Wow! Do the scientists desperately seeking to fill in the holes in Evolutionary Theory know where you are at present?
Hey Rip Van Needstolearnmoreabouthistory, Achievement of our time? Homosexuality was pretty well accepted in the ancient world, more accepted than you would think in the medieval Christian world, and was "cool" (well, mostly male bisexuality...but it certainly involved penis + anus) in the late nineteenth century. So, yeah, preach on. If we allow homosexuality to exist now, there is no way humanity can survive for more than five years. Man, all this talking and now I really need some gay sex.
I don't think homesexuality is moral, but anyone who claims its new is basically ignorant. The Greek philosophers, whose teachings much of our civilization are based upon, routinely had sex with their young male pupils.
What if man wants to put his penis in a woman's anus? Is that still as bad? At least they are consistent: White House expresses support for Santorum http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/bush.santorum/index.html
Good summary of what Santorum means: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34853-2003Apr24.html Santorum Controversy Illustrates Dilemma of Catholic Politicians By Alan Cooperman Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, April 25, 2003; Page A04 When the chairman of Georgetown University's theology department heard Sen. Rick Santorum's remarks on homosexuality, his first thought was: "He's been listening to the bishops or maybe the pope." . . . added new article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/905358.asp?0cv=KB10 . . . It’s worth noting, since Santorum brought up “man on dog,” that Texas doesn’t have a law against bestiality. . . . ( I assume this is covered under some animal abuse statue but I could be wrong.)
Which commandment says that? ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' SIX: 'You shall not murder.' SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
It's seven...in the original Greek, from which the Bible was translated, even as late as the Council of Nicea, adultery and sex before marriage were synonomous as it applied to Jewish law.
That would make it immoral for non-hypocrite Christians. Obviously the solution here is to allow gays to marry so they won't be immoral.
If God is condemming people to hell for sex outside of marriage, then Heaven is gonna be mighty empty... Climb down from the pulpit Yetti..If I wanted to be preached at, I'd go back to a Baptist church, where they can condemm me for the music I listen to and the earring in my ear and for smoking and for everything else them holier-than-thou hypocrites can dream up. Jeez..
I don't have much to say on the comments. I can make a few of my own. In my workplace there are several openly gay men and women and they work the same amount of hours and do the same jobs as everyone else. I don't have any problem with them being there since they don't harass anyone else. I would have a problem working next to co-workers who are openly incestuous, adulterous without the consent of their spouse, or polygamist because I believe those to be dishonest proclivities. Just my opinion on homo-sexuals.
when did Santorum say he is against that? Of course Dubya is backing the Senator 100% now. Considering he supported the sodomy law as Texas governor, I guess it's not surprising his views on it haven't changed. President Bush calls Santorum 'inclusive' by Tom Musbach Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network President George W. Bush praised Republican Sen. Rick Santorum as an "inclusive man" on Friday, four days after the senator's comments about gays unleashed a storm of bipartisan criticism. "The president has confidence in Sen. Santorum, both as a senator, (and) as a member of the Senate leadership," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said during a press briefing on Friday. The Pennsylvania lawmaker, 44, is the third-ranking GOP leader in the Senate. In an interview published on Monday, he equated consensual gay sex with polygamy and incest and denied the constitutional right to privacy. "The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes," Fleischer added. The White House statement drew sharp criticism from the country's gay political groups. "Sen. Santorum's remarks are deeply discriminatory and are antithetical to bringing people together," Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. "If this is how the president defines inclusion, then it clearly calls into question the depth of compassion in his conservatism." "The White House comments are gutless and disgusting," National Stonewall Democrats spokesman John Marble told the Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network. "Santorum's own record proves that the Bush administration's attempt to label him as 'inclusive' is delusional at best." The nation's largest gay GOP group called on all Republican leaders to distance themselves from "Santorum's harmful statements that divide the American family." "The White House should lead the way in distancing the party from these remarks," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. HRC's Birch added, "President Bush should directly address the substance of Santorum's anti-gay comments." Sen. Santorum's comments were part of a discussion with an Associated Press reporter about the pending Supreme Court decision on Texas' sodomy law and his belief that gays should not have a constitutional right of privacy to have sex with each other in their homes. On Friday a reporter asked Fleischer if the president believes people should be able to love each other without interference from the police. "If you're asking about a matter that is a legal matter that is pending before the Supreme Court, that's a matter for the court to rule on," Fleischer responded. Despite numerous rebukes this week from Democratic and Republican members of Congress and political groups, Sen. Santorum has refused to apologize for the offense he caused. Some critics, most notably Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, demanded Santorum resign from his GOP leadership post, and Philadelphia residents staged a protest on Thursday outside the senator's office.
Well...it looks like the White House is standing by their man... I'm not surprised in the least...He could have said he thought Hitler was right and still wouldn't have gotten blasted by this Administration. Gotta support people from your own party no matter what,.........or the terrorists win I may have been wrong about the Dems in your eyes Caped Crusader, but I guarantee, I know how the Repubs are...
Well, it falls under sodomy. He didn't specifically say that, no. He also didn't say that he didn't think they were the same thing. But if he felt the same way about it, how could he be a bigot? Also, shouldn't the adulterers be mad too, since he mentioned them in the same breath as incest?
Well, whatever he said, I don't think we should criticize what he said or, even more importantly, call for his being removed from his job and source of income. If people are punished for expressing unpopular opinions, they will be less willing to express unpopular opinions in the future, and that's a way of prohibiting someone's First Amendment right to free speech in a Constitutional manner. At least that's what I understood from what folks like Martin Sheen told me during the war debate.
I know it is folly to count on the GOP to do the right thing here. But I didn't say when it would happen -- I said he'd get his comeuppance. I still think he will. As I said, it will take longer. Bigotry and hate towards gays and lesbians remains more acceptable than bigotry and hate towards people of color. But the future is on the side of tolerance here. Acceptance of gays and lesbians has grown an outrageous amount in the last fifteen years or so. The trend will hold and Santorum's words will be harshly judged by history. It's worthwile to note here that Bush stood by Lott at first too. Freak: Santorum is bigoted toward gays. Whether or not he feels similarly toward hetero sodomy, he has likened all gay sex to behavior that society has always regarded as deviant and abhorrent. I didn't say he was a hypocrite. I said he was a bigot. As for adulterers sharing the right to outrage, I really think you've got this wrong. Gays and lesbians don't ask society to accept unethical behavior like cheating on a spouse or violating an animal. They ask they be allowed to physically express their affection for the only people they are attracted to or love. As I said above, the trend is toward acceptance here. The trend is toward accepting consensual sex between adults which does not harm or violate an unwilling living creature. Santorum is a hateful bigot for likening consensual sex between adults to violation of trust and the marriage contract (adultery), the rape of animals (bestiality) and incest. And if he's ever given or received oral or anal sex with anyone - man or woman - then he's a hypocrite too. Not at all surprised Bush calls a man like this "inclusive." But I am ashamed and disgusted that a man that could characterize such hateful beliefs as "inclusive" is president of our country. I comfort myself with the certainty that the future is on the side of right and I eagerly await the day when both of these men are condemned by history for the hate in their hearts.
