Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why gay rights activists need to straighten up
Rational Review ^ | February 18, 2009 | J. Neil Schulman

Posted on 02/19/2009 11:41:26 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman

Warning: This article contains sexually explicit language.


I’ve been a libertarian my entire adult life. Libertarianism, as I’ve been an apologist for it, is a philosophy promoting individual rights, civil liberties, and the freedom to have manifest destiny over one’s own life and property. I am opposed to the government telling people what they can do with their minds and bodies. I am consistent on this whether the issue is consensual intimate relations between adults, or the freedom to self-medicate and self-entertain oneself using the agricultural or pharmaceutical product of one’s choice, or the responsibility of parents to choose what their children are taught about how the human race came to be, or whether it’s regarding the decision of a woman not to carry a fetus to term in her womb.

So when I have to explain to my daughter, who phone-banked in the November 2008 election against California’s Proposition 8 by which the California electorate voted to amend their Constitution restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, why I’m opposed to California courts overturning the vote she lost, it requires an explanation of my grounding principles and my firmly grasping sharp ideological nettles.

Let there be no mistake. I favor absolute equality in law for adult individuals who prize the liberty to have intimate relations with, fall in love with, and make life commitments to other individuals of their own gender. I favor laws enabling institutions to grant equity to same-sex couples in matters of habitation, inheritance, taxation, hospital visitation and fiduciary decision-making. If there are to be civil rights laws forbidding discrimination in employment, housing, and use of common facilities, and laws forbidding hate crimes, on the basis of race, color, religion, or ethnic origin, then I see no reason why gender preference is worth either less or more than these other collective categories for receiving grants of legal protection.

But none of that means I’m going to favor up-ending constitutional principles to favor a specific group’s pleadings, nor do I think a struggle for civil rights entitles one to thuggery, nor am I willing to embrace hypocrisy, the destruction of language, rewriting history, and lies just because some people have justifiable grievances.

Let’s start with the lies contained in the use of two common terms: “homosexual” and “gay.”

There is no such thing as “homo” sexuality, unless by that term you are referring to sexual relations between two members of the species homo sapiens.

Sexuality refers to the natural biological processes by which living organisms reproduce. In mammals, primates, and homo sapiens, this natural process requires gametes supplied by both males and females. Gametes supplied by two males will not cause reproduction. Gametes supplied by two females will not cause reproduction. Only gametes supplied by the copulation of males and females will cause reproduction – and you can teach whatever propaganda you like in taxpayer-funded and politically decided “sex education” curricula and no children will result from the attempts of the students to copulate otherwise.

This is not to say that everything that heterosexuals do with each other is sex, either. It isn’t. The term “oral” sex is also a misnomer, as I’m sure former President William Jefferson Clinton would be happy to inform you. Neither is “anal” sex a biologically correct term. Despite parental or church propaganda, sticking a penis in either a mouth or an anus cannot lead to pregnancy. If Juno had given her boyfriend a blowjob there would have been an entirely different movie.

Non-progenitive behavior is sex play, power play, love play, or molestation, depending on the intents and consent of the participants. But inasmuch as no reproduction can result, these are not sex acts and those engaging in them are not defined by their acts as “sexuals,” homo, hetero, or else wise.

In my 1983 novel, The Rainbow Cadenza, I invented a neologism to describe men who were physically attracted only to other men. I called them “andromen” using the Greek root for male. I’ll continue using my own term for the remainder of this screed. The term “lesbian” needs no redefinition and I’ll continue using it as well.

From the standpoint of reproductive biology, andromen and lesbians are chaste. They may cohabitate, and love each other. They may pair-bond into brotherhoods, sisterhoods, or families. But unless they find a partner of the opposite sex to mix their gametes with, they are not sexually active. Any condoms they use are solely for the purpose of preventing the spread of diseases, which not only are sexually transmitted but also non-sexually transmitted through intimate encounters that exchange bodily fluids. But these condoms are irrelevant to preventing a pregnancy, which can not result from these intimacies.

So let’s put another lie to bed. AIDS is not only a Sexually Transmitted Disease; it is also a Non-Sexually-Transmitted Disease. I would dare say that it would be hard to find a case where the HIV virus was ever transmitted through a sexual encounter in a San Francisco “gay” bath house -- unless one of the participants was a female pretending to be a male and the male partner was somehow manipulated into inserting his penis into her vagina and ejaculating therein.

