What Gen. Pace really means

Somebody needs to close the tag at the end of the paragraph in this item. It's bolding the rest of the page.

General Pace did not go far enough..Not only is homosexuality immoral but it is most likely a disease of character as well! It is and will continue to be unacceptable in society--no matter how many regrets or apologies are offered.

That's so very "Christian" of you Ted Haggard.....I mean ck hall....

You go CK Hall!
Bad homosexuals! No heaven for you!
Nyahh Nyahh!

All us good Christians are gunna be livin it up on high while all you perverts burn! No matter how many good deeds you perform, no matter how many people you save from the burning building you are going to writhe in the fires of satan and serpants, hiss! hiss! Perverts!

How do I know this? An ancient book told me!

Oh and you Islamists, Buddhists, Taoists, Agnostics, Hindus, Siks, Jews, all you billions of people?
Nyahh Nyahh, nuts to you! Yer gunna burn! Haha I'm going to heaven because I believe in the correct ancient text full of great stories and you dont!

Bad homosexual, no cookie!

Wake up America

Frank, you're psychic? You can read people's thoughts? What am I thinking now?

I say give the Evangelical bigots what they want.

Let gay people admit that they are gay and put them out of the Military.

I guarantee you that the illegal,immoral Iraq war that the wackjob Evangelicals support would come to a screaching halt because troops would be bolting from the Military right and left.

This is exactly the wrong time for Pace to be bringing this up, and demontrates just how strongly "morality" is interfering with our military purpose in all this.

The Neocons are seen as instigating the Iraq War, in the first place, and falsifying evidence to get Congress to vote for it. The fundamentalists are the very core of Neocon support. At this point, in light of the miserable failures of strategy by those same Neocons, we should be focused on getting to a stable Iraq (the word "victory" is now irrelevant), and getting the troops out, long as that may take. We face recruitment and re-enlistment problems, and instead of attracting more people to service, Pace manages to offend a substantial portion not only of those who might enlist, but those already serving with more dignity than Pace displays with this outburst of "morality".

Until the nation rids itself of this holier-than-thou mentality, and gets back to the business of defending the country, providing a realistic system of health care (including returning veterans under the V.A.), and taking care of obligations long neglected, we will continue to expend time, energy, and lives needlessly. The side benefit of an "objective" leadership will be sending the troglodytes back to their caves, where they can rant on "social issues" amongst themselves, leaving the rest of us to take care of the country and the economy, and the REAL majority in this country who are more concerned with their own lives, rather than butting into other people's.

America is a sad place sometimes. So many people smug in the fact that they have some ticket to heaven and noone else can go, because they are morally superior to the rest of us.

If you want to quote the bible, you also need to quote where it says we must own slaves and how we must cut off the hands of those who steal and lash them too.. and kill adulterers and other sinners.
None of those quoates against homosexuality came from the New Testament, because Christ cared NOT what anyone's sexuality was-- if he did, he would have said so!

Jesus was SO against homosexuality that he mentions it exactly ZERO times! ZERO! He mentions loving your neighbor and helping the poor 220 times. Do the math people!

Maybe the regulars can actually engage in a discussion in this thread away from the craziness that has taken over the two previous posts.

Did they hit on some Evangelical anti-gay search engine or what?

There are some scary ideologies floating around those threads.

Hoorah for General Pace! Someone finally said what they truly feel. And for all of you who think the "majority of the public" think Gerneral Pace's sentiment is wrong, think again! Many are still in the "silent majority". I just hope one day more will speak up! I know I find myself getting bolder as immorality spreads across our country -- not just gay and lesbian, but movies, TV, and literature. Enough is enough! It's time to reassess, and wake up to the mess we are creating for future generations.

Wow, the leftists are sure good at quoting Jesus when they're not out there claiming that he never existed. Or even if he did, then saying he was irrelevant. Or saying that he and his name belong nowhere in public discourse. Try another tack, guys, you have no credibility on the subject.

Why does the America hating leftist kook fringe want to impose its military hating Hillary Clinton "values" on Gen. Pace and the U.S. military? Aren't these the same fanatics who actually attempt to indoctrinate other people's children in school with "Heather Has Two [so-called] Mommies" and "Jerry Married an Oak Tree, a Dog and a Paramecium and Lived Happily Everafter"?

