempting to negotiate who is right or wrong is insane. Neither side will ever be right in the eyes of the other. We need to focus on the human rights issues and less on religious doctrine. That’s my two cents. Take it for what it’s worth.

    Reply
    • 21. Christopher  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:12 pm

      Well said AC! I’m a pagan (Wiccan to be specific) and everytime the Biblical scriptures against homosexuality are brought up, it makes me angry. It’s not a doctrine I follow yet it’s being used to deny rights. GRRR!

      Reply
    • 22. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:21 pm

      Well said AC. Leave the religious (re)translations to those who care. I don’t. I just want to be free, and that should not have anything to do with someone else’s religion.

      It’s disappointing that another bubble-headed pageant contestant thinks this way, but given their chosen lifestyle, it’s hardly surprising :)

      Reply
    • 23. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:35 pm

      AC – straight or gay, man or woman, I will marry you!

      Reply
    • 24. Albert E.  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:00 pm

      Hi AC,
      I care what the bible says!!! I also believe that any lifestyle outside of traditional male female marriage is troubled. You are correct about the focus on civil rights. It will take a 21st century supreme court to rule on this in favor of homosexuals, since culture and society has changed tremendously since the end of ww2.

      As for me, i believe gay sex is a damaging choice and I wish you would stop forcing acceptance. I am actually compassionate in my belief that gays can be saved and be changed, and not abused and hated. I will never turn my back on gay people who want to get help and make it out of “the lifestyle”.

      Reply
      • 25. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:12 pm

        @Albert E.
        You have a right to believe all of that, but please, please, please, please, do not promote the idea that you can help gay people turn straight, that you have some secret recipe from your granny to straighten up anyone who’s confused, do not assume the position of psych counselor if you do not have a license for that. Remember that not so many people were able to change their sexuality, most of those that underwent the repair therapy only became self-loathing, depressive, suicidal loosers. DO NO HARM!

        Lifestyle you are referring to only exists in your head. Relationships are built on love and commitment, not on sexual practices. “Troubled” is what happens when people like you say that it is “troubled,” and others listen and nod their heads.

        There is no such thing as gay sex! All sexual practices gay people have exist and are being performed by heterosexual people, too. In fact, it is a big question who invented those practices and who just borrowed. So, please, stop saying that!

        Forcing acceptance? We don not force anyone to accept our sex! We ask people to accept our existence and our rights, our relationships, unions, and families. That’s it. No sex. Sex is what is going on in privacy of our homes. Stop shoving it into your head — we do not shove your heterosexual sex into our heads.

        –K♥r♥ll, Russia

        Reply
      • 26. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:13 pm

        If it were simply a “lifestyle” that can be changed for those who are not comfortable in that “lifestyle” then fine. But the professionals who specialize in the medical, psychological and psychiatric disciplines disagree on the notion of “lifestyle” change for those who have same-sex attraction. Reparative therapy has almost no significant positive outcomes. At best, people like Alan Chamberlain are able to marry and have a semi-satisfactory life with an opposite sex partner. But even Alan admits he is not “cured”, but merely has learned to suppress his SSA……most of the time. Gay sex is no more destructive than M-F sex, both can become addict, but both can also produce stable, loving, committed relationships. As to what the Bible has to say, I doubt yoou know much more about what it *really* says than the bigoted preachers you listen to.

        Reply
      • 27. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:17 pm

        Oh look another random disgusting Haterosexual Bigot…i wish you religious TRASH BAGS would STOP forcing your garbage on me Hood Rat!!!!…..IT IS MY LIFE NOT A LIFESTYLE!!!!!!!!!!………..I didn’t choose this Swatzy….Don’t pretend to think you know how I feel and what is in my head….you can’t tell me I made a choice…are you FU<KING psychic?…..NO I DON"T THINK SO!!!!!!…….I was born this way and I pay taxes just like you so your rights are my rights…FU<K FACE…….STFU!!!! and get a life, keep your FU<KING nose out of my business and leave my Life alone….You don't pay my F-ing bills, rent, health insurance….You don'y put food on my table, clothes on my back, a roof over my head….so wTF do you think you are telling me who I am and how I'm so suppose to live?….YOU are nothing but zero trash Albert E…."S" my w.w.w…..male chicken….gutter snipe Swatzy TROLL…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 28. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:18 pm

        If you truly care what the bible says, then you should also care about what Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef said, and if you consider him to be the sone of HaShem, and to be equal with HaShem, then what he says should be what goes, correct? Well, wen you go into the Koine Greek that was the common language of his era and actually dig into the verse that is commonly called the “3 eunuchs” verse, you will find that in that verse there re actually three DIFFERENT words that were mistranslated eunuch ever since the mistranslation of 1611, which you have to specify the 1611 edition at CBD unless you want the 1789 revision and retranslation that is the more commonly known one to be refferenced KJV. In that verse, the greek word that was translated as “eunuch” in the first part of the verse about thos who were born that way, eventually gave us the root word for the medical term homosexual. the second one for those made so by the will of man, actually refers to those who were castrated in their early childhood either t become prt of the castrati choirs or to serve as harem guards. And the third reference, those who became so for the Kingdom refers to those who take religiou vows of celibacy. No, if you consider Yeshua ben Yosef to be the son of HaShem, and the equal of HaShem, then that would make him the Original Equipment Manufacturer, so to speak, correct? That would imply that he knows what he is talking about with regard to how people are born. And if HaShem does not make mistakes, and if the one you call HaShem’s son says that people are born gay, then tht should settle it for you, and you would realize that we are no different from you in our lifestyle. In fact, if you will check out some of the other comment threads, you will see where I have a rather lengthy pst that describes the “gay lifestyle” as it is lived in my household. Two middle aged spouses who take care of all the household chores and divide those equally based on who does which task more effciently. We are not trying to force acceptance. However, as a Jew, I do not appreciate those who are trying to force THEIR religious beliefs on me by trying to get those religious beliefs codified into the law of the land in a republic. That in and of itself vipolates the Constitution of this nation by trampling upon MY freedom of religious expression. And if you are so worried that we are coming to YOUR church to get married, then please get over it. Tere are churches who are not as narrow minded as you, who ARE totally, TRULY faithful, who TRULY believe in HaShem, and who will perform the religious matrimonials for us so that you will not have to. ANd the sooner you realize that granting us or full human rights will render this a non-issue and then you will no longer have to deal with it, the better off your ulcers will be.

        Reply
      • 29. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:45 pm

        Albert:
        I also believe that any lifestyle outside of traditional male female marriage is troubled.

        But why do you believe this Albert? And what do you mean by ‘troubled’?

        Because a book(s) written (by men) ~1500 years ago says so? That’s the difference between us: I have no problem you believing whatever you wish to believe – I just draw the line when you try to impose those beliefs on me by force. Again, why is gay equality a threat to you?

        As for me, i believe gay sex is a damaging choice and I wish you would stop forcing acceptance.

        Well there are a few things wrong with that statement – 1) that being gay is a choice (hint: it’s not, really), and 2) that ‘we’ want to force acceptance upon you. Really, I just want you to let me live my life how I please. I don’t care if you want to hate on me for it – but my asking (no, demanding) equal rights does not force you to be gay or to ‘accept’ me, whatever that means.