Since males who are attracted only to other males are sexually abstinent, they are perfect candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood, which requires their priests to be celibate – that is, to refrain from marriage. Likewise, lesbians – being sexually abstinent – are perfect candidates to be nuns, since their “marriage” to Christ need never be physically consummated. For some reason I’ve never been able to fathom, neither the Roman Catholic hierarchy nor the activist movements for andromen and lesbians are comfortable with this obvious lifestyle perfection.

And, in my opinion, the unwillingness of “gay” organizations to stand up for Catholic priests when they are caught engaging in non-sexual acts with other males is the sheerest hypocrisy and poltroonery.

While we’re at it, let’s dispose of the label “gay.” It’s false-to-fact propaganda. Being physically attracted only to members of one’s own sex does not make one happier than being physically attracted to members of the opposite sex. If anything, the social stigma has tended to cause a great deal of unhappiness. Being expressively flamboyant, liking Broadway show tunes, being artistically creative, and liking gourmet cooking may indeed make one gay. By those definitions I am gay. But I’m not willing to stick my penis into another man’s anus or mouth, or have another man stick his penis into mine, to complete my initiation.

I understand that scriptures deriving from the Hebrews – Jewish, Christian, and Islamic – have been interpreted as being harsh toward same-sex couplings. I’ve read the Bible and I understand why ancient nomadic tribes, being low population and economically marginal, placed a high utility on reproductive behavior -- and why their cultures reflected an understandable hostility towards gangs of thugs sneaking into their camps and molesting their men. I just don’t think God’s instructions to these ancients was specifically applicable to men who set up housekeeping in West Hollywood or the Castro.

But it’s offensive to me when a church service is invaded by something that looks like the cast of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. It’s offensive to me when an old lady holding a cross at an anti-Proposition 8 protest has the cross ripped from her hands and stomped on. I understand the long-standing provocations but this grudge match between Queers and Bible Thumpers has got to stop.

What also has to stop is the attempt by andromen and lesbians to norm social acceptance of their lifestyle preferences by pretending that marriage is a civil right they are being denied. Marriage has always required consummation and this they cannot do with each other.

Nor is it right that in their hunger for social acceptance they are willing to corrupt the judicial system such that a state’s attorney general and state judges sworn to uphold a state’s constitution – and deriving whatever legitimate authority they have from that constitution -- are demanded to ignore a polity’s majority vote to enshrine a millennial-old custom in their state’s constitution, and stage a political coup to overturn it.

My darling daughter.

You want to disestablish marriage as a legally regulated institution entirely? As a libertarian, I’m with you.

You want to amend the California constitution so that any two or more adults who want to get married – including groups of men and women in any number and mixture – may legally do so … I’ll cross the border from my home state of Nevada to help you campaign for it.

But don’t tell me that “gays” have a greater right to marriage than Mormon-offshoot polygamists. That sort of special pleading that ignores the historical discrimination against others just revolts me. If you want your daddy to line up with you to defend someone’s civil rights, then they’re going to have to respect the civil rights of everyone else and not expect more political privileges than any other homo sapiens – whether we homos arrived on this planet through the good graces of God or Charles Darwin.

#

J. Neil Schulman is a libertarian writer, activist, and filmmaker.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: civilrights; gay; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; libertinarianism; libertines; marriage; prop8; proposition8; wasteofbandwidth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

1 posted on 02/19/2009 11:41:27 AM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

The Velvet mafia is gonna gitcha....(chuckle)


2 posted on 02/19/2009 11:43:14 AM PST by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
"I just don’t think God’s instructions to these ancients was specifically applicable to men who set up housekeeping in West Hollywood or the Castro."

And therein is the original lie...."Hast God said?" When will people wake up and realize that their decision to selectively determine what God meant means that they have made for themselves a new god. One that looks like them. In fact, it is them. Hence, their god is too small.

This guy is of his father, the devil....so he should not wonder why his daughter follows along on the same wide path - which leads to destruction.

3 posted on 02/19/2009 11:51:03 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
You want to disestablish marriage as a legally regulated institution entirely? As a libertarian, I’m with you.

How exactly do you deal with issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc.?

4 posted on 02/19/2009 11:51:32 AM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Well done. This is fabulous. You truly are a Libertarian.