Jeff-

You do understand that there are a great number of Christians in this world that are not right-wing ideologues like yourself, don't you?

RE: (I know I find myself getting bolder as immorality spreads across our country)

+++

Susan, get a life (of your own), and stop telling everyone else how to behave. Stop listing to zealots on TV in it for the bucks and the ego trip.

"Immorality" may be new to you, but it's been with us since civilizations began. It's been the job of the family, not society at large, to handle this. Since when is it the business of government to be moral arbiters?

The Taliban's premise was exactly what you're advocating - running a country on moral grounds. Those moral arguments have fueled divisions in the Muslim world for over 1,200 years. Throughout history, including the Dark Ages, the Salem Witch Trials, and the Inquisition, the world has had to contend with "morality" and its aftermath. More people have died from "religion" in wars than any other cause.

It's now time to see a war instigated by lies as "immoral", as well as sending in troops without adequate body armor and well-armored vehicles, and not providing care for them when they return wounded. "Immoral" is lying to the American people, and incompetence in protecting them, and not caring about them when they're out of combat.

The rest is your personal hangups; so move past them. Volunteer to help the needy, and expend your energies from personal frustrations through doing something that's a net-plus for society, rather than condemning those you have not even met.

Jeff,
Given you must have excellent credibility on Jesus, answer me these questions:
Are homosexuals, no matter how kind and generous going to hell?

Am I, because i dont profess your beliefs in ancient texts going to hell?

What about all the people who dont believe in jesus or have completely different reasons, going to hell?

The innocent Iraqi child killed by an American bomb, heavan or hell?

Are we all descended from Adam and Eve?

You question the credibility of others, show me some credible answers on these.
Enlighten me o wise one.
Or are these questions just too hard for you to answer?

Jeff, your claim that leftists can't be Christian is a little off topic. But nothing you said refutes Todd's post.

Considering how quickly this thread turned to Jesus, I have to agree that the US military has morphed into the US missionary.

PB, can I get an Amen?

Religion is behind nearly every world problem we have today. So many religions and of course everyone one of them is "right" and everyone else who doesnt "believe" is in trouble.

Once again, I DO NOT need a religion to tell me to love my kids. I DO NOT need a religion to keep me from murdering my neighbors and sleeping with their wives. What part of this dont you understand? I promise not to cause pain to others and they promise not to cause pain to me. So Muslims, Christians and the rest of you, wake up and just be good people.
Doesnt take a lot of effort, just kindness in the heart. Even someone who is gay can be kind!
Shock!

This man is running the Army? No wonder things are not going well. Most top executives try to make problems smaller rather than larger. Throwing gasoline on fires is stupid. Generals Pace and Kiley of Walter Reed fame have shown one of our countrys problems, a weak General Staff. After Viet Nam they said "never again" but none of them had the courage to stand up to the "chickenhawks"

If I were in the armed forces, I would not want to be sharing a bunk with a homosexual man. Accepting open homosexuals into our military would be a major distraction to the mission at hand.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 13, 2007 4:00:59 PM

Jeff (if this is The Swamp's regular Jeff. If not, disregard),

I pulled this from another post, but I still think it's relevant.

Why would you not want to share a bunk with a homosexual man? Please enlighten us as to the distraction at hand.

"Wow, the leftists are sure good at quoting Jesus when they're not out there claiming that he never existed. Or even if he did, then saying he was irrelevant. Or saying that he and his name belong nowhere in public discourse. Try another tack, guys, you have no credibility on the subject.
Posted by: Jeff | Mar 13, 2007 3:38:07 PM"

Tony,

Jeff seems to be, like Bush, one of those conservatives that like to think of Jesus as God, but also as a philosopher, which is a man made conceit. Kind of like calling the Ten Commandments the word of God, and historical documents.

Jeff, How can Jesus be God and a mere philosopher, as Bush clearly stated in his first presidential run?