        So what’s the real problem here? Why do you care? What’s your real fear?

        Reply
      • 30. jimig  |  February 23, 2010 at 8:31 pm

        AC, You need to read some more educational materials. go to any book store, go the the relationship section pick up any book on sex. I recommend the classic, the joy of sex or my new favorate and maybe the best I have read The Better Sex by the Sincliar institution. This may help you rethink your views on sex. And don’t take this the wrong way it might even open some new door into your own marriage.

        Reply
      • 31. AC  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:09 pm

        Albert E., I’m glad you care about what the bible sais, however I don’t think it is fair for you and your kind to force your belief system on the rest of the world. How would you like it if Islamic beliefs and “Lifestyles” were forced upon you by a majority? Is it ok for Christians to be persecuted in the Middle East? NO it is not. If you knew anything about what being gays is you would know it has very little to do with sex and more to do with who you choose to form a loving bond with and have it recognized by others in your community. I pay taxes as you do, I follow the laws as you do and I feel compassion for others even when I disagree with them. I do not need saving. God is on my side and accepts me just the way I am. I am hurting no one least of all my self. I do not trample on other’s civil liberties and I certainly do not think I am in any way shape or form better than anyone else. I fail to understand where you get the nerve in thinking Gay people need saving. Do you think you are better than we are?…That is called Bigotry. Look it up in the dictionary.

        Reply
      • 32. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:20 pm

        Again….the Bible needs serious scholarship and not idiot interpreters.

        http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

        Sex is a damaging choice when it is forced on people who don’t want it!!!

        I DON’T WANT VAGINA!!!!!

        Reply
      • 33. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:35 pm

        Ok….I just have to share a VAGINA story.

        There are some people who just are so uncomfortable with sexuality that they can’t even say certain anatomical words. I knew one such woman at the VA hospital. I had to take care of her (I was a home health nurse at the time) and some of the care involved her VAGINA. Well one day she was trying to express a problem and it took me about 15 minutes to catch on that she was talking about her VAGINA. I just didn’t know words like hoo-hoo or what have you. Her physician, an excellent Dr. Gina White who was on the speed dial of the phone as VA Gina, had told me later that she too had had a similar difficulty.

        One day out of frustration I told her to just say the word. Boy did she protest!! She said she could never say it or even write it…well that just blew me away….so I pick up the phone and handed it to her and said, “If you can’t even write it, then how did it end up on the Speed Dial?!!!”

        God! How she laughed and laughed!!! Finally she just said, “Alright, I’ll say it…VAGINA. Ok?”

        Dr. White later asked me how I did it….first time I ever saw a Physician spit up coffee all over the nurses station!!!

        I hope you all like that one. You will just never hear that one ever again!!!

        Yours truly,

        Felyx

        (Who thinks VAGINA is a very funny word.)

        Reply
      • 34. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:58 pm

        Felyx I read it and spit popcorn all over the place…..but Ewwww….stop using that word….I’m trying to eat Pop-secrets Movie theater Popcorn and watch “Inglourious Basterds…use Va-J-J…….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 35. fiona64  |  February 24, 2010 at 7:14 am

        Felyx, your story reminds me of my mother, to whom I actually paid $5 one day to get her to say “penis” instead of “hoodingus” in reference to a part of the *dog’s* anatomy. (Context, since I show dogs and know something about anatomy: “Could you look at Bud’s hoodingus and tell me he needs to go to the vet.” I told her that there was no part of the dog for which “hoodingus” was a reference and she stammered and stuttered until I said “I will pay you $5 to use the correct term.”)

        So, now you all know my mother’s euphemism for male genitalia.

        Argh.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 36. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  February 24, 2010 at 8:05 am

        to Felix, re: VAGINA story….

        My partner encouraged us to got “the Vagina Monologues” recently at local college. At first I was squirming in my seat all the talk about woman’s anatomy. The presentation was was very professional given by 16 woman and 2 gay men. Their stories where tragic, joyous, relevant, hilarious…truly one of the most beautiful experiences of recent memory. I heard all kinds of words, Vagina, Penis, Cunt…..many women have hangups about this but by the end the mostly woman filled auditorium where celebrating, cheering, crying and chanting “cunt, cunt, CUNT” .. P.S. they applauded and celebrated the gay men…seems to me women in general can accept us “non normal” people easier than many men…

        TO RONNIE: you go girl! I would have been put off by your rampage in the past but I hear you! and Agree!! we cannot let ignorance dictate our lives any longer!

        Reply
      • 37. Ronnie  |  February 24, 2010 at 8:48 am

        Gregory it really is not a rampage…..it is more of a RAGE…I feel that is where the community is heading toward especially since this whole human rights thing is exploding not just in this country but all over the world….The Hateros are gearing up for a Witch hunt…I guess I am ahead of most people in the community, where I am ready to put-em-up……I will no longer let somebody continue to think they know me when they don’t…I wil no longer let somebody tell me what to do, how to live, and who to do….hehehe……If I have to force them to tolerate me I will…meaning I will tell them NO…..”You don’t own me”……I never tell take no for an answer….you can ask the 2 college proffs I had put on probation….one of them had tenure…..I’m a B!tch I know but what can I say I was born to lead….not to follow…..<3….Ronnie

        Reply
  • 38. James  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    Leviticus also carries on about all sorts of heterosexual adulterers (KJV) and the pains that await them. If the christianists truly followed their book, most of their televangelists would have been stoned to death years ago.

    Reply
    • 39. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:27 pm

      I’m sure most of you have probably seen variants of this:

      http://stallman.org/dr-laura.html

      Seems appropo. :)

      Sigh. Now I gotta go find a bull to burn on the alter to please my lord with it’s scent. Wonder if I can pick one up at Target.

      Reply
      • 40. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:37 pm

        If you are in Texas, you won’t even have to go to Target to find the bull. Just walk down the street to the nearest ranch. Just make sure to cover the tips of the horns though. They can be rather sharp and pointed. ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

        Reply
      • 41. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:45 pm

        Well I live in downtown Denver, CO. So all I gotta do is head east about 20 miles.

        But – I just checked my lease, and it specifically prohibits the burning of bulls on my patio :(

        Damn liberals!

        Reply
      • 42. Felyx  |  February 24, 2010 at 8:58 am

        I just put a steak on the barbie!

        (Actually I am vegetarian…and so is Barbie.)

        Reply
  • 43. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Deuteronomy 22, verses 13 to 21, online KJV, bolding mine:

    13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

    14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

    15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth [the tokens of] the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

    16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

    17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech [against her], saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these [are the tokens of] my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

    18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

    19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred [shekels] of silver, and give [them] unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

    20 But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel:

    21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    If she plans to marry, let’s hope for her sake that Ms. Ashley is chaste.

    Reply
    • 44. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:06 pm

      If you read the full article, she does say she’s waiting for marriage. Not that most of us normal people care, of course.

      Reply
      • 45. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:20 pm

        Excellent! Now about isolating herself from other people when she’s having her period, and making an offering of two turtles or two young pigeons afterward (Leviticus 15:19-30; Leviticus 20:18, Ezekiel 18:5-6)….

        Reply
      • 46. Bill  |  February 24, 2010 at 11:57 am

        That just means she’s taking it up the ass. You know, to preserve her virginity an all…

        http://www.sexinchrist.com/

        Reply
  • 47. eDee  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Carrie Prejean is a twit as is Lauren Ashley.
    There isn’t a whole lot of difference between porn and prostitution. Miss. Prejean makes nude videos then wants to talk about her high moral standards.

    No one expects them to say anything intelligent and they don’t disappoint.
    Apparently their trainers – I mean coaches didn’t drill it into them that no one wants to hear them speak, they just need to stand there and look pretty.

    Reply
    • 48. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:12 pm

      Coach: Repeat after me: world peace.
      Ashley: No gay marraige!
      Coach: *sigh*

      Reply
      • 49. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:58 pm

        love it!

        Reply
      • 50. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:05 pm

        “A brief bright shining moment….and then that MOUTH”…..hehehehe…..<3…Ronnie:

        Reply
      • 51. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:23 pm

        And you just have to LOVE Michael Caine. Every bit as satiric here as in Alfie!

        Reply
      • 52. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:30 pm

        I liked him in “The Prestige” and the new Batman movies….I’ve never seen that Alfie….I’ve seen the one with Jude Law….mmmmm….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 53. David John Lawrence  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    It’ll be interesting to find out if Miss Ashley turns out to be as adept at photography as she is at cherrypicking scripture.

    Reply
  • 54. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Brian, first off, my husband, who is a Lubavitcher rabbi, says Amen! Also, as I learned years ago from another rabbi, the acts that were referred to involved the pagan rituals of the area in which heterosexual men and women were having sex with the pagan temple prostitutes of the same gender in order to appease the fertility gods and insure that they would have both fertile garden crops and fertile childbearing crops. That is what was considered toevah to the Jews, that someone would simply have sex as a ritualistic appeasement to idolatry, rather than sex being part of their expression of love to their spouse, whether they were in a monogamous heterosexual relationship or a monogamous same gender relationship. Those who want to condemn us to death also forget about David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi. They also forget that in those times women were considered property to be sold to the highest bidder, and that children were seen only as a sign of wealth, because they could work around the house and in the field. And both of these concepts are now seen as repugnant. That is why I have such hope that denying us our full civil rights simply because we love someone of the same gender will soon be seen as repugnant, and that our full place at the table of brotherhood will be granted and shortly be seen as proper and something that “has always been that way.” ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
    Richard

    Reply
  • 55. Michelle Evans  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    I think I have to side with Kirill on this in that we should try to make the focus not on trying to satisfy their religious beliefs, but make it only about civil rights and the religious rights of everyone, no matter if they agree or not.

    I think we would all agree that no matter how distasteful this religious garbage is, none of us is trying to eliminate any rights from those who do happen to be religious (or Religulous, as Bill Maher would say!). They can believe anything they want as long as it does not impinge on mine, or anyone else’s beliefs.

    The “Christian” foundation of our country is that anyone is allowed to believe what they want without fear of persecution. That is our problem here that we are being persecuted for being LGBT, so why should it be difficult for the courts to step in and say that enough was enough, and stop all this? That is the question I would like someone to answer.

    Reply
    • 56. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:15 pm

      The freedom to swing your fist ends where the other man’s face begins. I don’t care what you belive, as long as you don’t use it to hurt others.

      Reply
    • 57. Bob  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:22 pm

      I would suggest, that the fact that you think religion is seperate from politics in the United States, is the problem, because in fact it is not, and that is why there is so much difficulty . It’s actually more a theocracy than a democracy, and people just haven’t woken up to that yet. Further it’s a Christian Theocracy that’s why everyone goes into all this detail about religious quotes.

      Reply
      • 58. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:29 pm

        @Bob
        I wanted to say just that, but you said it first, and I agree.
        As long as those religious people would be in the government, in the courts, in legislatures, and among constituents, we will always have a problem proving them the very obvious thing that it is not a religious issue, but rather a secular one, and all the secular studies show us unanimously that there is no good reason to deny gays the rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts.

        Reply
      • 59. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:31 pm

        Only de facto to a limited extent, and it’s getting better all the time. But as long as people vote on their religious convictions, pandering to those convictions will be almost necessary to get into office. I remember a recent poll showing that about half the people in the country would not vote for an atheist candidate, even if they were otherwise perfect. This is why we need to keep fighting for public support, even if we win the legal battles. It’s the only way to make lasting change.

        Reply
      • 60. Bob  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:45 pm

        Required reading for this debate

        THE FAMILY by Jeff Sharlet exposes the extent of religious influence in politics.

        Reply
      • 61. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:55 pm

        Bob: Indeed I have read this book. It’s… a difficult read at times, but does give you a good idea of how this organization works and what their goals are.

        Regarding DADT: I’d recommend Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America.

        An excellent read.

        Reply
      • 62. Linda  |  February 24, 2010 at 7:27 am

        To Fundamentalist Christians EVERYTHING is a religious issue. It is not possible for them to separate Church and State; they just can’t. And ‘Man’s laws’ will always be subservient to ‘God’s laws’. They feel perfectly justified breaking civil laws if it’s in the ‘name of God’. So, even if they’re a supreme court justice, they will not be able to rule based on the Constitution if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. And they don’t see that that is a problem. They don’t consider themselves biased or prejudiced. They are simply ‘serving the Lord’.

        They will never accept that we are gay by nature, because that conflicts with their Scripture; and since their Scripture is infallable, we must be wrong. All science, history, psychology, medicine…everything is held to the ‘scripture test’. If they are inline with scripture, then their findings are valid; if they dispute scripture, then their findings are flawed.

        Talk about brainwashing! Their whole perception is skewed!

        Our hope is that we can shed enough light on this issue that the rest of the population will wake up to what’s going on, and start speaking up!

        Love,
        Linda

        Reply
    • 63. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:26 pm

      Count me out.

      I would vote their rights away in a heartbeat if I could.

      (sniffle, blink, blink) I never said I was better than them… ; )

      Reply
      • 64. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:27 pm

        and yes ‘The Family’ is REQUIRED READING for any lgtb American.

        If you haven’t read it. Get it and read it. It has huge implications for us.

        Reply
  • 65. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    “And sorry, the “I have gay friends” line which she uses later in the article just doesn’t work. It never did, particularly when you don’t even bother to get the facts straight from where you pull your bigotry.”

    Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa…..Brian….I love it….I love Hype!!!!

    Reply
    • 66. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:30 pm

      The only gay friend she has is the dude who does her hair for pageants.

      Reply
  • 67. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    I had a Q…Is ENDA a good thing or a bad thing(this is the youngen in me coming out) I’m putting together a rewrite of a song which is done but I never really understood the whole ENDA thing because some are like yeah and some are like eh….and some are like WTF!!!….any help here?….<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 68. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:21 pm

      My understanding was that some people protested it for not including transgendered people. I may be wrong, though, never having researched it in depth myself.

      Reply
    • 69. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:29 pm

      Dopty-son, if ENDA is worded to include gender identity and expression as blanket, all-inclusive terms, and does the same by stating sexual orientation as an all-inclusive term, then it is a good thing. But if you get so specific as to spell out which gender identities and expressons, and specify which sexual orientations, then it is a bad thing. And yet, there will have to be some allowances made for certain types of employment and certqain groups of employers, such as religious groups when the job is directly tied to their religious practices, otherwise it will be nothing but trouble. For example, I can hardly see an orthodox Jewish synagogue being sued for discrimination simply because they did not hire a Catholic priest to be their rabbi. With ENDA, there is a rather fine line to walk, and even then, it will not please everyone. Also, you have my phone number, so feel free to call when you get your phone back from the hospital it is in. ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
      Richard

      Reply
      • 70. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:45 pm

        hehehe…dopty-daddy…I just got and Email from Apple…..my phone is all good….shoot I wanted to upgrade….anywho….I’m picking it up 2morro and I’ll text you….<3….Ronnie

        Reply
      • 71. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:26 pm

        Thanks, Ronnie. Looking forward to it. I do have one suggestion: if you get an iPod Touch, please make sure it is a different color than your iPhone. I have a friend who recently tried to answer his mp3 player when his phone rang. Yes, he has both the iPhone and theiPod Touch. And they are both in black cases. LOL

        Reply
      • 72. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:35 pm

        bwaaaa…answered his mp3 player….hehehe….i saving for the iPad…oh its so cool…I got to play with it in the Apple store….and I was practically drooling over the thing…..”I love living in the Future!”….hehehe….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
    • 73. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:37 pm

      Thanks guys…so if i was to say better ENDA that would be good?….<3…Ronnie

      P.s….got your VM dopty-daddy….my mother still has T-moblie and no long distance so I couldn't reply….(t-moblie..ZZZZZZZ)…..I should get my phone next week but I don't talk on it much..I'm a texter…I find talking on the phone awkward…I don't know why….my ex tried to do phone-you know what once and I was like…..umm..this is weird….just come over….and also when I get on the phone I never know when to shut up…I once had a 6 hour call with a friend who lived nextdoor….enough said….anywho I will text but most def if I need to call….Thank you…<3…Ronnie

      Reply
  • 74. Frijondi  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    When I was about seven years old, my devoutly Christian mother and I were waiting in line at the circulation desk at the public library, where we overheard part of a conversation between the clerk and an older woman. The woman used the phrase, “The Bible says.”

    When she heard that, my mother took me aside and quietly pointed out that whenever anyone said, “The Bible says,” that was a sign that they were not well informed. The Bible, she told me, does not say things; its different authors do. You can quote Jesus, or Paul, or Matthew, or John, or Genesis, or Leviticus, but you can’t quote the Bible as if it were a single text with a unified point of view, because it isn’t.

    That was a long time ago, but I have never forgotten that conversation.

    Reply
    • 75. Christopher  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:23 pm

      @Frijondi

      Your mother was a very wise woman. I love religious people who know what they’re talking about. =)

      Reply
    • 76. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:34 pm

      I would have rather been pulled aside and told, “all this bible stuff is complete bull s**t. People use it to justify treating others badly and violently, but mosty we adhere to it because we are so terrified of death and nothingness, that we don’t know what else to do. And we don’t really adhere to it if we are attracted to the opposite sex. You are only forced to adhere to it if you are LGTB.”

      That would have saved me a decade of pain and many thousands of dollars in therapy.

      Reply
  • 77. Regan DuCasse  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Two things I can’t stand:

    1. Every straight person like Lauren Ashley that defines all things about gay people as “what the Bible says.”

    2. Saying that they have gay friends, who apparently aren’t worthy of being treated ‘as one would want to be treated.

    The Bible was written by human beings. Evidence by the fact that the Bible has completely entitled men to be the SOLE arbiters of how it’s defined, interpreted and enforced and filtered through so many different languages, it’s hard to say WHAT the Bible ever really said…or meant.

    Did Ms. Ashley EVER read, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?
    Now those are documents written in a language we can ALL understand AND which has been amended through the years to give freedom, equality, protection and rights to each citizen.
    Equality has stood our nation, and all of humanity in good stead. None of us has to fear equality and who it’s for and why we have it.

    She can’t say the same for the Bible.

    The Constitution has a tradition too, that she benefits more from than, if NOT for the Constitution, she’d find herself with nowhere for her voice to be heard in the first place.

    She obviously doesn’t appreciate that, nor could she be a stand up role model and help others to appreciate it too.

    Being privileged, obviously hasn’t made her a better person.

    And as for that ‘ I have gay friends’ line of bs…
    she’s also very obviously no friend to THEM.

    Reply
    • 78. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm

      I wonder if she likes all of the things the Bible has to say about women. Someone should mention to her all the rules she’s breaking.

      Reply
  • 79. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    I posted some stuff about Miss Beverly Hills Lauren Ashley on the last article. There are some great web link to check out there.

    But I thought that many of you might just like to read a little bit more about gay-basing right out in public Ryan Sorba.

    This should come as a surprise to the flea that lives on the mouse that lives under the stairs of my summer home in the land that time forgot…

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/ryan_sorba_anti-gay_cpac_activist_court_records.php?ref=mp

    And I don’t quite know why, but I feel a white-hot hatred for Sorba the likes of which I never knew existed.

    Reply
    • 80. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:42 pm

      “Asked how he knew the man was gay, Sorba said “because he looked gay, he sounded gay — it was evident.”

      “I’m proud of that ticket. I look at that ticket as if it’s a trophy,” he said.”

      Someone needs to introduce this guy to Neil Patrick Harris.

      Reply
  • 81. carlwillis  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    It’s pointless to dive into textual analysis or theology in an attempt to counter religious anti-gay arguments.

    The Bible is in turns a funny, nasty, macabre, perverse, and beautiful piece of early literature. ANYONE who takes the Bible any more seriously than they would Grimms’ fairy tales, especially the fundamentalist who thinks it is a source of normative morality, needs to get some sense beaten into his or her thick troglodyte skull.

    My favorite Bible story is the story of Jepthe from Judges 11. Jepthe leaves his family to go off to war, vowing that upon his victorious return he’ll offer “the first thing that comes out his door” to God in a burnt offering. He comes home in due course, and his young daughter races out the door to come meet her Daddy. Jepthe, being a man of God and a man of his word, broils the child alive on an open grill. God must have appreciated the crying, the agonized screaming, and ultimately the thick aroma of charred kiddo, because everybody (except Jepthe’s daughter, ha ha!) lived Happily Ever After.

    Most of us either have a nice belly laugh at this, or turn up our noses. Fundamentalists think it’s is a lesson in how to conduct a barbecue.

    Reply
    • 82. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:56 pm

      I’ve always thought that a more apt name for the holy bible would be, naturally, Jesus Porn!

      Reply
  • 83. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    Ashley Lauren said “They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.”

    Golly-gee….and she “has” Gay friends?!!….with friends like that, who believes they should all die…..who needs enemies….Yeah?……<3….Ronnie

    Reply
    • 84. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:54 pm

      hahaha…I switched her name around…its funny because…SHE HAS 2 FIRST NAMES!!!!!!……..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 85. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:29 pm

        Yes, it is, and I have gotten many a good laugh when someone has transposed my first and last names, because I have two first names, also.♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

        Reply
  • 86. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    Interesting Sorba quote:

    Asked how he knew the man was gay, Sorba said “because he looked gay, he sounded gay — it was evident.”

    But, I thought Sorba and his lemmings are always saying ‘gay’ is mutable??? Something we can totally hide from others??? So which is it Sorba??? You can’t have it BOTH ways.

    That would make you, at the very least, bi. ; )

    Reply
    • 87. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:46 pm

      Maybe he’s claiming to have gaydar?

      Reply
  • 88. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    You guys and gals are gonna love this…its another video that Cheeks made making fun of Carrie Prejean (he should be on SNL)…..I can’t wait until he lays into this Emily Valentine acting PSYCHO chick (I love a 90210 reference)…Lauren Ashley….<3…Ronnie:

    Reply
    • 89. jstueart  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:11 pm

      That’s priceless. And poignant. His point/zinger at the end is great. And really sums up what’s happening with Prejean.

      Reply
    • 90. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm

      That’s great Ronnie – thanks! :)

      Reply
      • 91. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:22 pm

        welcome…<3…Ronnie

        Reply
    • 92. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:32 pm

      Ha Ronnie – I’ve watched a few more of his vids – they are great!

      I’d also recommend his music vid ‘Down Low’ as well :) F’ing awesome :)

      I’ve picked up on a lot of great vids relayed from you. Keep it up :)

      Reply
  • 93. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    This really makes me question why any LGTB citizen would align with conservatives/the right/the GOP or whatever they are calling themselves these days…

    http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-gay-infiltration-of-the-conservative-movement/

    I ask you, if you are out there, and I know you are.

    If you are LGTB and align yourself with this political movement, seriously, why?

    Why?

    Reply
    • 94. John  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:03 pm

      If they agree with most of the other conservative opinions, it might be a good idea to do that to try to push the less bigoted candidates. Or maybe they just believe that small government is a more significant goal than equality. Not saying I agree, but it makes some sense.

      Reply
      • 95. dieter  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:15 pm

        A trio of bills extending marriage rights to same-sex couples were formally heard Monday by a Minnesota house of representatives committee.

        One bill proposes the creation of civil union contracts for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, while another would recognize gay marriages from other states. A third bill calls for full marriage equality by “removing gender-based terminology in existing state statute,”Politics in Minnesota reported.

        The latter bill, sponsored by Democratic state representative Phyllis Kahn, was introduced in the state legislature more than a year ago. “I just want to personally state that I think allowing other people to get married poses absolutely no threat to my marriage,” Kahn told the house civil justice committee during Monday’s hearing.

        The fate of the bills under consideration is unclear. Republican governor Tim Pawlenty, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, has previously stated his opposition to marriage equality and support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

        Minnesota is one several states that do not permit gay marriage yet do not have a constitutional ban on such unions.

        Reply
    • 96. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:46 pm

      Bill, I have spent some time trying to figure that out. Still no luck :)

      About a year ago, some friends and I had this discussion at a summer BBQ. The consensus seemed to be that they believed in their political ideology (the standard, “small government, lower taxes” type stuff), more than their desire for equality.

      Ie: They want the same rights as we do, but their political views are more important to them.

      Watching the GOProud representatives at CPAC last week – I have to admit being impressed with what they are trying to do. It does take a lot of courage to be who they are, and associate themselves with a party that pretty much shuns them at every opportunity.

      I do not agree with their political views, but I do wish them luck nonetheless. They are family too. We just happen disagree on certain things :) I hold no animosity towards them.

      Reply
  • 97. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    ANd read this article. As much as you can stomach.

    But MORE IMPORTANTLY read the comment from the poster named “tazdelaney.”

    It is what I wrote about in a previous thread. My fear that the potential genocide in Uganda will spread. I am not trying to be a fear-monger here in any way. This aticle and comment that I am linking to below, while obviously having been written by a scared and angry gay human being, and rightfully so, was one of the only times I have ever heard another person express this fear.

    I just want everyone to be aware. And to realize that our work has only just begun. And that there are things happening around to world to our LGTB brothers and sisters that are FAR worse than being denied a marriage license. I truly, truly worry for us ALL. We MUST find a way to UNITE of we will face extinction. We may not see it in our lifetime, but it will happen unless we make the necessary sacrifices NOW to stop it. OUr community has to unite. On every street, in every town and in every state. We really MUST.

    http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/20/aims-cliff-kincaid-still-promoting-anti-gay-uganda-law/

    Reply
    • 98. Dave T  |  February 24, 2010 at 7:05 am

      I especially loved this last part:

      Kincaid closed out his column by spewing even more hate, claiming that ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the military “would not only make the Armed Forces a laughingstock but would end its value as a fighting force capable of defending us against foreign threats. Indeed, a homosexualized military could itself become a threat, just like it was in the Nazi period.”

      Yes, Kincaid is suggesting that gays are Nazis.

      Sounds more like he’s suggesting the Nazis were gay. And that sounds like something Mel Brooks would right (or has written).

      Reply
  • 99. jstueart  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    Me: Christian. Me love the Bible as well. But I’m sick-n-tired of people using the Bible in unholy chunks of concrete slabs to throw at people.

    Paul, in his letters, agrees with the OT when it tells a woman not to wear make-up, or adorn herself with jewelry…. Miss Beverly Hills…

    and the Bible has PLENTY to say about rich people… Miss Beverly Hills. And it’s not all good.

    I just hate that bigotry has become one of the things ruining the Exploitation of Women Pageants that I love!

    Reply
    • 100. Felyx  |  February 24, 2010 at 6:13 am

      Jstueart,

      You may like this is you have any need for serious well thought out scholarship regarding so-called gay passages of the Bible.

      http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

      If not then pass it on to some one who does need it.

      love, Felyx

      Reply
  • 101. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Here’s Cliff Kinkaid.

    Reply
    • 102. dieter  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:21 pm

      I am pretty sure I just saw that guy last night on “To catch a predator..”

      Reply
      • 103. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:58 pm

        love it!!!!

        Reply
  • 104. dieter  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    In the news:

    Two middle school kids were shot today at a school near Columbine, the site of the previous massacre.

    Reply
    • 105. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:57 pm

      More detail (not that far from here):

      http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14456094

      No one’s died (yet), both *middle* school students are in the hospital, though with non-life threatening injuries, which is surprising considering the ‘the man was using a “high-powered rifle.”.’

      Suspect is in custody (staff members tackled him).

      Reply
      • 106. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:00 pm

        jesus christ…

        when is it enough?

        ever?

        Reply
  • 107. eDee  |  February 23, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    “I have gay friends”
    How can anyone use that line and think they sound intelligent? She’s saying, “I have gay friends and I don’t want them to be happy.”

    I don’t have any gay friends, I live north of No Where, Maine RFD, and I want her gay friends to be happier than she does.
    I have a dead light bulb in my bathroom brighter than this chick.

    Reply
    • 108. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:03 pm

      :) You go!

      Reply
    • 109. Bill  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:23 pm

      s-n-a-p and a half, bitch! ; )

      Reply
    • 110. Bolt  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:44 pm

      I know two bible thumpers. I wonder if they consider me their friend. They’re so shallow!

      Reply
    • 111. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 8:47 pm

      And I have a dull knife in my kitchen drawer that is a whole lot sharper!

      Reply
  • 112. Bolt  |  February 23, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    The bible thumping bigots should stick their disgusting bibles up their asses! The bible is a bunch of god-damn bullshit!

    Reply
  • 113. Linda  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    NIV ©
    biblegateway Exo 35:2
    “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”

    Why isn’t this broadcast??? Geez! All those wonderful, God-fearing, heterosexual Christians are going to be put to death!!!!

    Seriously, it’s not hard to find Bible verses with the ‘put to death’ threat in them. But apparently there’s only one ‘put to death’ verse that God really meant.

    Reply
    • 114. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:47 pm

      You are so right Linda….yeah that theological word of “God” is the most disrespected of all of them by the Religious Reich…..I mean mother works in a Catholic Hospital and its open for business on Sunday…..The mall I used to work out in NJ was the only one in the area that is open on sunday…..I mean PACKED….I worked at Abercrombie and Fitch for 3 years….the mall closed at 7pm on sunday and we would be there until 11pm sometimes 1am refolding and cleaning….anywho I always found time for church on sunday…at Avalon in NYC….the former Limelight….its a church that was turned into a club…google it…still looks like a church….It was one of the clubs I worked at in NYC while I was in college….back on topic….that day of rest is not followed anymore…Hypocrites…..seriously I said it before and I’ll say it again the Haterosexual Reich does more cherry picking then a Roman Virgin Orgy…..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 115. Linda  |  February 23, 2010 at 8:14 pm

        Well, obviously using Scripture as the reason for legislation is unconstitutional. We ARE a secular democracy, after all. That WAS the whole point of the pilgrimage.

        But if they’re going to use Scripture, they should at least be consistent. If those damning verses apply to us, then all the other damning verses apply to them. Why are they excused from all that? Oh yeah, I remember–because Christ fulfilled the OT law; he did away with the necessity of all that. Well then, great! Leviticus is the OT law book, and apparently Christ did away with all that. In fact, I believe he replaced all that with two simple commandments.
        1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart…etc.
        2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

        Hmm….not seein’ the abomination and hellfire in those commandments.

        Scripture holds no significance for me. But I am offended when they shake their fists and damn me to hell because of a literal interpretation (of a faulty translation), and yet they dismiss equally damning verses that would apply to their own ‘lifestyle’. Hypocrites! Remove the log from your own eye, why don’t you? Or better yet, keep your religion to yourself, and stop trying to legislate it!

        Reply
      • 116. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 8:19 pm

        That does it, Dopty-son. You live close enough that when BZ and I go to Connecticut in June, your presence at the wedding is expected. I should hink that haing a month’s notice will suffice so that you can make the necessary arrangements. And try to make sure your mother and all of the other allies in your family are there also. It will be so much fun. BTW, you are feeling rather catty tonight aren’t you? The last line about cherry picking and Roman virgin orgies had all four sets of claws out! LOL ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

        PS. That invitation is open to all LGBTQQIA’s on the P8TT who are within driving distance of Danbury Connecticut.

        Reply
      • 117. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 8:41 pm

        ROTFLMGAO….yeah I had a good sleep last night…so my claws a sharpened, rested, and ready to carve some new permanent tattoos….That “A” person just took me from a mild purr and made my hiss…..My friends don’t call me quick drawl of jaw for nothing…these Hateros just don’t seem to learn that they can’t out swash me…hehehe…..as for the wedding in June…when?…My b-day is in june,(same day as NYC Gay Pride) my mother is renting a house for me on Fire Island….I can let you guys know the D and can stay for a few days……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 118. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 23, 2010 at 8:46 pm

        I am hoping we will be able to take you up on that invitation. And I am truly hoping to meet not only you, but also any of or allies that you have grown up with in your family. BTW, ET is one of my favorite movies too, and I can truly understand why it is yours. And when you get your phone back, you will have a rather funny text message waiting for you.

        Reply
      • 119. Ronnie  |  February 23, 2010 at 8:54 pm

        can’t wait to read it….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 120. waxr  |  February 23, 2010 at 7:41 pm

    According to Roman’s 13:1 all governing authority have been instituted by God. In contrast to that, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States says that it is established by “We the People.”

    Religion is mentioned only twice in the Contitution.
    In Article VI paragraph 3 it says, “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    And the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    Three three passages in the Constitution should make it clear that the founding fathers did not see this country as being founded upon Christianity, or upon religion of any kind.

    Reply
  • 121. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    See my post at the top. The Bible needs serious scholarship. Anything less is just plain disrespectful and ‘ignant’!!

    http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html

    This has the complete text…very worth reading for those who hold the bible seriously.

    Reply
    • 122. MKandefer  |  February 24, 2010 at 7:11 am

      The problem with this approach is it assumes the Bible contains truth, and that if we observe something or develop a moral system that seems to contradict the Bible, we must be reading the Bible wrong. The problem is not in the interpretation, it’s in the assumption. The Bible doesn’t contain truth, it was written by primitive men. This particular interpretation doesn’t account for all of the passages about homosexuality or sodomites:

      http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

      Even if it did there’s these factual errors in the Bible that make it less than reliable as a truth maker:

      http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

      Reply
  • 123. jimig  |  February 23, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    The only benifit in all this talk regarding religion is the understanding that the primary group of people who have the least amount of correct information regarding LGBT relationships are people of religion.

    It is a reminder that one by one person by person we all need to speak out in support of LGBT and SSM. I am not Gay but this issue is important and since I am the son of a Lesbian. I choose to speak out. I am actively speaking to those I know who don’t understand. I am making a piont of speaking out and as a married family man I have have nothing to loose.

    Two things, first out of respect and knowing the pain my SS parents have felt and the impact it might have on their careers I asked for there permission first. And because I am posting the trial tracker and other links to my facebook I asked for my sisters permission to become more vocal. (just the fact that I felt like I had to ask should say a lot about what I have experinced).

    Second, my stance is now something to the effect do you hate me, (okay no) then why do you hate my family, why should you and I have rights that my own mother can not have. Who are you to tell me my parents were not able to love me and raise me, why do you hate me so much that you will not let my children know their grandmothers as married.

    There is no way I can feel the anger someone Gay might feel. But I sure as hell can feel the anger someone feels after someone comes after them or their family. I can never no the anger an LGBT person has after someone makes comments or say mean things. But I do know the pain of watching it happen to a loved one and being afraid to say anything. I may never know the pain of rejection because of being Gay. But I will know the pain of being rejected as a child due to association.

    In all this and the trial the thing that of course as you would expect upset me the most was seeing the break down of how they Ha8ers used children and lies about raising children to shift votes.

    Truth is if my one mother wasn’t already retired and the other about to retire I might still be to scared to vioce my thoughts.

    Sometimes I feel like all this is leading up to something very important and thank you for letting me vent and be apart of all this. What you do not know is that my being apart of this sight has helped me talk with my mother, my sister, my friends and others. It has given me the support I didn’t have outside of close friends to yell to the winds and say, I am the loved child of a Lesbian couple and they love me more than anyone could and to hell with all you ha8ers. It has given me the streight not to walk away when asked about my mother and her friend but to say ya they are a couple and the have been for 46 years. Oh by the way they are not married bcause, well some peole don’t think they are equal.

    Reply
    • 124. JonT  |  February 23, 2010 at 10:11 pm

      jimig: wow. I got nothing to add to that. Thanks for sharing.

      Reply
  • 125. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 23, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Felyx – The “V” story is definitely a keeper. It’s already filed into my ‘gloomy day’ folder for a little sunshine. THNX

    Reply
    • 126. Felyx  |  February 23, 2010 at 10:20 pm

      So now all I need is a Physical Education coach named Mr. Nis!!!! ;P Felyx

      Reply
  • 127. fern  |  February 24, 2010 at 12:09 am

    I think the bible insist on modesty for women and they should not show their wares and curves in public.
    Would she do on a street corner what she does on stage she would be called a hooker.
    In my view women going to these contest have a cash register instead of a heart.

    Instead of Leviticus she should read Asinius he is more to her level

    Reply
  • 128. MKandefer  |  February 24, 2010 at 7:04 am

    Even with the context it’s still a repudiation of an “unclean act” among a series of “unclean acts” that have to do with sexuality. It’s also seems to be clear that these are rules to govern by, with punishments prescribed to be carried out by the people.* One should ask the tart mentioned in this article if she also feels that people should follow through with her God’s recommended punishments for homosexuals, and then follow that up with questions about the punishments for victims of rape.

    * – Hence the frequent use of “ye shall” followed by a punishment for the abomination in the KJB

    That some Christians wish to perform mental gymnastics to attempt to create a theology that is consistent with the known universe and our current societies morals does not erase the actual context:

    The Bible was a book written in ancient times by people much more ignorant than we are currently. It is not divinely inspired, and all the Christians wishfully thinking otherwise does not change the evidence that suggests that.

    Even if this passage were explained away as merely a recommendation for remaining “unclean” in an age without showers, there are several passages (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm) that deal with the proper treatment of sodomites, which among their sins were committing “abominations”. It’s vague, but clearly in reference to all the things the Judeo-Christian God finds to be repugnant, such as homosexuality.

    Reply
  • 129. Urbain  |  February 24, 2010 at 7:26 am

    They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.

    I find it so incredibly ironic that the GLBT community hears this type of crap constantly … and the Prop 8 proponents cower in fear over testifying at the trial.

    Reply
  • 130. Dave T  |  February 24, 2010 at 7:31 am

    One of the things that I find appalling about belief that the bible tells you how to live, even for people who pay it lip service, is the ridiculous notion that god created you as a rational being, but you’re supposed to reject that aspect of yourself and blindly follow.

    For example, god created Adam & Eve, then said “you can eat anything in this garden except for this fruit”. God made them curious, WTF did he think was going to happen?

    Similarly, god created all sorts of evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old (fossils, frozen mammoth carcasses, rocks that are millions of years old, etc.). Intelligent, careful (and, dare I say it, good and decent) people have examined the evidence and it does seem to indicate that the earth is a lot older than the bible says. WTF is that all about? A practical joke on god’s part?

    Finally, god provided us with a book that tells us how to behave. Except that much of it is confusing and unclear. Except that it includes atrocities done in the name of god – things that no right thinking person could possibly label as right. WTF? Couldn’t god express how he/she wants us to behave in clearer terms? Does he/she really want us to rape, pillage, take slaves?

    Reply
    • 131. Felyx  |  February 24, 2010 at 8:16 am

      I would like to point out that the Bible has never been Peer reviewed….maybe that is why Christians don’t consider the process of peer reviewing that important!

      Felyx

      Reply
      • 132. Felyx  |  February 24, 2010 at 8:20 am

        Maybe that is why they feel they should run everyones life with their DOMA…I mean DOGMA.

        Reply
      • 133. John  |  February 24, 2010 at 8:39 am

        One advantage of polytheism, I suppose.

        Reply
    • 134. Ronnie  |  February 24, 2010 at 9:11 am

      Another thing David T…is that the Hateros use the Adam and Steve(I mean Eve) story to say that God intended for humans to procreate….however if they actually believed that whole story and didn’t cheery pick which parts are fact….they would notice that they did not reproduce until after they ate the forbidden “fruit” and were cast out of the Garden of Eden as sinners for disobeying their Holy Mother…..forget cherry picking and Roman Virgin Orgies with that story of Adam and Eve….the Hateros should pull a George Washington and say…”I cannot tell a Lie”…….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 135. Ronnie  |  February 24, 2010 at 9:15 am

        I apologize….its Dave T…I was reading an email from David Kimble while typing my reply to you…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 136. Warner  |  February 24, 2010 at 9:35 am

    how long before laruen ashley has home-made porn videos like prejean?

    Reply
  • 137. SEA_Andrew  |  February 24, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Interpretation of Sin

    I know there are a few of you that do not like pandering to the religious entities as you may have different belief systems etc:, but one thing just hit me.

    In a previous blog posting, I think that Fiona mentioned a song from Peter, Paul, and Mary called, “Don’t laugh at me”. Of course, I do lurk on here and read things as I get time during my lunch at work.

    Firstly, dam you for listing that. Secondly, I downloaded it immediately from iTunes and was in tears by the end of the song.

    What strikes me as interesting is the song really does draw attention to the fact that yes – we all are equal in God’s eyes, and yes, some day we will all have perfect wings.

    To me, since the Church feels that they wish to take just ONE of the sins out of the Bible and highlight it, we should not be so exclusive, we should highlight them all.

    The next time you encounter people who want to judge you, do this:

    Take a few “hello my name is….” stickers with you.

    Have them write down THEIR sin on the sticker (be truthful now….)

    Make them wear it all day so that everyone can see their sin in public: Lust, Envy, Gluttony, Greed, etc:

    The Bible says, “…for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”. “For the wages of sin is death….”

    Once you have seen their sin, start passing around the room a petition to remove the rights associated with their sin. (ie: Gluttony – make it law they go on Jenny Craig)

    See if you can get enough signatures in the room to have it added to the State’s constitution.

    It is easy to pass judgment on other people using the Bible. It is another thing to say that you follow Christ, when Christ never went to Pontius Pilate and demanded laws be made against any type of “sin” as they believed in that time.

    Historically, Jewish law was different from non-Jewish law. The Jews regulated themselves. Everyone else lived under the law of the kingdom which was separate from religious beliefs.

    Just my 2 cents… Wear that nametag now!

    Love, Andrew

    Reply
    • 138. Linda  |  February 24, 2010 at 12:41 pm

      Andrew–this is brilliant!!! What an obviously simple solution! Thanks!
      Love,
      Linda

      Reply
    • 139. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 24, 2010 at 4:27 pm

      Andrew, I am so glad you got the meaning of that song. In fact, I first posted the lyrics of the song, which I had first heard when country singer Mark Wills took it to #1 on the country charts a few years back, and fiona eucated me to the fact that peter, Paul & Mary had also recorded it. And you are right about the Jews regulating themselves. Not that we have dne it so perfectly throughout the millenia, but then we re human, and will make mistakes. I love your idea, by the way, and will try it out soon here in our little military town near Ft. Bragg. Hoe to see you posting on here more as your schedule permits.♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
      Richard (aka Beryl in the Jewish community)

      Reply
  • 140. LND  |  February 24, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Apparently the city of Beverely Hills is saying they don’t even know who this person is…they don’t even have a Miss Beverly Hills…

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/02/beverly-hills-disavows-beauty-contestant-and-her-comments-on-samesex-marriage.html

    I feel compelled to make a “thou shall not lie” reference here…

    Reply
    • 141. SEA_Andrew  |  February 24, 2010 at 3:45 pm

      She needs a “bear false witness” nametag.

      Love, Andrew

      Reply
  • […] couple of days ago, I mentioned “Miss Beverly Hills,” Lauren Ashley. Ms. Ashley is something of a Carrie Prejean wannabe. By talking trash about […]

    Reply
  • 143. Steve  |  February 27, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    I am an atheist/agnostic, so what the Bible says regarding homosexuality (or most other things) is neither here nor there with respect to how I evaluate morality and ethics. I strongly believe that gays and lesbians should have full marriage equality, and the only arguments against this are purely religious and should not be a part of public policy.

    That being said, we should not kid ourselves about what is in the Bible regarding homosexuality. It is not simply a matter of ritual cleanliness. Leviticus 20:13 states: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Not a whole lot of room for interpretation there. Of course, this is the same book that prescribes death as the punishment for disobedient children, so I don’t find this moral argument very convincing. Nonetheless, it is there, and contorting various other passages of the Bible to try and claim that the Bible is OK with homosexuality is a futile exercise. Accepting that a Bronze Age book has any special place in guiding our morality contributes to the problem, not to the solution.

    Reply
    • 144. K!r!lleXXI  |  February 28, 2010 at 12:47 am

      @Steve
      I agree with the most of what you said, except one thing.
      We do not accept that book has any special place in guiding our morality, we merely try to find some common ground with those folks who think that book is our guide because they believe so and they, like us, have a freedom of religion, they are free to believe whatever they want, so we only try to show them that their teachings are “slightly” incorrect, that God did not say anything about homosexuality in Leviticus, it was Moses or some priests half-a-millennium before Christ, and the book itself was not the Word of God, but the Word of Men, Israelites’ covenant with God (again, only Israelites, not the whole world, not every nationality and ethnicity — thus and so it is immoral to impose their believes on others!); and those strict rules are nothing but the evidence of lack of understanding of homosexuality as normal variation of human sexuality that we know of now, after decades of scientific research!

      Religious people must understand what those books really are — they are what they were when they were composed, not what they became after the Church proclaimed them to be some sacred scripture every word of which is sacred and universally true… “Believe in God you Creator, not in His interpretor — the Church!” — that’s what we’re trying to say!

      –Kirill, agnostic (Russia)

      Reply
      • 145. Steve  |  March 1, 2010 at 1:01 am

        I agree, Kirill. The need for education about these matters is vital. Once people recognize the human character of these books and acknowledge that not every word needs to be considered divinely inspired, then we can begin to have a rational discussion about the moral teachings contained within. I guess the concern I was trying to express related to a fear of fighting on the other side’s terms – that if we concede that a moral principle MUST have biblical support in order to be authoritative, then we may find ourselves giving tortured, unpersuasive arguments as we try to shoehorn tolerance into a book that often lacks that quality.

        Reply
      • 146. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 1, 2010 at 8:08 am

        @Steve

        The problem is that religious people will not acknowledge that not every word of scripture was divinely inspired, unless we begin our rational discussions and show them that those moral teachings are way too flawed to be the real God’s Word. It’s not the case for everyone, but it’s the case for the absolute majority that tries to pull everybody else to their side, the side of literal understanding of the scripture and complete assurance of its divine origin (I guess, that would be fundamentalism).

        I also understand and share your concerns about people on our side (gays, lesbians, allies) who try to find that biblical support of moral principles. I’ve learned it the hard way. I live in Russia, and about a year ago I’ve had some heated conversations with a local Orthodox priest. His position was that moral principles are from God, they are expressed in the Bible, and without the Bible there is no morality, that it’s not an inherent program of human or animal behavior, and without the Bible we all will be savages, and will be killing each other, fornicating with the young, and so on and so forth (all the disturbing arguments that have no merit). This is what the clergy representative was telling me in an open forum, not privately — to contest my arguments which I based on a scientific study of moral principles observed in animal behavior (the study actually showed that animals do have an inherent program of moral principles they follow without any scripture — this is science, not some mumbo-jumbo from the Sunday school). And I stand by those arguments wholeheartedly. I wish people knew about those studies.

        Anyway, yes, it is a problem that sometimes we try to use the Bible to prove our point, when, in fact, we should be debunking outright lies, obsolete misconceptions, and now unsubstantiated misunderstandings the Bible contains — this is the best evidence to prove that this book has nothing in common with God and is not coming from God. And so the words there are nothing but demented arguments of old farts (there, I said it… didn’t want to hurt anyone’s religious feelings which I generally respect, but I think I’m allowed to say that about the scripture that states I should be stoned to death for simply who I am).

        –Kirill

        Reply
  • 147. AC  |  March 1, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    @ Kirill and Steve

    I happen to agree with you both and welcome a discussion with those who are willing to see this issue from another angle (moderates for example). As for fundamentalists…I am not going to waist my breath trying to convince some who teaches creationism and denies evolution. That’s like trying to teach a baboon to speak and reason. Ain’t gonna happen! At least not in this planet. And if you think these people don’t exist. Let me tell you that they are out there and they happen some times be the loudest of the bunch.

    Reply
    • 148. David Kimble  |  March 1, 2010 at 6:09 pm

      “And if you think these people don’t exist. Let me tell you that they are out there and they happen some times be the loudest of the bunch.”

      Yes, I agree AC, which is why I believe it’s time we call them out, when they use the Bible as a club to beat us into submission. We need to stand tall and proud and not smirk, when they misquote scriptures or when they rip them out-of-context. The argument about gay marriage has some of its origins in scripture, yet as was pointed-out by Dr. (Sorry I can’t remember the name) from the trial, the ritual of marriage has its origins long before the Bible. <3 David

      Reply
    • 149. K!r!lleXXI  |  March 2, 2010 at 1:22 am

      @AC
      I believe not every Christian fundamentalist is a real fundamentalist — most of the people simply join the group (or, dare I say, the herd) out of gregarious instinct, out of fear that questioning the Bible would be questioning the scripture and God Himself; this fear drives them towards fundamentalistic perusal and interpretation of the scripture, especially in times like this — when there is a lot of room for doubt, and all those verbal wars against gays and whatnot spread throughout the nation in reply to marriage equality fight.

      Yes, we are a part of the reason why they run towards fundamentalism — they don’t understand us, our love, our sexual life, so they seek for answers in the Bible and only see the most damning words, so they feel they have to be more rigorous to contest us. This is why we have to fight for them — because not all of them are real fundamentalists, and because some of them toughened their real position out of inability to understand us — we can change their minds and hearts, we can get them back, and that’s what we’re gonna do! I published a whole article about that in last month’s Gay Agenda Weekly, haven’t you gotten the copy? :)

      @David Kimble
      I believe it was Harvard University Professor Nancy Cott, author of Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (2000).

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,301 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...