The examination of the language of this entire issue deserved examination, and you provided such a reasoned analysis of it. All I can say is thank you for this contribution, and its a huge reason I value this forum so.


5 posted on 02/19/2009 11:52:00 AM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
As Lewis Carrol said in Through the Looking Glass: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'

Using your new definition of "sex" I would suppose that a man who had a vasectomy or a woman who had a tubal ligation, a hysterectomy or even wasn't close enough to ovulation to result in pregnancy wouldn't be able to have sex either.

You are using your redefinition of words much as a squid uses its ink: to cloud the water and make capturing the issue much more difficult.

6 posted on 02/19/2009 12:00:12 PM PST by KarlInOhio (On 9/11 Israel mourned with us while the Palestinians danced in the streets. Who should we support?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

I think you need to respect the perspective for what it is - non-religious. In that light, this gentleman has provided you with a cogent, completely logical argument to support your cause within your own religious experience. “Marriage requires consummation,” being the operative observation of an obvious but overlooked fact.

Given the activity in question isn’t really sexual, meaning it is non-progenitive, what business does a Christian clergy of any sect or order have in blessing sexual play? There is certainly nothing Biblical that supports it, correct?

The whole QUESTION of this being MARRIAGE is out. As such, where does that put you within the perspective of church policy? Christian marriage, an institution that came from Christ Himself, is explicit in its Biblical definition.

So what would the Church like to call this, whatever it is - union, fraternity, partnership . . .

I for one BRISTLE at the term PARTNER, or PARTNERSHIP. I have a business partner, whose male, and in describing our relationship, wedding band affixed to my finger, it makes me cringe as soon as the word ‘partner’ escapes my lips. I feel like I have to further explain the context of the term.

Anyway, you ought to thank this gent in my opinion. He may not agree with your view of God and the Universe, but his observations on the language of the issue is, in my opinion, highly valuable to anyone debating it within their own church.

May God bless you richly.


7 posted on 02/19/2009 12:03:55 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Interesting perspective, but changing the definitions of sexual to only those encounters where the pairing of gametes is possible is just a bunch of linguistic gymnastics. I suppose by your definition that anyone who has had a vasectomy doesn’t have sex anymore but just exchanges bodily fluids since there are no gametes in the transmission.


8 posted on 02/19/2009 12:03:57 PM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

The queers will straighten up once they burn my church down.


9 posted on 02/19/2009 12:04:01 PM PST by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs

I am simply discerning truth from a lie in his statement. Forgetting the political argumentation - which is vain discussion in light of eternity anyway! And, no - I don’t thank him for this potty-mouthed tripe.


10 posted on 02/19/2009 12:06:53 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

>>There is no such thing as “homo” sexuality, unless by that term you are referring to sexual relations between two members of the species homo sapiens. <<

I think positions like this along with claiming there are not very many homosexuals or bisexuals undercut the debate.

Claiming they don’t exist or are rare just makes to person making the argument less believable, whatever else they are saying.


11 posted on 02/19/2009 12:07:10 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

He hasn’t changed the definition. If anything he’s identified how lazy others have been in applying ‘sexual’ with any activity involving genitalia that doesn’t involve elimination.

Procreation is the VERY REASON for sex. There is no other biological reason for sex, at all. As such, everything else isn’t sex, but play, assault, or domination.


12 posted on 02/19/2009 12:08:02 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

The Hebrews thought Jesus was of the devil, too.

Sorry to see there are Pharisees on this board.


13 posted on 02/19/2009 12:13:58 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Badeye

14 posted on 02/19/2009 12:22:52 PM PST by John Will
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

anniegetyourgun wrote: “I don’t thank him for this potty-mouthed tripe.”

I posted a warning that the content was sexually explicit — as it must be in any adult discussion of the issues. If you proceeded to read the content after the warning, you self-selected yourself as an adult.


15 posted on 02/19/2009 12:22:54 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

gondramB quoted me: “There is no such thing as “homo” sexuality, unless by that term you are referring to sexual relations between two members of the species homo sapiens.” then commented: “I think positions like this along with claiming there are not very many homosexuals or bisexuals undercut the debate. Claiming they don’t exist or are rare just makes to person making the argument less believable, whatever else they are saying.”