Erick,

Let's get this straight. You seem to be afflicted with a very common misconception about Christians. We say what we say out of a desire to see other people come to know God and be blessed.

If you saw someone driving up a road that ended at the top of a cliff, wouldn't you warn them? Would that be hateful of you to see that someone's on the wrong path and point that out?

I've been to church many thousands of times and have visited many churches. Never once have I heard a Christian gleefully exclaiming how we're so superior, and how great it's going to be to see unbelievers burning in hell. By an act of grace on God's part (sending his Son), and an act of faith on ours (faith in his Son), we become saved. We want that for others.

I pray for even the most militant of muslims, Osama included. I would LOVE for him to come to know the ways of God, to become a man of peace. This is pretty much the story of the Apostle Paul. God has made it plain in the Bible he would rather forgive than punish, and Christians know this and are of the same mind.

I tell you Erick, if you were to go to hell, it would be a great tragedy. I would not rejoice, neither would any Christian I have ever met.

(John 3:16-18)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

"Let's get this straight. You seem to be afflicted with a very common misconception about Christians. We say what we say out of a desire to see other people come to know God and be blessed."

Yeah, that's what the Inquisition said, and the Salem witch hunters.

'Fool me once, shame on me;
Fool me twice,,,,,won't get fooled again'

Re: (We say what we say out of a desire to see other people come to know God and be blessed.)
+++
Then make your appeal, and move on. Those who want to listen will listen, and the rest of us will focus on our own situations.

The problem is your self-appointed status in TELLING others how to behave, rather than leading by example. Thousands upon thousands of children die around the world from disease and starvation; yet those somehow escape mention in a "right-to-life" dialog.

When I went to school, there were two forms of energy - Kinetic and Potential. Those alive NOW could be considered as "kinetic" life, and could be helped NOW, as Bill Gates is doing through his foundation. Those NOT yet born are "potential" life, which could be cut short by natural events - not every pregnancy goes to term.

The Supreme Court is due to rule in Gonzalez v. Carhart, the first federal law banning an abortion METHOD, the so-called "partial birth abortion". (That phrase is nonsensical, as no "birth" is intended; rather, the termination of a pregnancy for medical reasons, otherwise performed by surgery. Let's just call it a vaginal procedure). This ruling would apply even when a mother's health is at stake, leaving the option of surgery, with more risks and expense, and total increased health care costs.

John 3:16-18)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Posted by: Bob Quinn | Mar 13, 2007 5:19:51 PM

That last verse pretty much sums up why I no longer consider myself a Christian. That John presumably is issuing this verse and not Jesus is telling. Using a man's (yes, I said man) goodness and teachings of such to wield power and fear over others. That those who call themselves Christians can be so judgmental of homosexuals shows that they understand so little of the man that is presumably their teacher

If you saw someone driving up a road that ended at the top of a cliff, wouldn't you warn them? Would that be hateful of you to see that someone's on the wrong path and point that out?

Posted by: Bob Quinn | Mar 13, 2007 5:19:51 PM

The point is Bob, you don't 'know' the road actually ends at the top of a cliff. It is your 'belief' that leads you to think the road goes over the cliff, its not a fact. It is also only your 'belief' that tells you that someone else is on the wrong path. It is not a given fact just because you want to believe it to be so.

I'm not good at quoting from the bible but I do seem to remember Jesus talking about there being a special place in the kingdom of god reserved for the self-righteous & if memory serves it wasn't in heaven. I'll pray for you.

Thank you Mr. Quinn. That is the first true Christian reply in this thread.

I'm sick of the non Christians sect telling Christians what they should or shouldn't say. God said you would be judged by the same standard you keep, that's the only thing we should be doing here.
Hating the sin and loving the sinner is fine. Homosexual Men are the leading cause of phedophilia and yet you liberals want us not only to condone their behavior but to normalize it. . .be honest, they are destructive.

General Pace has a right to say what he said. He has had to endure harsh enviornments at very close quarters with no privacy. . .this is not the enviornment for homosexuality to be forced down the throats of those living a natural and normal sex life. If you don't undestand that your just plain foolish!!

"How can Jesus be God and a mere philosopher, as Bush clearly stated in his first presidential run?