You’re attacking a straw man. I wrote that the behavior called “homosexuality” was not a valid biological description because the human species is not apart from the rest of mammals and primates in requiring paired gametes to continue existing. I didn’t attempt to trivialize the number of people engaging in non-sexual practices which have been misdefined as sexual. Though a minority, they are politically potent in the extreme.


16 posted on 02/19/2009 12:29:58 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Mr. Schulman,

While I appreciate the logical coherence of your argument, I wish to make a suggestion to you.

Read Genesis chapter 19 carefully and compare it to the current situation. There is something about the “andromen” that exceeds a simple desire to live an “alternative lifestyle”.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019%20;&version=47;


17 posted on 02/19/2009 12:31:34 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

PetroniusMaximus wrote: “Read Genesis chapter 19 carefully and compare it to the current situation. There is something about the “andromen” that exceeds a simple desire to live an ‘alternative lifestyle.’”

Since Genesis is my favorite book of the Bible, I’ve re-read it many times.

The problem Lot was having is not that the Sodomites were andromen. If that was his problem he would have offered them young males, rather than his daughter, to get them to leave the angels alone. That he offered his daughter is scriptural proof that the crime of sodomy is not same-sex pairing but rape.


18 posted on 02/19/2009 12:39:09 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus
I view the gay lobby much akin to the Muslim contingent. If you want to keep your ideas and concepts to your own circle of friends, and make your own choices behind closed doors, I disagree with your choices, but won't nay say your right to live apart as you want.

However, when you demand I approve of you, when you use force to intimidate those who disagree with you, when you use the legal system by stealth to create the world you desire and erase the one that has existed for thousands of years, and do the same with the way my country has existed for two hundred thirty plus, when you use the legal system to force the reeducation of my children to embrace ideas I find abhorrent, and when your plan is to actively recruit them no matter how you lie about doing so, I have to say, "enough!" It is enough that I, by the Grace of God, tolerate these actions; will not stand down and let them overcome my culture or my country.

The very people who want me to be ever more "tolerant" are the people sending death threats to the churches who fully and legally got a majority of Californians to vote for what they saw as right. And if the shoe were on the other foot, these threatening people would be called bigots and worse.

19 posted on 02/19/2009 12:51:20 PM PST by 50sDad (No Irish May Apply: Tell me I haven't been discriminated against.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; anniegetyourgun
Making the claim that God's word does not apply to people today is certainly in direct opposition to what scripture teaches. From a scriptural perspective, the writer of this article would be much more like the false teachers scripture warns of than Jesus. Therefore, calling the person who said this writing was 'of the devil' a Pharisee shows a complete lack of scriptural underestanding.

Annie's behavior is much more readily likened to that of Jesus or one of the apostles than a Pharisee.

20 posted on 02/19/2009 12:53:08 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

That title has some double entendre’s apparently. I figure if all gays would straighten up, no one would be gay.


21 posted on 02/19/2009 12:55:24 PM PST by swilliams53 (If I only had a brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

MEGoody wrote: “Making the claim that God’s word does not apply to people today is certainly in direct opposition to what scripture teaches. From a scriptural perspective, the writer of this article would be much more like the false teachers scripture warns of than Jesus. Therefore, calling the person who said this writing was ‘of the devil’ a Pharisee shows a complete lack of scriptural underestanding.

“Annie’s behavior is much more readily likened to that of Jesus or one of the apostles than a Pharisee.”

Scripture means “writing.” Scripture is written. The writers were human beings. The translators were human beings. The readers and interpreters are human beings.

The Reformation that distinguished Protestant Christianity from the Catholic Church was precisely on the right of individuals to read and interpret scripture free from the dictated interpretations of a self-anointed and self-perpetuating clergy.

God gave me the power to read, write, interpret and think. I am neither more nor less empowered by God to read and contemplate the meaning and applicability of scripture than any other human being gifted with an independent soul and a free will by our Creator.

Those who deny this freedom are, as I said, committing the same sin the Pharisees did when Jesus taught them a new interpretation of existing scriptures.

Neil


22 posted on 02/19/2009 1:02:00 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman; 50sDad

“The problem Lot was having is not that the Sodomites were andromen”.

50sDad said it better that I, but what I am getting at is that in the Genesis passages the crowd of Sodomites takes on a life of it’s own. It’s almost like a ravenous beast. It won’t listen to reason and it won’t be thwarted until it gets what it wants - the satisfaction of it’s lust. If violence is necessary, then so be it.

“Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them... “

This is the collective nature of the sodomites/andromen. That same nature is evident in their collective actions in the current day and may become more so as events progress.

The Bible describes that collective nature as demonic.


23 posted on 02/19/2009 1:17:47 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Since males who are attracted only to other males are sexually abstinent, they are perfect candidates for the Roman Catholic priesthood, which requires their priests to be celibate – that is, to refrain from marriage.

Mr. Schulman is straining credulity to only consider as sexual, those acts which are, or are designed to be, pro-creative. Seems terribly silly to me for someone to try to push that notion. If an action involves the use of ANY sexual organ, it it a sexual act, plain and simple.

Because of this notion, he's twisting the meaning of celibacy. Yes, one definition is someone who remains unmarried, but the definition used by the Church in dealing with priests, or men and women in the committed religious life means not having sexual relations with anyone, whether those relations are pro-creative, or not.

24 posted on 02/19/2009 1:25:49 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Neil, it’s been so long since I’ve seen one of your posts, I’d forgotten that you post here. Nice seeing you again. It’s been a while since I read “Stopping Power”.


25 posted on 02/19/2009 1:29:27 PM PST by zeugma (Will it be nukes or aliens? Time will tell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
How exactly do you deal with issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc.?

They're called "Wills, Contracts, and Power of Attorney". Look into them sometime.

L

26 posted on 02/19/2009 1:34:43 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
Thanks for the cogent, well written article.

L

27 posted on 02/19/2009 1:35:07 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

“...my firmly grasping sharp ideological nettles.”

That’s hysterically funny.


28 posted on 02/19/2009 1:41:09 PM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
And what of that little thing called “intestacy”?
29 posted on 02/19/2009 1:44:32 PM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
I've always thought that a large part of the same-sex attraction is that the 'partner' knows where the G-spot is, no awkward probing or false groans where pain is often confused with pleasure.
30 posted on 02/19/2009 1:46:28 PM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
You asked a question. I answered it.

Matters of inheritance are dealt with by a legal instrument known as a "Will".

Medical care decisions are dealt with by a legal instrument known as a "Power of Attorney".

Neither one of these legal instruments requires the State or Federal governments to become involved in the question of what is or is not a marriage.

L

31 posted on 02/19/2009 2:01:34 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Lurker,

Thanks!

For myself, I wonder just what marriage accomplishes that can’t also be accomplished by a well-drawn up living trust with living will provisions.

Neil


32 posted on 02/19/2009 2:06:49 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
"Marriage" is an institution devised by various religious denominations around the world over thousands of years.

Personally I don't think the State should be involved in it one way or the other. It's none of their business to whom I chose to bond myself religiously, assuming of course that all parties involved are doing so willingly and are of the age of majority.

We as human beings allow the State to intrude far too much into matters that are quite frankly none of their damned business.

Frankly I'm pretty much fed up with it.

I found your article to be very good in its logic and construction. I really have only any nit to pick with it.

As a libertarian I find abortion to be an almost completely unjustifiable act of violence against a totally innocent third party. To my way of thinking it's completely contrary to Libertarian principles. Once they zygote has attached itself to the uterine wall you have, scientifically speaking, a human being.

Killing it as a matter of convenience is abhorrent to me.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Thanks for the article. It's good to see the voice of reason around here from time to time.

L

33 posted on 02/19/2009 2:17:24 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

What do you make of the distinction between “marriage” (religious) and “civil union” (legal)? That would at least seem to accomodate the fact that the government (or, ideally, other institutions filling its current role in keeping the peace and settling disputes) has a different role than religion (specifically, that the former has obligations to be just and evenhanded that are not binding on the latter).


34 posted on 02/19/2009 2:27:23 PM PST by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Lurker,

I incline to the original belief, unrevised by the biological sciences of gestation, that one becomes a human being when the soul enters the body at first breath.

I find it ironic that so many “fundamentalist” abortion opponents do so on the basis of a modernist biological view that either ignores the question of ensoulment or holds to the absurdity that a soul can fuse with an undeveloped zygote.

Neil


35 posted on 02/19/2009 2:44:29 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

It’s not so much what I believe that’s at issue but what those with the agenda of extending marriage to same-sex couples wish to accomplish. California already had domestic partnership laws on its books when they pushed for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples. The agenda to norm the acceptance of same-sex coupling won’t stop at the government marriage license bureau but is being pursued as vigorously toward acceptance on the church altar.