Posted by: C.Morris | Mar 13, 2007 5:00:09 PM"

I have repeatedly asked this question of Bush Base Republicans and have never received a satisfactory answer, or even an unsatisfactory answer.

My God, GWB called Jesus a philosopher.

Re: (Thank you Mr. Quinn. That is the first true Christian reply in this thread.)

+++

...and the sound of back-slapping and hosannas is heard throughout the land...

Do more, and talk less - Christ would not recognize what his "followers" are about today. If he were still driving moneychangers from the Temple, it would explain Halliburton's move to Dubai, and the RNC would be out of business. Jesus was concerned about unethical profiteering in the temple precincts by those who ran the place. Sounds like he had Falwell in mind.

What of the many Buddhists and other religions living peaceful lives, through purely through birthright are not Christians? The Pope is now concerned that something other than Gregorian chants is played during a service. I think Christianity is backsliding, frankly, and becoming a divisive force, rather than what the prior Pope was leading it towards.

I don't know what the big deal is? Gen. Pace has the freedom to believe what he wants to believe about any subject. We all do. Whether you disagree with him on this issue or not is irrelevant.
He is a human being who is free to express his beliefs, opinions, convictions, etc. The man does not have to offer an apology to anyone because he hasnt done anything wrong. He is an able commander and follows the rules of war and the laws of this nation.
I am not going to condemn this man or ask that he apologize for expressing his beliefs. Also, the reality is that homosexuality is deemed un-natural and is condemned in just about every society and religion.
As a matter of fact, I think 7 nations currently still impose the death penalty if you are homosexual. That fact alone speaks volumes about how homosexuality is viewed in society.
If you were to poll the teenage and adult population amongst the 6.5 billion humans in this world regarding what they believed about homosexuality, the overwhelming majority would say that it is abnormal sexual behavior.
This is not an issue that is limited to the Christian faith or American society.

There is one immutable fact of this practice. Considering the mixing of unimaginable amounts of blood...what would the latest increased cases of HIV among the straight medical teams, for their dedication to duty? Anyone consider them?

"He is a human being who is free to express his beliefs, opinions, convictions, etc. "

Orestes,

Not true.

As a member of the military he has strict limits on his free speech.
Being in the military is just a step up from prison.

Your freedoms of expression, movement and association are all
restricted.

I know. Been there.

C.Morris asks, "How can Jesus be God and a mere philosopher, as Bush clearly stated in his first presidential run?

"I... have never received a satisfactory answer, or even an unsatisfactory answer"

CM,
I can't speak for evangelicals or GWB or evangelical Republicans, but I can't make any sense out of the question... maybe that's why you can't get an answer, satisfactory or otherwise.

Religion is behind nearly every world problem we have today.

Jeff C asks, "Did [some of the Swamp regulars] hit on some Evangelical anti-gay search engine or what?"

"There are some scary ideologies floating around those threads.

Jeff C, there have always been some very scary ideologies -- mouthed by very scary people -- here in the Swamp

"Religion is behind nearly every world problem we have today." says erick.

I've read that so many times in the Swamp since Sam Harris's last book came out that I've lost count.

In fact, that is the sum total of Harris's book, so he could have spared the lives of a lot of trees if he'd just printed that sentence and stuffed fortune cookies. Unfortunately that would not have spared us all having to reread this wornout, simplistic trope in the Swamp.

There is a lot of simplemindedness on both sides of the argument for or against religion. Great swathes of people bring nothing more to the discussion than their vaguely recalled Sunday school lessons or some pop Atheist's latest rant.

It's a complex phenomenom -- religion, god, the nature of the universe -- and having a respectable opinion about it requires some study and thought.

General Pace is totally correct, all homosexual acts are immoral, intrinsically so. They fail the test of complementarity and cannot but defeat the clear natural reason underlying all sexual activity, i.e. procreation. Homosexual acts have traditionally been held as abominable for good reason. While those afflicted with the mental disorder of inversion should not be harmed or shunned in any way, neither should they be in any way encouraged to indulge in the vile acts dictated by their unfortunate proclivity.

I really haven't been paying too much attention to this story, so I don't know what the context was of Pace's remarks -- was he specifically asked his moral beliefs? Did he volunteer his opinion?

Whichever the case he would have best kept it to himself. Whether or not sexual orientation can rightly be deemed "immoral" or not isn't the point. It's simply irrelevant to military service.

WASHINGTON - The American Humanist Association applauded Rep. Pete Stark for publicly acknowledging he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, it said, makes him the highest-ranking elected official - and first congressman - to proclaim to be an atheist.

The organization took out an ad in Tuesday's Washington Post, congratulating the California Democrat for his stance.

Also,if anyone's interested,James Dobson has a new book out,Queerbashing for Dummies,27.95 @ all Jerry Falwell discount centers.

Leo,

Keep thinkin' on it.

Jesus was SO against homosexuality that he mentions it exactly ZERO times! ZERO! He mentions loving your neighbor and helping the poor 220 times. Do the math people!
Posted by: Todd | Mar 13, 2007 3:24:19 PM

Todd,
Since no else has answered you, here you go.
There is a reason Jesus did not address homosexuality directly, and it's very simple: To his audience it was not an issue to be discussed.
He was a First Century Palestinian Jew, speaking to First Century Palestinian Jews.
That means, his audience for the most part held quite strictly to the Torah (the Law of Moses), meaning, for them, homosexuality was considered "an abomination" before God. In fact, Jesus told his listeners in the same Gospels that you pulled your tally from that "not one jot or tittle" of that Law would pass away. In essence, he affirmed the ethical and moral rules contained in the Law.
Jesus talked to his Jewish audience about loving your neighbor and helping the poor "220 times," as you claim, because he saw that there were many among his Jewish listeners who claimed that, because they obeyed the Law of Moses to the letter, they were without sin. But Jesus said, they were not, because they violated the spirit of the Law.
Take for instance the story of the Rich Young Ruler, as it's commonly known. He asked Jesus what he must do to receive eternal life, and Jesus essentially rattled off the list of the 10 Commandments. The man replied that he had followed all of these "from his youth." But Jesus told him if he really wanted to be perfect, he should sell all his belongings and give the proceeds to the poor. That notion did not sit well with the man, because he "had great possessions." He did not recognize what Jesus was teaching, that moral purity should not come at the expense of others.
Jesus at no time excused sin. He simply pointed out to the religious masses that they, themselves, were also sinners in need of a loving God.
If more Christians held this belief, perhaps this world would be a little better off.

"In fact, Jesus told his listeners in the same Gospels that you pulled your tally from that "not one jot or tittle" of that Law would pass away. In essence, he affirmed the ethical and moral rules contained in the Law. "

JB, do you keep Kosher, or have you let that Jot or tittle of the law pass away? Do you wear garments made of two different kinds of cloth?

C. Morris,

That would make one of us, anyway.

I think (speakin' o' thinkin') that you're missing my point: an opinion which hasn't been noodled out, which is nothing more than an emotional reaction, isn't worth much.

That's usually what we get when the topic is religion -- whatever the side.

Leo T,

I have been trying to spring a clever trap with that trick question.

'Sam' took the bate in 'Warner hits Pace'.

make that 'bait'.

Leo T,

"an opinion which hasn't been noodled out, which is nothing more than an emotional reaction, isn't worth much."

Sorry, Leo, but your moral equivacation is tiresome. Those that continue to quote (I would say cherry-pick) various Bible passages unquestioningly to support their bigotry and argue that their individual interpretation is the One True Answer are producing the emotional response.

All of the "morality" based pleadings here can be debunked using facts and evidence. That is to say, concepts based on thought and not emotion. There is no moral equivalency.

Just a few examples (not of things that you have said, but lines that have showed up again and again in the "Bible is Law" crowd):

"Homosexuality is unnatural." Well, if by "natural" one means "occuring in nature," than this statement is false. There are over 400 species who have been documented to have homosexual relationships AND PARTNERSHIPS.

"The Bible says that homosexuals are going to hell." Well, not exactly. It also says that it is a sin to wear blended-fabrics and to cast the first stone. Personally, I have no intention of giving up my comfortable cotton blend and feel safe in the belief that this will not cost me entrance to the Pearly Gates.

Furthermore, at least to me, one line of Scripture stands above all others. A derivation of this concept is present in all major religions. I would call it a universal truth.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

If one does so, as any "good Christian" should, than you cannot also believe that G-d hates 10% of the population and wishes them struck down. Didn't G-d create the homosexuals in the first place? Does that mean that the lord has erred?

That's where the choice cunundrum comes in. Even though homosexuality rates are consistent across continents and cultures (implying a biological component), that still does not seem to deter the "gay choice" crowd.

So I ask them this: Why would anyone choose to be gay? Why would anyone choose a life of guaranteed persecution?

Or how about this: Do you choose to be heterosexual? Could you up and decide one day to switch your sexual desires? If so, than heterosexuality is a choice that people make, too, and therefore homosexuality is natural if one has to "choose" to be heterosexual.

I'm sorry, Leo, but there is no moral equivalency here. Those who support allowing homosexuals to be treated as humans are opposing discrimination. Those who castigate homosexuals seem to want everyone to tolerate their intolerance. That ain't gonna happen anymore, the tides have turned, there is no going back, and the sooner the "Christians" here learn to love thy neighbor as thyself the world will be a better place.

At a time, bigotry against women, blacks, Catholics, Jews, Irishman, interracial couples, etc. were all considered to be no big deal. Over time, though, attitudes changed and now those groups have all received their complete human rights (or at least on paper). Anti-gay discrimination is just (hopefully) the last step in this shameful lineage.

I simply will not tolerate the intolerance that the so-called "Christians" on this forum and elsewhere are screaming from the rooftops.

As for Pace, the concept of accountability appears to be largely lost on the screamers here, who seem incapable of understanding that General Pace has a "right" to say whatever he wants, but he does not have a right to be freed from the consequences of his words. I don't say that he needs to apologize, but if nothing else he has damaged the morale of at least 10% of the armed forces and diminished the opportunity to enlist the 10% of the civilian population who is homosexual. If this was is as important as we are led to believe, we need all the able-bodied non-criminals we can get.

Finally, is the irony totally lost the we are listening to a Warrior preach about "morality?" I like C.Morris' questions along the lines of "Who Would Jesus Bomb." What could be more Christ-like than pre-emptive war? A guy in another post actually answered this question and said that Jesus would bomb Muslims, communists and gays. Just wondering what Bible passage THAT came from. I didn't know they had Muslims or communists when the Great Books were written, but that shows how little I know.

I'd like to add that, on the truly cynical side, is it possible that this hubbub is all a way of gently shifting blame for the failure in Iraq onto gays. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that there will be a "housecleaning" of homosexuals toward the end of Bush's term as the incoming president will undoubtedly be attempting to minimize our involvement in that conflict.

Then, Bush can say with plausible deniability, that it wasn't the lack of foresight and abysmal incompetence of his admnistration that lost Iraq, but the "godless" gays who lost sight of Jesus (cause you know, Jesus would certainly have blessed the Iraq invasion).

Its a two-fer master stroke: deflect accountability away from the Administration's failures in the war and castigate their favorite scapegoat: homosexuals. Its much like the ongoing effort to release slime against Obama and pin the releases on Hillary, thus accomplishing another grand two-fer.

Bryan,

You missed my point by several light years. There's nothing in your long post that I really disagree with.

I was not defending Pace, nor religious fundamentalists.

I simply said that most people approach the subject of religion (whether they're theists or atheists) out of ignorance. I stand by that.

PS,

Good post, by the way.

Bryan, C.Morris,

I just visited the "Warner hits Pace on gay remarks" thread for the first time, and read 8 or ten random posts... OH MY GOD THAT'S CREEPY!

See, I do not consider being able to qoute large chunks of the bible as being informed or thoughtful about religion. These folks aren't human, they're machines.

These are exactly the kind of nonthinkers that I'm talking about. Plus, there is an equal and opposite Atheist type as well. Pure emotion, no reason

Well I guess being "all emotion" wouldn't make them machine-like... but there's something not human about them.

It bothers me, Bryan, that you thought I'm one of them. Where did THAT come from?!

Leo,

My man, we're largely in agreement. And I was trying to go out of my way to say that I was not accusing you on any level of being non-thoughtful. I'm not heavily disagreeing, either, that there is emotion on each side. And I promise you I was not accusing you of being one of them.

But you are talking about "rationality" and "thought" and as I see it, very few people are indoctrinated into atheism. To me, that's a position that comes nearly by definition with some degree of thought. That atheists may feel that they have The One True Faith may be true, but I don't think most of them base this on belief in an old book (to be crass). I believe most came to their position through soul searching and an analysis of the evils religions have perpetrated throughout history. I could be wrong.

What I was saying is that it is too broad of a statement to say (and I'm paraphrasing) that both sides need to tamp down the emotion and engage in rational thought. I firmly believe that one side of this debate is more engaged in rational thought, and I'll give you a hint, it isn't the one quoting the Bible ad nauseum.

Since I've read you a lot (and fully respect your point of view) I know that you often take a consciously even-handed approach. But I don't personally believe there is much moral equivalency here. The gay bashers here cannot articulate without quoting the Bible why gay people are bad. They also ignore texts such as the doozy "love thy neighbor as thyself" in favor of more inflammatory rhetoric. That's why I've always been appalled by the Bush Administration's selective reading of the Bible to justify their positions. "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible tells me so" is not a reason to outlaw something. It gets to the question of who has the One True Faith. That is none of the government's business as explicitly laid out in the First Amendment.

I admit that I could be completely wrong on this and maybe G-d really does hate gay people. Maybe they are an abomination even though He created them. But reading the posts on each side, I do not think it is fair to equate the spewing of Bible quotes with evidence, both Biblical and empirical, to dispute it. In essence, as usual, we agree on the bigger picture but may quibble over the details.

Leo,

My man, we're largely in agreement. And I was trying to go out of my way to say that I was not accusing you on any level of being non-thoughtful. I'm not heavily disagreeing, either, that there is emotion on each side. And I promise you I was not accusing you of being one of them.

But you are talking about "rationality" and "thought" and as I see it, very few people are indoctrinated into atheism. To me, that's a position that comes nearly by definition with some degree of thought. That atheists may feel that they have The One True Faith may be true, but I don't think most of them base this on belief in an old book (to be crass). I believe most came to their position through soul searching and an analysis of the evils religions have perpetrated throughout history. I could be wrong.

What I was saying is that it is too broad of a statement to say (and I'm paraphrasing) that both sides need to tamp down the emotion and engage in rational thought. I firmly believe that one side of this debate is more engaged in rational thought, and I'll give you a hint, it isn't the one quoting the Bible ad nauseum.

Since I've read you a lot (and fully respect your point of view) I know that you often take a consciously even-handed approach. But I don't personally believe there is much moral equivalency here. The gay bashers here cannot articulate without quoting the Bible why gay people are bad. They also ignore texts such as the doozy "love thy neighbor as thyself" in favor of more inflammatory rhetoric. That's why I've always been appalled by the Bush Administration's selective reading of the Bible to justify their positions. "Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible tells me so" is not a reason to outlaw something. It gets to the question of who has the One True Faith. That is none of the government's business as explicitly laid out in the First Amendment.

I admit that I could be completely wrong on this and maybe G-d really does hate gay people. Maybe they are an abomination even though He created them. But reading the posts on each side, I do not think it is fair to equate the spewing of Bible quotes with evidence, both Biblical and empirical, to dispute it. In essence, as usual, we agree on the bigger picture but may quibble over the details.

Where's my comments...???? Are the Gay's in control of the Media and the posting of comments on this blog..or is this a leftest act? Iv'e seen worse language and attacks on Gay's remarks who BTW are a little on the offensive also, Like straight people arent alowed to comment on there lifestyles or Immoral acts in this blog.Whats up with my own comments or opinions what gives???? Is this some type of Censorship because nobody wants to offend the Homosexuals at the "Swamp" or the Chicago Trbune?????

Bryan,

Gottit.