36 posted on 02/19/2009 2:49:32 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum

thefrankbaum wrote: “How exactly do you deal with issues of inheritance, medical decisions, etc.?”

Living trusts which contain provisions for powers-of-attorney and living wills.


37 posted on 02/19/2009 2:51:07 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

See above - intestacy issues? It is a nice thought, but people often do not have updated legal arrangements in place.


38 posted on 02/19/2009 2:55:30 PM PST by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

I didn’t say the guy was the devil....stop lying.


39 posted on 02/19/2009 2:56:44 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Yes, I saw that warning - thank you. And, I stand by my comment regarding this tripe.


40 posted on 02/19/2009 3:01:31 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

PetroniusMaximus wrote: “50sDad said it better that I, but what I am getting at is that in the Genesis passages the crowd of Sodomites takes on a life of it’s own. It’s almost like a ravenous beast. It won’t listen to reason and it won’t be thwarted until it gets what it wants - the satisfaction of it’s lust. If violence is necessary, then so be it.”

That equally describes any mob, whether it’s a lynch mob, or a union picket line attacking a “scab,” or Ku Klux Klansmen attacking a black church, or a mob blocking the way into an abortion clinic. Ask any street cop who had to gear up during the 1992 L.A. riots, or in Seattle when the World Trade Organization was meeting, or even a sports celebration that gets out of hand. When the mob gets riled up they’re a wild beast ... and you don’t have to be an androman to abandon one’s human reason and revert to wildness.

Neil


41 posted on 02/19/2009 3:01:36 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs

Thank you! :-)


42 posted on 02/19/2009 3:02:09 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

anniegetyourgun posted on Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:51:03 AM “This guy is of his father, the devil....so he should not wonder why his daughter follows along on the same wide path - which leads to destruction.”

Then you just wrote, “I didn’t say the guy was the devil....stop lying.”

But you did say it (as anyone can read up to see) and I’m not lying ... which means you just did.

Neil


43 posted on 02/19/2009 3:07:54 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

“That equally describes any mob, whether it’s a lynch mob, or a union picket line”

A mob will come and go.

The sodomites, because they can’t be satisfied, won’t go away.


44 posted on 02/19/2009 3:08:05 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman

Slightly off topic, but you might find this interesting...

When Homosexuals Take Over A Church
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1024260/posts


45 posted on 02/19/2009 3:11:51 PM PST by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: J. Neil Schulman
I said he is of his father...the devil. I didn't say he is the devil.

AGYG<----shaking the dust off my sandals now.

46 posted on 02/19/2009 3:18:16 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

“I am simply discerning truth from a lie in his statement. Forgetting the political argumentation - which is vain discussion in light of eternity anyway! And, no - I don’t thank him for this potty-mouthed tripe.”

Speaking as a committed Christian, it’s this type of attitude that puts people off of even considering the possibility of examining a Christian life. You’ve made zero attempt at reaching this person where they live.

God isn’t going to knock a person out of their car on the way to work and speak to them. Most people look at how Christians conduct themselves in their lives and public discourse before considering the appropriateness of that in their lives.

Considering your job is to help bring people to Christ, vain political stuff like that is anything but vanity. As for the potty-mouth tripe, its a judgement call, isn’t it? I’m not sure either you are I are billeted for making judgements of any sort, since we are all unworthy from the get go.

Something to consider.


47 posted on 02/19/2009 3:25:27 PM PST by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
but people often do not have updated legal arrangements in place.

It's not the job of the State to babysit irresponsible people. If their paperwork isn't up to date, tough noogies for them.

L

48 posted on 02/19/2009 3:37:04 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

PetroniusMaximus wrote: ““That equally describes any mob, whether it’s a lynch mob, or a union picket line.’ A mob will come and go. The sodomites, because they can’t be satisfied, won’t go away.”

Dude, you’re obviously not a member of MY union. :-)


49 posted on 02/19/2009 3:47:05 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun

anniegetyourgun wrote:
“I said he is of his father...the devil. I didn’t say he is the devil.”

Actually, my dad was a concert violinist: http://www.juliusschulman.com/.

He only played fiddle better than the Devil. :-)

Neil


50 posted on 02/19/2009 4:07:50 PM PST by J. Neil Schulman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson