Gay waiter gets the shaft at local restaurant

Pardon my juvenile attempt at an inappropriate pun.  Apparently a waiter who looked sufficiently gay was allegedly short-changed by some customers because of his apparent sexual preference.

(WFSB) — A 20-year-old waiter provided exemplary service at an Overland Park Italian restaurant, but his anti-gay customers refused to tip him because of his sexual orientation.

[…]

The man works at the Carrabba’s Italian Grill near 107th Street and Metcalf Avenue. His mother also works as a hostess and she was very upset by what was written on the back of the check earlier this week after he waited on a couple.

“Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. (Homosexual slur) do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours,” the customer wrote. “We hope you will see the tip your (homosexual slur) choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly. It is never too late for GOD’s love, but none shall be spared for (homosexual slur). May GOD have mercy on you.”

Here were my immediate thoughts on the story, which I assume is true.

  • At a restaurant I think the customer has the right to tip or not tip for any reason at all even if it’s for superficial or bigoted reasons.
  • There is every indication that the waiter’s sexuality was obvious enough that the customer’s took notice and the customers intentionally planned to withhold a tip after receiving “excellent” service.
  • If the waiter’s sexuality was such a problem that they felt justified in refusing to tip, then they should have requested a different server.  That they didn’t do this shows their actions were malicious in nature.
  • I oppose same sex marriage and the idea that homosexual sexual relationships are morally good or benign.  Despite this, gay men and women deserve to earn a living.
  • I noticed that could somehow be waited on in good conscience which serves to show their objection to homosexuals is personal.
  • Even accepting for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t mean you’re justified in making it your business to make them suffer financially or humiliate them in a public way.  No one deserves to be harassed ridiculed.
  • The presence of homosexual slurs tells me the customers were either not Christian and looking to besmirch Christians, just like homosexuals who stage hate crimes to achieve an end; or they are the “God Hates Fags” crowd from the Westboro Baptist Church — this happened in Kansas.  Overland Park is only about an hour drive from Topeka, home of the WBC.  This has WBC written all over it.

Comments

  1. Great analysis. I’m with you — sounds like Westboro Baptist thing led by Democrat Fred Phelps. Or one of the many Leftists who perpetrate hoaxes (Moonbattery.com has a long list of them).

    Homosexual behavior is a sin and “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron. People who claim the name of Christ and deny those truths are either fakes or saved and very, very confused.

    Having said that, I interact with gays on a regular basis and treat them the same as I would anyone else. And I know a “few” Bible-believing Christians and not one would ever consider doing something hateful and ridiculous like what was described there.

    • I don’t think I have ever even had a discussion about my views on homosexuality with a gay person. I have 2 lesbian cousins and 1 gay cousin (who just died) and 4 people who I consider friends who are gay. All of them know my view on the subject (from my blog, apparently they’ve read it) but it doesnt come up and we all have great relationships.

      I has never occurred to me to do anything remotely like this. If nothing else, it’s just really rude.

  2. paynehollow says:

    Sick people, to be sure, whoever it was. Jerks, clearly.

    ~Dan

  3. paynehollow says:

    I would say that the note sounds suspicious, by the way. Too over-the-top.

  4. Well John we are faced again with christians and their views and those views being acted upon as a behavior in public. This language is a common place thing here in Texas and Oklahoma. Yet they are dismissed by your brand of christians for not being “real” christians, therefore they aren’t christians, as per you. Yet to them, they would say you were being to lax, that your’e a lazy christian. The proverbial American christian backyard is filled with christians all pointing fingers at one another. This is another example in which these people are dismissed, in spite of their direct christian message on the receipt, as even being christians by you. I feel like this sort of group/demographics apologetics is doing your brand of christianity a disservice. We see the same problem in Islam, albeit the usual behaviors and their results are generally more destructive, there is a huge swath of silence in the middle from moderates or progressives.
    On the other hand I applaud you for calling them out here. I am curious to know if you would have said something to them in real time, or if this story had been relayed to you by a member of your church, if you would have taken them to task over such non-sense. Something tells me yes.

    Fred Phelps a democrat? Proof please. That is a bold claim. It requires unbiased, objective evidence.

  5. Christians are to show love to everyone – THAT is what all Christians should agree on.

    Whether the man was “gay” or not had nothing to do with his job or his service, so the individual claiming to be a Christian was just showing bigotry. And how do they know that another waiter or waitress wasn’t a fornicator or an adulterer? Or the manager might be one, so why should they even eat there if they are going to be consistent?

    The barber I had for seven years was “queer as a 3-dollar bill” and I treated him like a normal person. I have also worked with several people over the years who had homosexual relationships, but guess what – it didn’t interfere with their job. Being in the aviation business, one guy even called himself “Queen Air” (if you don’t know, that is a real plane). Another guy, who read my letters to the editor against same-sex fake marriage and other special privileges for those of homosexual persuasion, talked to me about it and when I told him I see it as another sexual sin like adultery, he actually thanked me for being consistent.

    The person in your story was just a jerk.

  6. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    The barber I had for seven years was “queer as a 3-dollar bill” and I treated him like a normal person.

    Like a normal person? Gee, Mr Chatfield, you ARE a peach!

  7. Dan,
    Well, his sexual proclivities certainly were not normal!

  8. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, you don’t KNOW the man. You don’t KNOW what his sexual proclivities are. We don’t know what YOUR sexual proclivities are. It’s not anybody’s business.

    Still, despite your proclivities, I will strive to treat you like, you know, a normal person.

    [rolls eyes]

    ~Dan

    • Dan,
      Glenn, you don’t KNOW the man. You don’t KNOW what his sexual proclivities are. We don’t know what YOUR sexual proclivities are. It’s not anybody’s business.

      You again are making statements without knowledge. I saw the man almost monthly for my haircut, and and just about the same amount of visits taking my son to him. He was not bashful about talking about his “boyfriend.” I do know what homosexual sexual proclivities are – sex with a person of the same gender. Don’t be such an idiot! And HE was the one who MADE it my business by always talking about his boyfriend!

      And people who engage in same sex sexual relations are NOT “normal,” which is why I can compare them to normal people. I would say the same about a person who has sex with an animal.

  9. Get serious, Dan. If the guy is a homosexual, his proclivities are self-evident. You might want to look up the word.

  10. I have made my opinions known to a homosexual. It was my brother-in-law as he was dying of AIDS. But he asked me, so I told him. He lived in a Chicago neighborhood with a sizable homosexual population. He claimed he had yet to meet one that didn’t need psychological help. And yeah, he included himself, though he seemed a pretty together guy apart from his “proclivities”.

    But I would never act as these restaurant patrons did. More to the point, I never do. It doesn’t help anything to be an asshole.

  11. Finally you write something I can get on board with, John.
    I’m so relieved that you see that it is wrong to treat people badly just because one may not approve of or like their beliefs, sexual orientation, skin color, gender, etc.
    There is nothing Christian about treating others rudely or with malice. Nothing. No one can defend this kind of behavior. I wish restaurants would just include the tip in with the bill automatically. It’s not right that a good waiter should be gipped over this kind of insipid behavior.

  12. Almost forgot….what’s even worse! They make Christians look bad.

    Why do these kind of people even have to open up their mouths and preach and give the non-believing the false idea that they stand for God and God’s people. It’s just wrong…. it’s giving real Christians a bad, bad reputation.

  13. “I’m so relieved that you see that it is wrong to treat people badly just because one may not approve of or like their beliefs, sexual orientation, skin color, gender, etc.”

    I don’t believe I’ve ever seen John, or any other person here opposed to the homosexual agenda, advocate treating people badly. Are you a warrioress of the Don Quixote variety?

    • Yeah, its kind of insulting to say youre glad to see I oppose rudeness like this. It speaks to the mindset of people who embrace homosexuality and samesex marriage. It seems they are deeply convinced that because someone believes a particular behavior is immoral that it is the same as hating them and wanting to hurt them, or at least secretly wish more people hated gays.

  14. paynehollow says:

    John, speaking as someone who was opposed to “the gay agenda” for half my life – who honestly believed in the “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach, who thought he was respectful and kind and loving to all people, regardless of their “sins…” I can attest that it was only after changing my position and truly accepting people for themselves that I realized how hurtful and hateful some of the things I said were.

    For a prime example, someone who would say, “I treated him like a normal person…” thinking they were being kind and respectful were actually not and oblivious to how awful that statement is.

    Just sayin’,

    Dan

  15. mmmike917 says:

    It’s almost as if Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) proponents expect SSM opponents to treat homosexuals badly as a default position, and they have to “work” at treating them civilly. So SSM proponents are “relieved” to find someone in the opposition who doesn’t “hate” homosexuals. That’s the way they are portrayed in the media, but that doesn’t reflect the reality at all. Certainly, there are some folks out there who just don’t like homosexuals, but THEY are the exception, not the rule. Yet, they are the people the media focuses almost exclusively on. SSM opponents will go to great lengths to point out that they DO NOT hate gays, but it falls on deaf ears, so ingrained is this carefully constructed media narrative that the only reason they oppose SSM is because they “hate gays.” If I were to be served by the waiter in the story above, I would tip him appropriately (I believe in generous tipping), thank him for his excellent service, and walk out satisfied. That would not have been the time or place to give my opinion on SSM. But someone who follows that routine doesn’t draw attention to themself, whereas the person above does, so a false impression of SSM opponents is created. It’s the bell that doesn’t ring that isn’t heard.

  16. John, thanks for the link where you could show that Democrat Fred Phelps is a Democrat. I took a screen shot of that for future use. I love pointing out that Democrat Fred Phelps is a Democrat. The typical reaction is what you saw here: Disbelief. After all, why would the Leftist media leave out such a key fact as his political affiliation (he actually ran for office) while they are trying to paint him as a right-winger? Oh, wait, I answered my own question.

    Of course I’m not trying to imply that all Democrats are like Fred. I’m pointing to just another example of media bias and how they leave out key facts to distort the truth.

    I encourage others to point out his official party affiliation every time that he or his Westboro Baptist “church” are mentioned.

    • Neil you should also look up the statewide election results from 92, 94, and early 2000s. He ran in democratic primaries for state and gederal office and in one got as kuch as 31% of the democrat vote.

  17. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    Don’t be such an idiot! And HE was the one who MADE it my business by always talking about his boyfriend!

    He actually talked about his sexual practices in a barber shop? I’d be willing to bet that this is a bald-faced lie. But, if I am mistaken and this barber spent his time in the barber shop discussing his sexual practices amongst customers, then I apologize. You DO know what his sexual practices are.

    IF he actually talked about them.

    If, on the other hand, he did not talk about his sexual practices, then I’d hope you’d man up and admit you don’t know the man, not beyond knowing that he is gay and had a boyfriend. then I’d hope you’d apologize to the world for your presumption and arrogance.

    REGARDLESS, Glenn, saying “Treated him like a normal guy…” indicates that somehow he (and, by extension, “the gays”) are NOT normal guys. They are! Even if you hold the opinion that gay sex is sinful, then that would make gay folk sinners, but sinners are the norm in this world, Glenn. YOU are a sinner, I am a sinner. There is nothing abnormal about that.

    So, addressing this from mmmike…

    It’s almost as if Same-Sex Marriage (SSM) proponents expect SSM opponents to treat homosexuals badly as a default position, and they have to “work” at treating them civilly.

    When people like Glenn (and me, in a former life) talk about how “gracious” they were to deign to treat “sinners” like this acquaintance of Glenn’s as “normal people,” they are treating gay folk badly. They are treating them as if they are subhuman, as if they have to go out of their way and it’s a really big deal to treat them “like a normal person…” THAT is why many folk think that our more conservative citizens are expected to treat people badly.

    “IF I am right, after all, and I speak for God, then people really ought to listen and if not, then they are bound to go to hell…” this is the way that too many of us sound, which comes off as arrogant. You all could begin by admitting you really shouldn’t be saying you’re treating “the gays” like “normal people…”

    ~Dan

    • The obtuse Dan strikes again. Pulls out the “victim card” again for the homosexuals.

      READ MY LIPS! The man talked about his boyfriend all the time, in a romantic way as if it was a girlfriend. He was a very effeminate young man, and attended “gay pride” events. Ergo, the man was homosexual and ergo had homosexual proclivities.
      Anyone who says they are homosexual immediately tells you their sexual proclivities – it is their sexual proclivities which defines them.

      Homosexual behavior is NOT normal, whether or not one considers it a sin. Only 2-3% of the population are homosexuals by just about every study available. The human body was not designed for homosexual relations. This makes those who practice homosexual behavior abnormal.

      However I do not treat them any different than “normal” people, just like I don’t treat fornicators or adulterers any different than I do “normal” people. It is not treating them or thinking of them as “subhuman” to say they are not normal people in regards to there sexual behavior.

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Trabue.

    • I dont doubt the barber discussed it. My experience is that gay men in particular are very comfortable discussing that theyre gay, they seem to want people to know they’re gay.

  18. Dan,

    I can attest that it was only after changing my position and truly accepting people for themselves that I realized how hurtful and hateful some of the things I said were.

    You should speak for yourself without implying something negative about John or other opponents of same-sex marriage. I consider John a good friend with whom I talk often apart from this blog, and I attest that NEVER ONCE has John said anything about homosexuals that could be perceived by a sane person to be “hurtful.” Being opposed to same-sex marriage is no more “hurtful” than being opposed to higher taxes.

  19. TheWarrioress,

    We’re so happy you’re “relieved.” It’s nice to discover that rightwing Christians aren’t the evil-mongers they’re made out to be, isn’t it? Unlike, ya know, leftwing Christians that support abortion…

  20. Interesting that Warrioress (being a Christian) seems to be surprised that Christians would be on the gay guys side on this one. Is it her experience that pulling crap like this tip situation is common practice among Christians?

  21. Dan,

    Homosexuality is not normal in any sense of the word. Therefore, it is not improper to refer to heterosexuals as the “normal ones” because heterosexuality is the normal “orientation”. This idea that someone can have desires that are in conflict with their own biological design further underscores their abnormal state.

    If being referred to as less than normal is offensive, that’s unfortunate, but a problem on their end. It is a factual implication and when the truth hurts, it doesn’t make the truth teller evil.

  22. Somewhere there is a wonderful picture of Phelps snuggling up with Al Gore. it’s sweet. I will add that I had my one encounter with some Phelps zombies in KC quite a few years ago. They were quite honestly the most hateful unpleasant people I have ever encountered.

  23. It actually makes me want to go to Carrabba’s the next time I’m in KC and give the guy a tip to make up for these idiots.

  24. paynehollow says:

    You all are having some basic English misunderstandings.

    A left handed person is not normative, when it comes to his hand orientation. A redheaded person is not normative when it comes to hair color. A gay person is not normative when it comes to orientation.

    But all of these are “normal people.” Saying “I treat these red-heads like normal people…” is offensive and goofy. Same for any other normative trait. Just because someone’s not in the norm of a particular trait does not mean they’re not normal people.

    Homosexuality, redheadedness and lefthandedness are normal, they all are natural, normal traits in the real world.

    People besides Glenn and Marshall, are you not embarrassed by these type of folks making these sorts of comments? Do you not recognize that is how the stereotype of “hateful conservatives” gets pushed forward, by statements like these?

    ~Dan

    • Trabue,
      You are the one with the problem. Red hair is a normal genetic type for human beings. While it may be a lower percentage of humans than blonde or brunette, it isn’t abnormal. In some areas, such as in Ireland, red hair gets to be a very predominant color. In my own family red hair is normal. It is genetic and amoral.

      Left handedness is also amoral and a normal human trait.

      Therefore, redheaded and left-handed people are part of the normal society.

      Homosexual behavior is abnormal, because it goes against the created design of the human body, goes against the created design for human sexuality. There is nothing normal about homosexuality either genetically (which no one has found evidence of genes being involved), biologically, or physiologically. And sexual behavior has a MORAL element to it – i.e., it is NOT amoral.

      Please stop reaching to such stupidity in an attempt to justify that which is not justifiable.

  25. paynehollow says:

    Anyone? Do you all not see with people like this ^ as being the reason why you’re automatically suspected of being hateful? You all seem amazed when people suspect the religious right of being hateful right off the bat and I’m telling you, with people like Glenn saying how gracious he’d be in treating gay folk like “normal humans” (never mind the hypocrisy in Glenn that he admittedly DOESN’T think they’re “normal humans!” he is willing to lie about it as a favor to “the gays”), this is the reason why. Glenn and people who will not stand up to that sort of hateful, abusive, irrational language.

    Anyone?

    ~Dan

    • Dan likes to misrepresent people, build a straw man, and then call the other person a liar. That just shows what a liar he is.

      I explained thoroughly what I meant by perverts not being normal people. They are normal in the sense that they are people just like everyone else, but they are abnormal in relation to their sexual proclivities. This has been the context of my “they are not normal” throughout the conversation, yet Dan with his lies continues to claim I suggest that perverts are somehow then subhuman. (notice I also said those who practice other types of sexual immorality also not “normal”)

      It is NOT “hateful” to speak the truth about homosexual behavior, yet THAT is the reason homosexualists pull out the victim card and holler “hate.” As Neil has so often said, truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth. It is not “hateful, abusive, irrational language” to use proper words to describe someones sexual proclivities as an abomination to God, as perverse, etc – That is what the Bible calls it. I refuse to bow to the PC police.

      What is irrational is people like Trabue fighting tooth and nail to claim that God is okay with homosexual behavior in any context what soever. What is irrational is Trabue’s straw men he always raises to get the victim card out.

  26. Perhaps, Dan, you’re too willing to get hung up on the words we use that allow you easier opportunity to demonize. “Treating gay folks like ‘normal humans'” is not necessarily an accurate representation or our attitude, regardless if we used those very words. We must keep in mind how eager you are to find evidence of bad intent on our part in order to prove your twisted point. That we treat them no differently than normal people would be a better way to say it. It would the same as saying that I treat black people no differently than I treat white people. The reason is because we understand that they are indeed people worthy of being treated as such. But “normal”? Of course they aren’t. If you worked with, associated with and perhaps were even friends with someone who eventually was discovered to engage in sexual behavior with animals, it would indeed be his “orientation” that would lead you to regard him as less than normal. His deeply felt desire for bestial love had not interfered with his otherwise normal life. The same is true of homosexuals. That they can live amongst the normal, work with them, associate and befriend them, does not mitigate the fact that their desires are abnormal.

    As to being suspected of hatefulness, that is far more a result of people like you than it is our factual and truthful acknowledgement of reality. You and those you enable need to regard us as hateful to further the victim-hood perception you’ve worked so hard to market to the general public, that you choose to frame every word that interferes with the Agenda That Doesn’t Exist as hateful and bigoted. It’s incredibly dishonest and deceitful to do so. I don’t care. Keep trying. I’ll continue to speak the truth about homosexuality.

    And I’m going to go out on a long and narrow limb here and suggest that if Glenn was asked by any homosexual he knew or met if he really thought they were not normal, he’d likely tell them “yes”, and be willing to defend the answer. I know I would. I have no reason to balk at such a question (unless they had a gun to my head and obviously wanted to pull the trigger if I said “yes”—THEN I’d lie). But to Dan, every opponent of the Agenda is Fred Phelps. But enablers are far more similar to Phelps than any of us are.

  27. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    We must keep in mind how eager you are to find evidence of bad intent on our part in order to prove your twisted point.

    I would point to my first posts here where I agreed with John, saying “sick people, regardless of who it was…” and even noting that the note sounded suspicious.

    But then several conservative types started wondering “Why would anyone ever suspect us poor loving conservative Christians…?” followed by Glenn’s offensive remark.

    The point is, even in disavowing this jerk of a “tipper” in the story, at least one of you includes a backhanded “compliment” (or rather, a direct insult that you all appear to not even recognize as such – an insult that you and Glenn, at least, appear to think was a progressive mark of compassion!). If any conservatives here are honestly curious as to why conservatives are so quickly blamed, I’m pointing to the answer.

    Believe it or not, I’d suggest that is it and you could learn from this opportunity or you can go in to defensive mode. It’s up to you.

    Seriously, aren’t there any conservatives here who will take these two to task?

    I mean, it’s no sweat off my back either way. But at least some of you all seemed genuinely perplexed why you’re blamed, here is both an obvious example and an opportunity to do something about it.

    ~Dan

  28. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    You and those you enable need to regard us as hateful to further the victim-hood perception

    The truth is, if there are bigots and jerks out there, we don’t really care what you all think. We recognize bigotry and jerkiness for what it is. We feel sorry for the poor souls stuck in that sort of backwards, ignorant thinking, but will just ignore stupidity for what it is and stand up to bullies, knowing they’ll back down.

    I’m not really speaking to you or Glenn. I’m talking to other conservatives who might actually want to improve the image of conservatives.

    ~Dan

  29. No, Dan. The truth is that it is people like yourself that is guilty of the behaviors you attribute to those of us who acknowledge the plain truth. You regard our truth/fact based and clearly reasoned position as ignorant, backwards, stupid and bigoted and by demonizing us as such is an attempt to bully us into submission or acceptance.

    As such, our image as conservatives is constantly sullied by this blatantly deceitful, passive-aggressive tactic you yourself so eagerly employ. It is borne out by you and other opponents by your consistent lack of facts and evidence as you smear conservatives. It isn’t our image that is lacking. It is your own character in dealing with us.

    • Marshall,
      You are correct – every time a person I have worked with or have had other dealings with identified himself or herself as being “gay,” and asked me what I thought about it – or anyone who is a homosexualist asks me what I think about homosexual behavior – I’ve made no bones about telling them how I feel about such behavior. I have had numerous letters-to-the-editor on the subject due to Iowa being a state sanctioning such perversion with fake marriage. I am not a liar – I do not hide my feelings and pretend anything.

      Dan calls my remark “offensive” because he decided to misrepresent the context – sort of the way he misrepresents the Scripture. He, like most other homosexualists, are perpetually offended.

  30. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.”

    -Proverbs 27:6-

  31. I don’t know if this is a Dan proclivity or a liberal proclivity, but either way Dan seems to indulge liberally. It is the constant desire to paint the actions of a group of people based on the actions of one person in said group. I can’t count the times i’ve gotten flack from Dan because of how someone (unnamed) at some other blog (unnamed) responded to him sometime in the past. To be fair, I see/hear this quite often fro leftists in the various media so it could just be a left thing.

  32. paynehollow says:

    Craig, in this very post, John points to this ONE individual and said, “Hey, this is wrong behavior and not the way a Christian should act.” And rightly so. Clearly, this tip shirking jerk was being obnoxious and rude.

    Then, the question came up, “Why do they persecute us so?!! Why do people suspect conservative folk of being mean-spirited and irrational??! Must be the media!” (My paraphrase).

    And yet, in this very comment section, you have not one but TWO of the four or five conservatives speaking here advocating the notion that gay folk are not normal people and then, go so far as to act as if it is a spirit of generosity and love to “treat them like normal people…”

    I am both doing the same thing that John did in the post and trying to point it out to you all to explain why conservatives are oft-considered rude and ignorant.

    Is John also wrong for doing this? Or how is what he’s doing different than what I’m doing? Because John’s example is so over the top, whereas Glenn’s is just crude and rude phrasing? Or is it that you don’t think it’s wrong to call any folk with minority traits “not normal…” and then act sanctimonious and say, “But I – the ‘normal one’ – will be gracious and TREAT you as if you were normal…”?

    why is it so hard to say, “ya know, that isn’t the most gracious way to say things. Clearly, they ARE normal people, with the exception that this one trait about them is factually not normative…”?

    Saying “that particular trait is not normative” is just a fact and not ignorant and offensive.

    Saying, “Those people are not normal, but I’ll treat them as if they were…” is not a fact and it’s offensive and ignorant and arrogant.

    Does no one see the difference? If not, I’d posit that is part of why you all don’t understand why you’re oft-considered offensive – you aren’t understanding English words and their polite usage.

    ~Dan

  33. paynehollow says:

    Mike, you suggested…

    SSM opponents will go to great lengths to point out that they DO NOT hate gays, but it falls on deaf ears, so ingrained is this carefully constructed media narrative that the only reason they oppose SSM is because they “hate gays.”

    …and sound dismayed that people perceive religious conservatives as being hateful.

    But rather than ask the question, “Why is it that this is happening?” you drop back to a rather simplistic, “It must be the media’s fault…” (presumably, “the media’s fault for reporting on abusive religious conservatives mistreating others…”)

    On the other hand, here on this thread, you have someone who has made a claim (trying to be generous to “the gays,” no less!) that is EXACTLY the reason why there is this perception. But rather than acknowledge, it and say, “ya know, maybe he’s making a good point here…”, you embrace the offender.

    Glenn said he “treats them like a normal person…” and that is offensive because gay folk ARE normal people. In the real world, real gay people are not any more abnormal people than other people.

    One specific TRAIT of that person (their sexual orientation) is not NORMATIVE, but that does not mean they are not normal people (and I feel like a complete idiot even stooping to address such BS, I probably shouldn’t… but I view this as a teachable moment, for those who have ears to hear). Of course, they are normal people. As normal as anyone else is.

    Again, if you have one TRAIT that is not normative, then it’s no big deal if you point that out. “Joe, your sexual orientation is not in the norm…” No one is offended by that, that is not hateful language, it’s just a fact. But, there is a world of difference between saying, “Ralph, your left-handedness is not in the norm,” and, “Ralph, you’re not normal, but I will TREAT you as if you were a normal person, anyway…”

    Do you not see the difference between the two situations? One is factual and non-offensive, one is offensive and non-factual.

    Do you all know that, in some cultures and in some superstitions, being Left Handed was considered of the Devil or evil or cursed? So, for THAT sort of person, they might “be generous and progressive” and say, “You know, even though being Left Handed is of the devil, I still know left handed people and treat them like normal people… see how progressive I am in the midst of pure evil?”

    Do you see how that is offensive and idiotic at the same time? And why, if there were a group of people who thought that way, how the larger culture would consider them idiotic and offensive?

    The media could only report on idiotic and offensive conservatives if the idiotic and offensive conservatives act that way. It’s a rather backwards approach to making headway on this problem that conservatives have to blame the media, rather than doing what John did in this post and call idiocy, Idiocy. John did the right thing in his post. Will you all do the right thing and correct this rather simple linguistic mistake?

    I mean, IF all Glenn means is “that particular trait is not in the norm of humanity…” saying that is not offensive and that is the right way to express that thought without being offensive and idiotic. But calling a group of people “not normal humans” is not the adult, respectful way to do this.

    That’s all I’m saying. Think about what you say if you don’t want to sound like an idiot. No harm, no foul if you simply make a faux pas with your language, but just own up to it, apologize and move on, don’t dig in and defend idiocy.

    ~Dan

  34. Dan,

    It seems as though are saying a couple of things here.

    1. Since conservatives do it it’s ok if I do it. (lump people based on a single individual)
    2. You agree with Glenn that homosexual behavior is not the norm in society, but you disagree with how he phrased it.

    If #1 is the case, then I’d suggest that you stand against the tide and deal with people as individual as opposed to members or representatives of a group.

    If #2 is the case, then how about just suggesting that Glenn could have been more sensitive in his phrasing, rather than impugn an entire group of people based on one possibly poorly expressed, but basically accurate sentiment.

  35. paynehollow says:

    Because Glenn, AND Marshall, and maybe “mmmike” and “John…” all seem to be oblivious to this very real concern that conservatives should have and I’m answering a question that was raised.

    I, for one, am NOT saying that all conservatives are ignorant jerks. I’m not saying that Glenn or Marshall are ignorant jerks. I’m pointing out that, in response to the question “Why do they think we’re jerks…” that this sort of language is exactly why. Its use and the fact that it goes unchallenged.

    In other words, I’m doing exactly what you’re suggesting. This is ignorant and offensive phrasing. I’m point out how the idea could be logically expressed that is not offensive and ignorant.

    Marshall was exactly right when he said…

    But I would never act as these restaurant patrons did. More to the point, I never do. It doesn’t help anything to be an asshole.

    I’m just pointing out that, sometimes, you can’t even see it when you’re being rude and ignorant. Now it’s been pointed out. Saying “I’ll treat you like a normal person, even though you are a pervert…” is a way we should never act, phrasing we should not use.

    Take the advice or don’t.

    ~Dan

  36. paynehollow says:

    Are you saying Glenn and Marshall are caricatures?

    I might tend to agree.

    John, do you see how saying, “Heck, I even treat these perverts as if they were normal people!” is offensive, rude, presumptuous and ignorant sounding?

    ~Dan

    • So, If I call an adulterer an “adulterer,” or a murderer a “murderer,” then I am being offensive and rude? If you call a person by what they are, that is rude?!?!?

      VICTIM CARD!

      Homosexual behavior is a sexual perversion. Ergo, a person who practices homosexual behavior is perverse – i.e., a pervert.

      And people like YOU, Trabue, are enablers, and are to blame for the disintegration of our culture and society due to rampant sexual immorality.

  37. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    So, If I call an adulterer an “adulterer,” or a murderer a “murderer,” then I am being offensive and rude? If you call a person by what they are, that is rude?!?!?

    If you call a murderer a murderer, you are stating a fact. If you call an adulterer by that name, you are stating a fact.

    IF you say, “Gay people are perverse. They are not normal humans…” you are stating an opinion, and yes, one that is uninformed and rude and arrogant and offensive. If you say “they are not normal humans,” you are also not being factual. Again, HUMAN refers to the whole person. The Gay Guy, the Lesbian or the Nutty and Arrogant Conservative are ALL “normal humans.” They may hold specific characteristics that are not normative for that particular trait, but that does not make them NOT normal humans.

    Again, you just misspoke, I’m sure. You MEANT to state the fact that gay people do not hold the normative sexual orientation. That is factual, that is okay. No problem. I’m sure you just misspoke and went further and said something unintentionally stupid and offensive and unfactual – that they are not normal humans.

    I mean, that’s just goofy wrong. No problem. Admit it, move on.

    Just because you hold the trait of being unusually obtuse and apparently unable to distinguish between fact and opinion does not make you NOT a normal human, Glenn. Our traits – normative or not – do not make us abnormal humans.

    Move on.

    • He said in regards to their sexual behaviors, they are not normal, not that they arent normal human beings. Not that I expect you represent his statements accurately.

    • Thanks John, for demonstrating that the average person fully understood what I said, rather that what Dan claims I said with his straw man argument.

      Dan, When I call a person who practices homosexual behavior a pervert, that is also a bonafide FACT! It is not an just an opinion because human sexuality is designed for opposite-sex coupling, and same-sex coupling perverts that design, as proven by Theology, Biology, physiology, and medically.

      Homosexual behavior is not a “trait”! It is a chosen behavior – all behaviors are chosen! DUH! You really get to be so intentionally stupid sometimes.

      You have again proven to be unteachable and a rank heretic. End of conversation.

  38. Let’s say homosexuality is genetic. There’s no proof for it, but what the hell! It’s genetic. Why not?

    How about kleptomania? If it was determined to be genetic, must I say it’s “normal”? Must I say that kleptos deserve the “same” property rights as everybody else?

  39. paynehollow says:

    We can reasonably say “You can’t harm others.”

    Thieves (kleptomaniacs, being thieves) harm others.

    Therefore, we can say, “You can’t harm others, thus you can’t steal.”

    This isn’t brain science, friends.

    ~Dan

    • Lgbt people are carriers of sexual diseases and mental illness at rated exponentially higher than the general public even higher than those who participate in the same sexual activities. So it actually is harmful.

  40. paynehollow says:

    As to whether or not you call it “normal,” that’s up to you. You just can’t call people “not normal” and expect people to shrug it off and still find your opinions worthwhile. The question/concern was raised, “Why do they assume that conservatives are jerks.”

    Glenn’s answer and your collective defense, that is why.

    Take it or leave it, it’s the answer to your question.

    • Hey guys, have you noticed that Trabue’s moral code is the same as that of atheists? “Do not harm others.” Of course, who says what is actually harm? Who determines what is or isn’t harm? Dan? RNash? Me? Craig? John?

      All the medical evidence points to great harm caused by homosexual behavior. There is much emotional, psychological and spiritual harm caused by homosexual behavior. Of course that is just empirical evidence in numerous studies – i.e., just THEIR opinions that there is harm caused, Because in Dan’s – and other homosexualists like him – view, there is no harm caused.

      So here we have a root of the problem with Dan and his ilk. “Harm” is to determine right and wrong. And it is the individual gets to decide what is or is not “harm,” so if the Nazis decided there was no harm in exterminating millions of people, what harm was there – after all, look at all the “subhuman” people the rid the world of! Oh, wait a minute, someone else has the opinion that murdering millions of people is indeed harm! Who do we listen to, where is the moral standard as to what harm is?

      These people make me want to puke.

  41. paynehollow says:

    John…

    He said in regards to their sexual behaviors, they are not normal, not that they arent normal human beings.

    Just a real world reminder, here is the quote:

    The barber I had for seven years was “queer as a 3-dollar bill” and I treated him like a normal person.

    Even though he was gay, he treated him like a normal person.

    I guess you all really don’t understand it, but that is stupid and offensive.

    Don’t get me wrong, it’s not hugely offensive. Glenn’s not calling for the destruction of these abnormal people. He is just dismissing them, treating them as his inferiors while simultaneously inflating his ego by his willingness to treat them like normal people (EVEN THOUGH, according to Glenn, they are “scientifically” “perverts…”)

    For the most part, we don’t care what idiotic things people say. They’re idiots and they just get ignored.

    It is only in conjunction with the seemingly serious questions (“Why do people assume we’re hateful…??”) that I felt compelled to answer the obvious.

    It sure isn’t because I like getting beat up.

    People think you’re hateful and arrogant because you say hateful and arrogant things. If you don’t want people to think that you are hateful and arrogant, don’t say hateful and arrogant things.

    Boom. Easy.

    ~Dan

  42. Oh, and good ol’ Trabue again bears false witness with his straw man charges about how I think of “gays”, since in reality, truthfully, I never dismiss them as humans, never consider them my inferiors, nor do I inflate my ego by my belief that their behavior is perverse. He just continues to demonstrate his foolishness.

  43. paynehollow says:

    Yeah, too many gay folk HAVE gotten diseases. IF ONLY we could find some way to encourage a faithful, monogamous, loving, respectful committed relationship to help change that, I’m SURE that our conservative friends would fully support that…

    John…

    In reference to his sexuality. Stop being obtuse.

    This is amazing, you all honestly don’t see it.

    Lord, have mercy.

    ~Dan

  44. I see it, Dan! In a world where good is bad and bad is good, and those who would like to do things that are wrong are whipped up into a over-sensitivity induced finger pointing frenzy, someone who says, “Dude! That’s not right!” Is the bad guy!

    Believe me. I see it!

    And lest I be seen as mean, I should what? Act as if what they’re doing ISN’T wrong?? Am I supposed to ignore everything so that I may be brought into the warm embrace of low expectations?

    IT’S WRONG! IT’S NOT GOOD! IT’S NOT NORMAL!

    You do, and you would have me DENY PLAIN SCRIPTURE to save face with a movement that doesn’t give a damn about my (our?) faith!

    No, Dan! I will not!

  45. paynehollow says:

    Okay. Dude, what Glenn and you all are doing is not right. It is arrogant, it is presumptuous, it is mistaken and, mostly, is incredibly stupid, so stupid as to make people just shake their heads at you and say, “If these people represent ‘conservatism,’ I want nothing to do with it.” and pity you while writing you off into the dustbin of history.

    I presume you support me in calling out the stupidity and immorality that you all are defending.

    ~Dan

  46. But Dan, you only assert that stupidity and immorality is present. The irony being that homosexual behavior is immoral and it is stupid to pretend it isn’t.

    But putting that aside for a moment (as you have put the truth regarding the immorality of homosexual behavior aside forever), I wish to address the charge that I might regard homosexuals as “not normal” or “not like normal people”.

    You want to use the term “normative” and suggest that is what we (or I) mean. But, I use the term “normal” as it should be, particularly and specifically for this issue. According to Dictionary.com, definition 3b for “normal”, we see: “free from any mental disorder;”. Without going through all the truthful, fact-based, logical and rational arguments I and others have put forth so many times (and that you simply dismiss without anything akin to truthful, fact-based, logical and rational arguments to the contrary), I will simply say for now that it is self-evident that normal people, based on their biological design, are attracted to members of the opposite gender. Sexual desire is meant for procreation primarily (still speaking from a biological standpoint) and therefore one is meant to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex for that purpose.

    Thus, to say “I treat them like normal people” is clearly NOT a slight, but an acknowledgement of the truth regarding who is or isn’t normal. They aren’t normal or they wouldn’t be attracted to people of the same sex. Red hair or left-handedness do not suggest abnormality. Red hair and left handed people are simply less common. And like the vast majority of black people, I, as one whose red hair isn’t completely turned gray, am offended that you would try to draw a comparison between hair or skin color and abnormal compulsions.

    “You just can’t call people “not normal” and expect people to shrug it off and still find your opinions worthwhile.”

    Frankly, if I am referred to as weird, goofy, stupid, a jerk or “not normal”, I inquire as to why? I don’t shrug it off. Even when confronted by someone who has demonstrated over and over again the desire to demonize, criticize and cast aspersions without ever spending time defending their position, I still expect an explanation. (Think “Alan”) And when never getting one, THEN I know I can shrug off the opinion.

    But here, in discussions like this, your whining implies that those opposed to homosexuality are summarily dismissed with no attempt to expose the true meaning behind what is said. “Why do they assume that conservatives are jerks.”?? Because those who assume do not want to face what the conservatives are saying, knowing innately that conservatives are right. If you had one ounce of the graciousness and spirit of Christian brotherhood you present yourself as having, you would stand up for those with whom you disagree and say to those who ask such idiotic questions that we are not jerks because holding an opposing opinion does not make one a jerk, speaking truthfully doesn’t make one a jerk and not capitulating with every whiner who doesn’t like hearing the truth doesn’t make one a jerk.

    Or you can be a jerk and do what you’re doing now.

  47. Marshalart,

    Dan doesn’t think we are telling the truth or that we simply disagree with those who would say that we’re wrong and dismiss us. He thinks we’re wrong. He doesn’t have problem one with homosexuality. He truly believes that it’s as moral a position as left-handedness.

    I don’t know how one gets so far off the reservation, but Dan is pretty far gone.

  48. paynehollow says:

    People have different opinions, c2c. No doubt, we anabaptists find it strange that Christians are actually okay with going to war – so far off the reservation – or invest money, or say a pledge of allegiance to a flag instead of our God… but many sincere Christians disagree with us. We – none of us – have all the answers and there will be times we disagree. I don’t know why that would be so strange to believe.

    But yes, you are correct, I honestly believe you all are mistaken (and, indeed, find it hard now to imagine anyone actually could be opposed to gay and lesbians doing something as obviously good and wholesome as marriage). Our orientation is something we’re born with and there obviously, observably is nothing innately wrong with any sexual orientation, it’s what you do with it that matters. If one – straight or gay – sleeps around, gets diseases, lies and hurts people, etc, then that is using one’s sexuality in an unwholesome, unhealthy, “bad” way. But committing to a loving marriage? What could possibly be considered bad about that?

    People disagree, even sincere Christians of good faith. Even on matters that we consider important. It’s always happened, there should be nothing exceptionally surprising about that.

    ~Dan

  49. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    According to Dictionary.com, definition 3b for “normal”, we see: “free from any mental disorder;”… I will simply say for now that it is self-evident that normal people, based on their biological design, are attracted to members of the opposite gender.

    I really should let nuttiness wallow in its own filth, but just to point out the obvious…

    Marshall, if you look in a dictionary and find the definition for “heart attack” and decide that this is the same thing as “jumping jacks” does not make it so. You are speaking of ONE particular trait – orientation – and saying that, “IF they don’t fit into the most commonly found group for that ONE particular trait, then they are not ‘normal’ in that they are ‘not free from any mental disorder…'” Well, saying it does not make it so.

    Again, by that measure, left handed people are not normal humans (and indeed, are mentally ill – do you think they are the devil’s spawn, too?). It is simply irrational and a disaffected way of using and abusing the English language.

    Marshall, in many cities in the US, black people are the minority when it comes to the color of their skin. Do you think it appropriate to say, “Black people are not normal…” or do you recognize how stupid and offensive that is? I can go down trait after trait and any rational person can agree, IF you do not have the dominant trait in a group, that does not make you NOT a normal person. NOT in the English language.

    You are misusing the language in an abusive, bullying, arrogant and irrational manner. Which you are free to do, but don’t be surprised when people write you off as irrelevant and irrational.

    ~Dan

  50. That’s for sure. But again, I am most disappointed that one who makes the claims he does regarding treating others well, or debating with grace, will not suggest any attempt on his part to thwart the attempts of his like-minded community to paint our side with such a broad brush, especially when confronted with stories such as that which prompted this post. As an example, when someone says that all politicians are crooks, or all politicians should be thrown out of office, I might agree with the sentiment, but I remind such people that they are not familiar enough with every politician to make such a sweeping denouncement. Instead, Dan would suggest that each politician strive to act in a manner that would correct the incredible stereotype. In the case of opponents of the homosexual agenda, the Fred Phelps types, or such as those depicted in the story regarding the waiter, are so on the fringe and are such a tiny minority, that it is a blatant lie to regard them as the least bit typical. But then, lies are a requirement, it seems, for those defending the homosexual agenda.

    • Why is it that people on the LEFT, such as Dan, always decide that objections to their agenda is due to “arrogance,” “presumption,” “stupid,” and – one Dan missed – “racist”?

      When it comes to the discussion of homosexual behavior and the Bible, the arrogance is seen in the person who denies almost 4000 years of understanding what Leviticus means, and 2000 years of understanding Romans and 1 Cor. 6:9-10, so as to foster his own agenda! The presumptuous person is the one who tells God what is “good and loving.”

      Then they continue to compare skin color, which is innate and amoral, with sexual behavior, which is always chosen. I am so tired seeing idiots making this comparison.

  51. Regarding the whole “normal/not normal” tangent: Dan seems to be missing or has decided to ignore the fact that our classification doesn’t come from homosexuality being rare. Murder is rare. Congenital heart defects are rare. Albinos are rare.

    Rarity doesn’t make the thing abnormal and nobody is saying that it does, as Dan continues to suggest.

    There are other factors in play.

  52. “Just saying it doesn’t make it so”.

    Agreed.

    I cannot say that hitting a hammer with another hammer for the pleasure I receive from doing so is a normal use of a hammer without having some idea of what constitutes normal use. Arguing with someone who insists that this activity should be seen as normal, I would say that there is a purpose for which the hammer’s attributes are very well suited to fulfill.

    “But, I really enjoy hitting hammers with hammers”, one might say.

    Fine! Just don’t call it normal. It simply isn’t. And it doesn’t matter that a small minority of the population will engage in hammer hammering. The rarity of it doesn’t factor into the calculation.

  53. “I really should let nuttiness wallow in its own filth”

    The filth is clearly on your end, Chuckles. And I do NOT abuse or misuse words. That’s YOUR modus operandi. You narrow or broaden the meaning of a word or term as it best suits your purpose. But to use the word normal in the context I have been using it here is absolutely proper and accurate.

    And once again, you attempt the lamest of analogies to make your point. “Heart attack” and “jumping jacks”? Really? You actually typed that with a straight face?

    Worse, you again try to bring race into the discussion as if THAT is a logical and rational comparison. It isn’t and it never was or will be.

    I will not argue that sometimes “normal” can be used interchangeably with “common”, or “abnormal” with “rare”. But that is not what I mean at all and the facts back up my usage just fine. Each gender is designed to be with the other. The purpose of being attracted one to the other is based on the procreative aspects of both genders coming together. Both come together to bring about new life. That’s how we’re designed. For a member of one gender to be attracted to and have the desire to come together with a member of the same gender is therefore abnormal. Such a person is not normal. It doesn’t mean they can’t hold down a job and live a life. It means such a person is abnormal. It means the rest of us are the normal people because we act as we are designed to act.

    To say that pointing out this fact to an abnormal person suffering from same-sex attraction is abusive or insulting or any of the other bullshit labels you attach to it, would mean that calling an adult male who stands 4’9″ “short” is equally “abusive”. But short people don’t seem to fall to pieces over being noted as short. Not when compared to homosexuals, who apparently, according to the latest stats and studies, have a hard time coping in the world, even in areas where their abnormality is widely tolerated, which is more proof that they aren’t normal.

  54. paynehollow says:

    You guys just ain’t normal.

  55. paynehollow says:

    And in case you don’t get it, that is stated ironically and as an object lesson.

    ~Dan

  56. Again illustrating your less than honest penchant for defining words to you purpose.

    I also wish to call attention to your less than honest statement regarding Christians being “OK” with going to war. Apparently anabaptists are “OK” with lying.

    As to issues such as investing or pledging allegiance to the flag of our country, one could easily support both, with investing finding Scriptural basis. I’ve done this before as you well know. But the issue of homosexual behavior cannot be argued as a possible good thing, even between “loving, monogamous” couples, since the behavior alone is spoken to in Scripture without reference to any scenario in which it might take place. One must, well, lie to present any verse or passage that couldn’t otherwise be honestly interpreted to support the behavior. This you do as if you are a true and faithful student of Scripture. We use Scripture alone for our position. You use your imagination to suggest there is a way to make it all OK. That might be “normal” for you, as it most definitely appears to be the case, but it isn’t normal for honest and faithful Christians.

  57. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    I also wish to call attention to your less than honest statement regarding Christians being “OK” with going to war.

    Less than honest? Most conservatives Christians are factually NOT morally opposed to going to war, don’t believe that Jesus’ teachings support a pacifist approach. There’s nothing dishonest in that statement, it is just a fact.

    Marshall…

    the issue of homosexual behavior cannot be argued as a possible good thing, even between “loving, monogamous” couples

    Again, factually, honestly, in the real world, this is demonstrably false. This issue HAS been factually argued as a good thing. Perhaps what you mean to say is you have not been convinced of the rationality of the position, but you can’t say it has not been argued.

    And indeed, I can’t say that your position hasn’t been argued. Of course it has, that is easy to see that it has been factually argued. Not in a way that I and many others find convincing or moral or biblical, but it has been argued.

    Again, I don’t think any of these words mean what you think they mean. Perhaps that is why you all come across as arrogant and ignorant, way too often, and why people are willing to believe that conservative Christians would do something like what is found in the original story on this post.

    Not that any of you appear to really want to know why you are perceived as hateful, etc., but there it is, again, if you actually do want to know.

    One man’s opinion.

    ~Dan

  58. Dan,

    There you go again with the “why you’re seen as…”. I think you think that our position alone is bad enough. But that’s our position!

    If you’re so concerned about how we’re coming across, then please tell us how you would state our position in a more palatable way. How do I say, “I think homosexuality is counter to normal human sexual nature and is strictly forbidden in the bible” nicely?

    Is it really a matter of the manner in which we state it?

  59. paynehollow says:

    I’ve already done that, c2c. IF you believe “a gay orientation is not normative.” you can say THAT. That is a fact, and there’s no offense in that.

    If you are stating, “No, it’s not that it’s not normative – left handed people are not normative… it’s more than that. It’s that I don’t like or approve of gay behavior.” then state that. That, too, is an observable fact.

    But to say, “This group of people are not normal human beings,” that is, 1. demonstrably and factually mistaken and 2. Offensive and 3. Bigoted.

    “Normal humans” are the group of humans who are within the bounds of humanity. A body, a heart, lungs, a brain, etc. Straight people and gay people and transgender people and Southern Baptists and the pope and , they are ALL “normal human beings.”

    I’m pretty sure your collective problem is not with their existence or their humanity, it’s with a particular subset of their behaviors. Talk about that, if you need to talk about anything. Or better yet, if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all, as my dear conservative mother taught me.

    “That behavior is troubling…” that is an opinion and you can offer it (although you may be delving into meddling territory, if you do so unasked, and meddling is wrong).

    “You are not a normal person, but I – being the godlike figure that I am – will TREAT you as if you were a normal person… aren’t I a good guy for that…” is offensive and just stupid.

    If you are speaking of a particular subset of behaviors that you don’t approve of or find offensive or that aren’t normative, you can speak to that behavior and you’re fine. Why would you go the extra distance and be factually mistaken and offensive and perceived to be arrogant?

    ~Dan

    • No one said they arent normal human beings. Glenn said, as it pertains to sexuality, that he treats gay people the same as he does normal people, meaning he doesnt treat gay people differently than non gay people because of their sexuality.

      You probably understood that but latched on a perceivable slight…like always. The fact that the distinction has been made and you still keep going with it just shows you arent interested in being honest.

  60. paynehollow says:

    c2c…

    Is it really a matter of the manner in which we state it?

    Yes, how and when you say things is important in polite adult company. Even the Bible teaches as much, although we should recognize that innately.

    ~Dan

  61. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Glenn said, as it pertains to sexuality, that he treats gay people the same as he does normal people

    If he (oh so generously) treats “the gays” LIKE normal people, then clearly he does not think they are normal people.

    But it is possible that I have misunderstood. Glenn can solve this with a direct answer:

    Glenn, are gay people normal people?

    I’m pretty sure he is saying, “No, they are not normal people,” but a simple direct answer will clarify.

    “Perceived slight?” John, if I say, “John is a pervert for his views on gays and yet, I will treat him as a normal person…” do you understand that this is both arrogant and an insult?

    A direct answer, please.

    ~Dan

    • See, you have no interest in discussing anything honestly.

    • Those who practice homosexual behavior are practicing an abnormal sexual perversion. In their sexual proclivities they are not normal people. I thought Marshall made this perfectly clear, but then, again, if someone can’t read plain English in the Bible and understand it, why should I be surprised when he can’t understand it elsewhere.

      John hit it on the head, Dan – you have no interest in discussing anything honestly.

  62. paynehollow says:

    Glenn, THAT is what I said. That, if you’re speaking of their orientation, they are not normative. But that does not make them “not normal humans.”

    Do I have a hard time understanding you all? Perhaps. That is why I’m asking you to make yourself perfectly clear, Glenn:

    Can you agree that gay people are normal people? Yes, they are normal? NO, they are NOT normal?

    A direct answer would clarify, but I don’t think you are willing or able to say, “Yes, gay people are normal people.” You think they are perverts, as people, it sounds like that’s what you’re saying.

    I’m not asking your opinion of their sexual orientation, I’m asking, Can you agree that gay people are normal people?

    A simple question, a simple answer.

    You see, I think the problem for you all is that you don’t want to say the obvious, “OF COURSE gay people are normal people,” because you disagree with one aspect of their lives. The problem with that approach to communication (ie, if I think someone has some aspect of their life with which I disagree, then I can’t consider them to be normal people, even if I deign to try to treat them like normal people) is that, by that measure, EVERYONE is not normal people. If I disagree with your behavior towards gay folk and you disagree with my belief on war and peace and they disagree with our opinion about God, etc, etc and that is all it takes to be “not normal,” then everyone is “not normal” and the word becomes meaningless. But words have meanings and it is irrational to use words in ways that render them meaningless.

    So, how about a straight answer, Glenn: Gay people are normal human beings, yes or no?

    ~Dan

    • Dan,

      You want to play word games and soften it with “normative.”

      As human beings, they are not normal as regards their sexual behavior. As human beings zoophiliacs are not normal as regards their sexual behavior. As human beings, necrophiliacs are not normal as regards their sexual behavior. They are all in the same boat – the are not normal human beings as regarding their sexual behavior.

  63. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    As human beings, they are not normal as regards their sexual behavior.

    And as human beings, conservatives are not normal as regards to their position on marriage equity (in our nation now, anyway). And as human beings, pacifists are not normal as regards to their pacifist behavior. And as human beings, straight A students are not normal as regards to their academic aptitude. And as human beings, those in wheelchairs are not normal as regards to their walking ability.

    ALL of us are “not normal” if you mean simply, “In one aspect of their lives, they are different than most people.” But if “ALL of us” are “not normal,” then “normal” has lost all meaning.

    You are speaking EXACTLY what I spoke of – by their orientation, gay people are not normative. That isn’t softening it, it’s being specific and using words correctly.

    Yes, as it relates to their orientation, gay folk are not normative in their orientation.

    But that isn’t what I’m asking. I’m asking a simple question:

    Are gay people normal human beings?

    You can’t/won’t say Yes, does that mean you don’t think they are normal human beings? (Not as regards to their orientation, I’m speaking specifically of gay people AS people – Normal or not?)

    It’s really a simple question, Glenn (or John or Marshall). Your complete inability to say, “Yes, of course, gay people are normal human beings… not perverts, not disgusting slugs, normal human beings, children of God, deserving of respect…” is quite telling.

    You can’t refuse to answer to answer questions and not expect people to wonder what your real position is.

    ~Dan

  64. Dan,

    I’ve stayed out of this conversation for the most part. Honestly, I don’t care. I don’t care enough about homosexuals to spend much time either supporting or opposing their agenda. But you’re getting too ridiculous.

    And as human beings, conservatives are not normal as regards to their position on marriage equity (in our nation now, anyway).

    In every society, culture, and dimly lit borough on the globe, biological identities are the same. Apart from genetic abnormalities, one is either biologically male or biologically female, and this immutable fact, I’m sorry to say, is not subject to cultural whims.

    You’re playing semantical games, Dan, and ya damn well know it.

  65. Of course he knows It, Terrance. It’s all he has. There are no facts to which he can refer to justify his position. It is all emotion based and therefore, in order to combat those who support traditional marriage, faithfully relate the clear revelation of God on the matter of the behavior’s immorality and honestly portray the condition for the dysfunction it is, what else is there but to either lie outright as the activists do, or parse words and play semantic games in the hopes of frustrating his opponents? He does at least a bit of both.

  66. paynehollow says:

    You all are free to disagree with me, but what you can’t say is that I’m not serious, or that I’m playing games. I’m telling you in the real world, people DO take offense to phrases like, “Despite the fact that they are perverts, I treat them like normal people.”

    What is amazing is that you all not only disagree with my pointing this out and are getting defensive, it’s that you all don’t even appear to recognize how incredibly offensive and arrogant this statement is. And you truly don’t, do you? None of you even can say, “Well, I see how that could be construed as offensive, but it’s wrong to because…”

    One of the problems that too many people have is a lack of empathy. I’m not talking about agreeing with others, but the complete inability to even acknowledge or recognize the other’s point is, I think, a large part of the problem that the Religious Right has had for years, now.

    And Marshall, “emotion-based…”? I’m telling you, “This phrase is offensive and arrogant,” and instead of considering it and recognizing even a hint of legitimacy to the point, you all get all shrill and defensive, accusing others of “games” and being fooled by the media and killing the messenger.

    Whatever. One day, when the GOP is a tiny percentage of the population and have gone the way of the Whigs, I’m sure they will still be blaming the media and everyone else but looking at what they could do to be more reasonable and adult.

    I’ve offered an opinion, ignore away.

    ~Dan

    • Dan,

      Now you are just being an ass about what is and what is not normal for human beings.

      THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES BEING NORMAL ABOUT WHAT MARRIAGE IS! It is you and your perverted mind and the perverts you support who are the abnormal humans.

      NORMAL human beings don’t have sexual relations with members of the same sex, and normal human beings don’t support.

      No one is a child of God unless they are a Christian – that is what the Bible says. And if they are worshiping a Christ of their own making, they cannot be a child of God.

      How about you, Dan – Do you think pedophiles are normal human beings? Do you think necrophiliacs are normal human beings? Do you think zoophiles are normal human beings?

      Hey, and guess what, the American Psychiatric Association now says pedophilia is not a disorder but only a “sexual orientation.” Just like they did for homosexuality because of pressure from perverts and supporters/enablers of perverts like you.

      And I really don’t care if a pervert is offended by my calling him a pervert. He offends society with his perversion, and he offends God with his perversion, and he offends himself with his perversion.

      You make me want to puke.

  67. paynehollow says:

    No, I do not think that pedophiles are normal. But neither do I deign to humble myself and treat them AS IF they were normal humans.

    We can reasonably disdain and rebuke those who cause harm to innocents. But gay folk ain’t causing you no harm and they ARE normal human beings. But you don’t appear to think so, so I guess John is mistaken about your position.

    How about you, John: Can you say, “Yes, of course gay folk are normal human beings. it’s just that their orientation is not the norm, but that does not make them “not normal” human beings…”?

    Can you say that?

    Or is it the case that you think that gay people are NOT normal and, indeed, they are perverts? Not any particular behavior of theirs, mind you, just gay people as a whole. Normal humans or not?

    I don’t think any of you all are willing to state the obvious and demonstrable.

    Earlier, John, you said…

    No one said they arent normal human beings. Glenn said, as it pertains to sexuality, that he treats gay people the same as he does normal people

    NO ONE said that they are not normal human beings. So, by that, do you mean that gay people ARE normal human beings? Can you say that?

    As to the second half of your sentence, “Glenn treats gay people the same AS normal human beings,” do you not see that by “generously” treating them the “same as” normal human beings, the implication is that they are not? And Glenn, by his refusal to address the direct question and answer it with a simple yes or not, makes it appear that he clearly does not think they are normal human beings.

    But again, a simple answer for both of you could clarify.

    ~Dan

    • Dan,

      If I am working with a known adulterer, pedofile, zoophile, necrophiliac or homosexual, as long as they are doing their job I will treat them like another employee.

      If I am employing one of these people (as in going to their establishment to get my hair cut) I will treat them like any other worker.

      And in THAT regard I treat them as normal people. But I also ensure they know where I stand in regards to their perversion.

      Interesting how you don’t think pedophiles are normal but we are condemned for not thinking homosexuals are normal! You are such a hypocrite!

      You again resort to what your morality is based on – if it causes harm. And YOU arbitrarily decide what is harm, while ignoring all the evidence about the harm homosexual behavior causes. You are a stinking hypocrite!

      “Gay people” as a whole practice homosexual behavior and that is what makes them NOT normal people.

  68. If homosexuals are “normal” while acting in conflict with their biological design, so are the bestial. If homosexuals are “normal” acting against clear Biblical revelation, so are the incestuous. I could go on. Dan wants it both ways, one way for one path of the conversation, and then switching to the other as the conversation covers another angle.

    “people DO take offense to phrases like, “Despite the fact that they are perverts, I treat them like normal people.””

    Well, of course they do. They would regardless of whether or not the statement was true, which in this case it is. They ARE perverts for perverting the function of their anatomy. They ARE deviants for deviating from the purpose of their anatomy. They ARE NOT normal because normal people do not have sex with people of the same gender. Homosexuals take offense in the way most people do when the truth stands in opposition to their preferences. The fact that they might be offended by the truth here is really irrelevant when one attempts to defend the truth.

    What is NOT the truth is that this notion of homosexuals not being normal is not legitimately comparable to hair, eye or skin color, left-handedness or any of the other childish justifications Dan tries to perpetrate. It IS comparable to any of the mental disorders one might wish to use to make the case against the disorder of homosexual attraction. That is why I provided that definition above. It was the appropriate definition for the discussion. It was to distinguish my point from nonsensical comparisons to things that are more legitimately labeled as “uncommon” or “rare” rather than “not normal”.

    And to treat the abnormal as normal in the every day is a Christian characteristic, as it is to describe how we do NOT treat them as LESS than human because of their abnormality. Therefore, as long as a “gay” waiter was not lobbying my table for acceptance of his perversion, I would treat him like a normal person by tipping him according to the quality of his service, just as I do any other waiter or waitress.

  69. paynehollow says:

    What you all appear to fail to understand is, by YOUR graceless measure, EVERYONE is a pervert, EVERYONE is “not normal…” to someone. By your careless use of the language, you reduce it to meaninglessness.

    Words have meanings and beyond that, they have baggage. Saying “You’re not normal but I will (oh so graciously) treat you as IF you were normal (aren’t I kind)” when what you mean is, “I disagree with this one action or aspect of your behavior…” will be correctly perceived as arrogant and rude and condescending and offensive.

    Now, if you are speaking of someone who abuses children or animals or murders in such a manner, well, some rudeness is justified because they are actually causing harm. They SHOULD be stopped.

    But someone with whom you merely disagree? Well, they are still normal people.

    John, since it’s clear that neither Marshall or Glenn actually think of gay folk as normal human beings, that you’ll retract your defense of Glenn? Or are you also unwilling to state the obvious: that gay people are normal human beings?

    ~Dan

    • Dan

      Listen to yourself. Youre saying everyone but you is wrong. How arrogant and graceless of you. How can you be so arrogant as to think you, and only you, out of this whole discussion is correct?

    • Dan, YOU bear false witness against us.

      by YOUR graceless measure, EVERYONE is a pervert, EVERYONE is “not normal…” to someone.
      That is wrong and you KNOW it! And it is NOT “graceless” to call a spade a spade. Is it really “graceless” to say an adulterer is an adulterer? NO! Jesus even told the Pharisees what they were and I dare say you can’t call HIM “graceless”

      YOUR problem is that you sanction, promote, enable homosexuals and you don’t like it when people tell you the truth about their perverse behavior which is an abomination to God. And YOU blaspheme the TRUE God every time you say HE approves of any kind of homosexual behavior.

      You and YOUR ilk certainly ARE in the minority.

  70. paynehollow says:

    I’m saying that it is rude and arrogant to say, “You are a pervert, but I will treat you like a normal person anyway…” I would suspect that most people (outside of a subset of religious zealots) would agree with that as patently obvious.

    This is my opinion, offered because someone was wondering why you all are considered rude and arrogant.

    Take it for what it’s worth. But I’d encourage you to ask around to other people not in your particular cultural subset. I don’t think I’m in the minority on this one.

    ~Dan

  71. paynehollow says:

    And it is not graceless to call a homosexual “a homosexual.” It is not graceless to note that gay people are, as a matter of fact, a small minority of the population.

    What IS graceless, arrogant and offensive is saying to a given group of people, “I disagree with this particular part of your behavior, therefore, you are not a normal human being. Nonetheless, I will TREAT you AS IF you were a normal human being.”

    That drips with condescension and arrogance and is considered rude in polite company.

    And AGAIN, I’m not speaking of behavior that is causing harm. By all means, be rude to a murderer or a rapist. Go beyond rude and try to stop their behavior. But for all those other matters of opinion topics where you think a behavior is wrong, your opinion of that behavior does not make that person “not a normal” human being.

    As to being in the minority, I certainly have been for years on several issues. But on the topic of supporting gay folk and thinking it rude to say “They’re not normal human beings but I’ll treat them like one, even though they are actually perverted human beings,” I doubt that you’re right.

    ~Dan

    • And AGAIN, I’m not speaking of behavior that is causing harm.

      HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR CAUSES HARM!!!! How many times do you have to be told that? How many studies do you have to be shown which demonstrate that homosexual behavior causes much medical and physical harm as well as emotional and spiritual harm.

      You are in denial, and are a tool of Satan, because only Satan’s lackeys would denigrate the Bible the way do and to blaspheme God by saying he is okay with homosexual behavior.

  72. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR CAUSES HARM!!!! How many times do you have to be told that?

    “Told that…”? Doesn’t matter how many times you tell me that, if you have zero evidence to support the claim. (And you do have zero evidence to support it.)

    Similarly, Glenn, you can tell me 10 million times that unicorns piss is purple and restores amputated arms, unless you can demonstrate it, your “telling” me that will only make you seem foolish.

    Glenn…

    How many studies do you have to be shown which demonstrate that homosexual behavior causes much medical and physical harm as well as emotional and spiritual harm.

    One, for starts. ANY hard evidential support for your position would be something to consider. But merely stating “gays who have a lot of unprotected sex and otherwise abuse themselves can harm themselves and others…” does not support your case. Indeed, the type of evidence you have provided only SUPPORTS the rational case for supporting and encouraging marriage equity.

    How many times must that be pointed out to you?

    ~Dan

  73. paynehollow says:

    Funny, no sooner than I post that than Glenn provides a bunch of religious zealot-based evidence in support of my claim. Thanks!

  74. paynehollow says:

    Again, the DATA (even from the rightwing sources you cite) support the notion that marriage is a GOOD thing to support for gay folk. Again, thanks for making my case for me.

    What the data does NOT say is that all gay behavior causes harm. This is Glenn’s contention and it is not supported by facts.

    • So homosexual behavior always causes harm (if only spiritual harm), and therefore we should sanction it and call it “marriage.” How illogical can you get!

      DENIAL, DENIAL, DENIAL.

    • Wrong. The stats I am aware of show that heterosexuals in like sexual promiscuous lifestyles, and engage in like sexual activities are still not as likely to suffer from the medical and mental conditions as homosexuals. That is your hunch, not the real (non pc) world.

  75. “I disagree with this particular part of your behavior, therefore, you are not a normal human being.”

    Lying and distortion come so easily for you, doesn’t it, Dan? The above is another misrepresentation. It suggests that the behavior is abnormal simply because we disagree with it. The reverse would be more accurate. They are abnormal due to a mental dysfunction that manifests in their sexual attraction to people of the same gender as themselves. Normal people do not have this manifestation. Their normal state is (in one way) manifested by their attraction to people of the opposite gender. The homosexual might appear normal and actually act normal in the course of everyday life, but this one quirk means they are not like normal people. This is especially true since the ultimate result of this abnormal attraction is the demise of the species. And that’s yet another example of harm even if that ultimate result is never realized due to the fact that there are so few homosexuals.

    I would ask, just how many abnormal behaviors must one exhibit before one can legitimately be called “abnormal”? Is there some number in some book somewhere? It’s crystal clear that you want to dictate normal in a manner that includes those lesbian grandmothers of yours. Rather, like most of us, it would be far better for them and you to acknowledge reality and deal from that place.

    Also, you speak as if we are going up to homosexuals and making statements regarding their abnormal state. This is stupid of you as well as an attempt to characterize us in a false manner. When we say we treat them as normal people, it is that we don’t hold their abnormal desires against them as a matter of policy. That is, we don’t treat them as anything other than people. But when the subject comes up, we state our position unapologetically, because there is nothing for which we must apologize, other than how sorry we are that they suffer from their condition.

    If we’re considered rude and arrogant for speaking truthfully, for insisting on facts, for not cow-towing to those who wish to demonize us if we do not sugar-coat the truth, the problem is in people like yourself and those you defend who care only about how they get their jollies over everything else.

  76. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    I disagree with this particular part of your behavior, therefore, you are not a normal human being.”

    Lying and distortion come so easily for you, doesn’t it, Dan? The above is another misrepresentation. It suggests that the behavior is abnormal simply because we disagree with it.

    ?? That’s not what it suggests to me. Factually speaking, you DO disagree with it. Based on the FACT that you disagree with it, you consider them “not normal” people. I’m not suggesting at all that it is abnormal because you disagree with it.

    Marshall…

    They are abnormal due to a mental dysfunction that manifests in their sexual attraction to people of the same gender as themselves.

    yeah, well, the professionals disagree with your opinion. By the way Marshall, let’s establish your credentials: How long HAVE you been a psychiatrist? Psychologist? Mental health worker? Therapist? Did you study psychology for long? How many years? How much peer-reviewed research have you done to reach your opinion?

    What’s that? NONE of the above? You are not a mental health professional, nor have you studied in the field AT ALL (okay, maybe a high school psychology course, or not even that?) and yet you want us to accept your diagnosis over those who have studied behavior and sexuality for years and who are professionals?

    Do you “treat” diabetes and heart disease, too?

    Do you get my point?

    If a random fella walked into a hospital and said he was prepared to do heart surgery on you – with no years of study or degree or experience to back him up – would you let him? Most of us would escort that person to the mental ward or prison.

  77. So Dan, it seems as though you would suggest that the only people capable of commenting of sexual orientation are those with a degree in Psychology or Psychiatry, yet you appear to lack the very credentials you think others should have.

    As I’ve followed this its is painfully clear that you think someone has actually said the following; “I disagree with this particular part of your behavior, therefore, you are not a normal human being.”.

    What has actually been said is “I disagree with this particular part of your behavior, therefore that part of your behavior is not normal behavior”.

    If you could get that straight, it would help a lot.

    • Since the same psych fields which approved homosexuality as just an orientation rather than a disorder – only changing due to pressure from the queers and not from science or medicine – have also now said pedophilia is just an orientation and not a disorder, we are going to accept what these “professionals” say?!?!?

      ANyone studying anything about psychology knows it is no better than witchdoctoring and was developed by atheists with no scientific data to support it. Even psychiatry, if not dealing with a brain injury or defect, have no science to back up their claims. All they do is assert, get their cronies to assert, and everyone bows to the priests of psychobabble. And these are Dan’s “mental health professionals”. Of course the fact that a mind can’t be ill should be the first thing to raise red flags with the psych industry, but all the criminals and perverts seek them out to release them of their responsibility for their behaviors.

      Dan can’t get anything straight. He’s a liar through and through.

      Have fun guys, I really have better things to do with my time than continue futile discussions with a fool.

  78. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    it seems as though you would suggest that the only people capable of commenting of sexual orientation are those with a degree in Psychology or Psychiatry, yet you appear to lack the very credentials you think others should have.

    The only ones capable of diagnosing mental illnesses are those who are qualified. I don’t care if Marshall thinks that all the rabbis in the world are mentally ill or if he thinks that all the people from Illinois need to be locked up in a mental institution. He is not a mental health professional and has no professional knowledge of mental illness, I’m guessing.

    For what it’s worth, my degree is in special education and I’ve had a good bit of training in mental health. But even so, I am not going around making crazy diagnoses about people I don’t know, nor am I saying all people in a particular group are mentally ill.

    Indeed, it is a bit insane (not that I’m diagnosing!) to start making medical claims about whole classes of people. Shall we make such a “diagnosis” for all conservatives, as well?

    Craig…

    What has actually been said is “I disagree with this particular part of your behavior, therefore that part of your behavior is not normal behavior”.

    Yes, that is what I have said. That IS my position as to how we should disagree. But I don’t think Glenn or Marshall think that. But it’s hard to tell because they won’t answer the straight (excuse the terminology) question:

    Setting aside that you disagree with their behavior, Do you think gay people are normal people?

    Asked and re-asked and they won’t say a simple, “Yes, of course, gay people are normal people, in general. I just disagree with their gay behavior, thinking that is wrong.”

    Why don’t you ask him for a direct answer?

  79. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    pedophilia is just an orientation and not a disorder, we are going to accept what these “professionals” say?!?!?

    1. Source? (ie, the APA saying this, not some rightwinger website)

    2. So far as I know, the APA has talked about distinguishing between the orientation where one finds children sexually desirable and the disorder that is when someone ACTS on that orientation. In other words, sexually abusing children is still a disorder.

    Just so you don’t go spreading false reports.

    ~Dan

    • So far as I know, the APA has talked about distinguishing between the orientation where one finds children sexually desirable and the disorder that is when someone ACTS on that orientation. In other words, sexually abusing children is still a disorder.

      Dan, you are correct, BUT to call the thinking about it orientation and acting on it a disorder is nothing but one step to saying it should be legalized as they called for homosexuality. Once you label it an “orientation” to think about it, you have no where to go but downhill. Funny how homosexuality as an orientation isn’t a disorder if acted on! There is way too much activism for “intergenerational sex” to say the APA won’t change the latter part as well. It is very disingenuous.

  80. Actually Craig, what I’m saying is “One is not normal who feels sexually attracted to members of the same gender. Therefore, for that reason, as well as others, I oppose any attempt to legitimize the behavior that is a manifestation of this abnormality as if it is normal.”

    Dan,

    Unlike yourself, I don’t feel compelled to pretend what is obvious is hard to comprehend. If a dog clucks, I don’t need to be a veterinarian to know that clucking for a dog is not normal. Perhaps you do. To pretend that attraction to another of the same gender is normal in any way is patently deceitful and relying on an organization like the APA, who was victimized by activism within its ranks, rather an organization that can provide clinical studies and proofs that same sex attraction is normal…well…that simply confirms your willingness to perpetuate falsehood. But mature and honest people don’t play such games. If you wanted to be honest, your response to anyone stating the fact of homosexuals being abnormal would be, “So what?” I find it curious that such a question is never asked instead of trying to pretend there is nothing abnormal about same sex attraction.

    And by the way, not all professionals disagree with me. Only those who are part of, or victims of, the activism that resulted in removing homosexuality from their list of disorders, a result of a vote, not any solid scientific evidence.

    Yet, you would not hold those who are oriented toward incest, bestiality, pedophilia as normal. You selectively regard only homosexuals as normal due to their influence in YOUR life.

  81. I just read your last, Dan, it is yet another example of self-serving interpretation. Link to whatever you think you’ve read that distinguishes between orientation and disorder and then try to argue that it doesn’t also apply to homosexuals. Frankly, I think you’re making shit up, because that’s what you do. So the desires of homosexuals and pedophiles is orientation, but acting on those desires is only disorder for pedophiles? Really? That’s rich. You’ll try anything. Again, deceit comes easily for you.

  82. paynehollow says:

    No one will want to legalize abusing kids.

    The point stands, Marshall is not qualified to say a WHOLE GROUP of people are mentally disabled. It’s irrational to even think that. What other groups are, as a class, disabled, Marshall?

  83. paynehollow says:

    APA sources?

  84. paynehollow says:

    Glenn says the “professionals” are advocating this. The professionals in the psychiatric field are found within by the APA. The APA is the major voice of the psychiatric world, the one that changes the DSM (which is the document that defines mental illnesses). If the APA changes the definition, it changes for the field. If they don’t, it doesn’t change.

    • Some professionals are found in the apa. You said no one was advocating it. There are psychiatric profrssionals advocating it whether they are in the apa or not. Membership doesnt bestow credibility. Just have a degree and pay your fees.

    • Why did they change homosexualitys status in the first place, do you know? Or do you not care?

      Hint, they took a vote when a fraction of the memberahip was present due to political pressure and it barely passed. It wasnt some field-wide opening of eyes.

  85. paynehollow says:

    Yes, I do know. The gay population, as you know, is a small population. Plus the fact that, fifty + years ago, gay people were less likely to be “out.” So, as a result, ALL the gay people that mental health workers knew were people with mental issues (of other sorts), it was easy to go along with the cultural bias that there was something wrong with gay people. It was sort of just oversight. the diagnosis as “mentally ill” for gay folk was not based on ANY research, just tradition and biases.

    Once researchers looked into it, once they looked to see if there was anything to it, there was simply nothing there. There was no clinical reason to consider being gay “disordered.”

    That is what happened, not the whole political pressure myth.

    ~Dan

  86. “Yes, of course, gay people are normal people, in general. I just disagree with their gay behavior, thinking that is wrong.”

    Well gee, I just said that without even being asked.

  87. paynehollow says:

    John, what do you know about it? Where did you learn your “facts…”? Are you saying that gay people are mentally ill?

    Do you even know the clinical definition of Mental Illness?

    Here, if you’re interested…

    http://www.saybrook.edu/newexistentialists/posts/05-11-12

    You can’t just say “They are mentally ill” if it doesn’t fit the definition.

    Is that the case, John, that you think you know better than mental health professionals what is and isn’t mentally ill? What is YOUR definition? How many years of research do you have on this topic? Where did you get your mental health degree? How many years have you dedicated to the field?

    Geez.

  88. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    I just said that without even being asked.

    Very good, then you are not the arrogant and offensive sort of person that Glenn and Marshall are. But, you ARE defending their indefensible, irrational position.

    And how about you, Craig, You think that gay people are not only worthy of being TREATED like a normal human, you think they ARE normal humans. Good for you.

    Do you think they are perverts?

    Do you think they are mentally ill?

    ~Dan

  89. Oh lord more stinkin questions.

    I think the the sexual behavior that homosexuals engage in can legitimately be called perversion. The biological fact is that the male and female bodies of mammals are complimentary. Tab A is intended to go in slot b. Slot B is intended to receive tab A. Unfortunately slot c is not intended to receive tab A. Therefore it is accurate to say that homosexual sex is perverting the natural function of various body parts. Is that the same as being a pervert, I have no idea.

    Prefacing this by saying that I am not in any way qualified to diagnose anyone’s mental illness and am not attempting to do so.

    I have seen enough evidence that seems convincing to suggest that a significant number of self identified homosexuals have varying degrees of mental illness. Now does the mental illness drive the homosexuality or does the homosexuality drive people toward certain mental issues (Honestly I’m not certain mental illness is the correct term, I’m just using it because you did). Is homosexuality a mental illness, I don’t know, and really don’t care.

  90. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    The biological fact is that the male and female bodies of mammals are complimentary. Tab A is intended to go in slot b. Slot B is intended to receive tab A.

    “Intended…”? By whom? Says who? Our body is beautifully and wonderfully made and I know of know such limitations as “tab a goes here…” My wife kisses me on my neck sometimes (sorry if that’s too graphic). There’s no instruction manual telling us that is okay or not okay. Do you have some authoritative text to let me know if that is acceptable?

    My kids would sometimes walk in their hands when they were little, or run around on their knees. Have we violated some Greater Plan by “wrongly” using our body parts?

    Or is that restriction entirely created by you?

    On the same theme…

    Therefore it is accurate to say that homosexual sex is perverting the natural function of various body parts.

    “Natural function…”? Where did you get that instruction? Was my kids walking on their elbows and knees when they were younger, was that a “perversion” of their “natural function…”?

    I don’t think you really have thought that part through. Come on, back off a bit. There is no One True Natural Function that has been ordained by The Body Maker or The Grand Council of Body Parts for each of our parts, is there? I mean, just rationally speaking, isn’t that a bit much more to claim than reality can support?

    If, on the other hand, you have some authoritative source that tells us, “INDEED, Part A IS for Slot B and Slot B only,” then I will, of course, apologize for my mistake.

    Hopefully, you’ll do the same if you misspoke.

    ~Dan

  91. Dan,

    What makes you think a degree is necessary to know abnormality when it presents itself? If you see black smoke coming out of the tail pipe of a car, do you need to be an automotive expert to feel certain the black smoke is not normal? It’s still amazing to me the lengths you’re willing to go to defend immorality. On what basis can you insist that a person acting in conflict with his gender is normal? The APA has never put forth any explanation. They just voted it off the DSM. They didn’t have any clinical studies or research that proved anything. A former president of the APA, and one who is sympathetic to the agenda has admitted there was no science behind the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. But a degree to recognize this abnormality? Not necessary. Small children get it. Only a leftist pseudo-Christian would reject the obvious truth of it.

    ““Intended…”? By whom? Says who?”

    Are you really trying to suggest (as other liars have) that there is no specific function of human genitalia? Are you really going to run with the idiotic notion that nature/biology has no intention behind physiological design? Are you suggesting that sexual organs are just some random happening that just coincidentally can result in procreation if the right pairing takes place? No intention? There is no honesty in you.

    “Was my kids walking on their elbows and knees when they were younger, was that a “perversion” of their “natural function…”?”

    There is a time when small children have not yet developed their ability to properly use their body parts as they were intended. Only a dishonest pseudo-Christian leftist would try to pretend that’s a perversion of the design of the body parts in question. Only Dan would dare try to compare a child’s inability to walk as on par with an adult’s purposeful misuse of genitalia.

    “There was no clinical reason to consider being gay “disordered.””

    This is what every other professional field would call “bullshit”. The clinical reason was that a member of one gender desired sexual contact with another of the same gender. That IS the clinical reason to honest people. Those “professionals” to whom you refer are supporters of the agenda, with many of them being homosexual themselves. The disorder is self-evident. Everyone, including YOU, Dan, knows this to be true.

  92. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    On what basis can you insist that a person acting in conflict with his gender is normal? The APA has never put forth any explanation. They just voted it off the DSM.

    They voted it off the DSM because there was no science or rational reason for homosexuality to have been listed as a mental illness in the first place. Do you understand this: IT DOES NOT meet the definition of a mental illness?

    You can’t have symptoms of sneezing and itchy skin and just say, “Oh, that sounds like a heart attack to me…” IT does not meet the criteria.

    If it doesn’t meet the definition of a mental illness, on what basis would you call it a mental illness?

    Marshall…

    Are you really trying to suggest (as other liars have) that there is no specific function of human genitalia? Are you really going to run with the idiotic notion that nature/biology has no intention behind physiological design?

    Our wonderfully made bodies have a multitude of uses. Are you REALLY trying to say that “biology” only “wants our knees to be used for bending and any other use of our knees (playing “horse” with our kids, for instance) is “unnatural” and “perverse…”?

    Really?

    Come on, answer that question, y’all.

    Or here, I’ll answer it for you:

    NO. OBVIOUSLY – even though knees can bend and we would normally use them for bending low and to help in normal walking – OBVIOUSLY, there is nothing unnatural or perverse about using them for some other use, including playing “horse” with our children. Only a fool or an insane person would call such behavior “perverse.” “Biology” has not told us “THIS is the only acceptable use for that body part.”

    Don’t be a fool. Don’t be silly.

    I’ll tell you what, though, IF you have some scientific, research-based support for the idea that our body parts have “intended” “purposes” and any other use of those parts is “perverse” and “unnatural,” (and really, I don’t think you know what that word means) by all means point to the study or research to support this crazy-sounding theory of yours.

    Otherwise, I just can’t buy into what sounds like a crazy-sounding theory.

    Ya know, reading your description of “intended” body part uses and “it might touch the ‘wrong’ body part…” you sound like you have a real hang up about body parts. That might be indicative of some small but actual mental disorder, you might want to check into that.

    ~Dan

  93. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    What makes you think a degree is necessary to know abnormality when it presents itself?

    Nothing. But to diagnose complex mental illnesses, you should have some knowledge of which you speak. And to say, “This whole CLASS of people – 99.999999% of which, I have never met, I am going to classify as mentally ill, sight unseen…” that is nuttiness and presumption of a delusions of grandeur scale. It is also bigotry, by definition, saying, “This entire class of people whom I don’t even know are all ‘wrong’ and ‘disordered,'” that is prejudice and bigotry against a class of people.

    Look, can you see some guy looking to be in pain, clutching his chest and falling to the ground and know, “Hey, something is wrong, it sorta looks like heart attacks I’ve seen on TV…” and that is fine. But before you start making diagnoses and cutting into people’s chests and brains, yes, you have to know SOMETHING of which you speak.

    And seriously, have you had even one psychology class?

    The arrogance and presumption in saying a whole class of people are mentally ill, sight unseen, when it doesn’t fit the definition of mental illness nor what most mental health professionals would call “mentally ill…” seriously, who do you think you are? God? And not only making this ridiculous emotion-based claim (not on facts, mind you, but just ’cause “yucky body parts might touch that weren’t supposed to touch”), but being obstinate and bullying about it, chastising others for not agreeing with your unprofessional and admittedly ignorance-based claim with nothing to support you but your feelings? Wow. Seriously, just look at the arrogance of these claims of yours.

    Take a step back, take a breath and try to be a bit rational, man. Haven’t you MAYBE just overstepped what reality supports, just a little?

    ~Dan

  94. Dan, Even if it isn’t technically a mental illness, it is a state of mind. Can some states of mind not be called better or worse than others?

  95. Dan,

    Name a real mental disorder. Any one you choose. Something we can all agree is one.

  96. “Haven’t you MAYBE just overstepped what reality supports, just a little?”

    No. Not even a little.

    If the same percentage of the population were comprised of people who each believed themselves to be Napoleon, would I need a degree to know they were disordered? I don’t think so. There’s nothing complex about the designation. It focuses solely on the desires or beliefs of the subject. A guy who thinks he’s a dog in a man’s body is clearly disordered. I don’t need a degree to understand the plain fact of it.

    What you’re doing, in your now very obviously deceitfulness, is hoping to diminish the truth of my position due to a lack of sheepskin on my part. That is, if I don’t have a degree, there is no possible way I can’t recognize the obvious.

    What’s worse, is to try and conflate how we use our hands, feet or knees is somehow the same as how a disordered man hopes to use his genitalia. A more desperate ploy would seem impossible, but you continue to demonstrate just how desperate you are to legitimize abomination and that there is no argument too goofy for you to put forth.

    It is not my problem that “a whole class” of people are defined by their disorder, but that’s the case. The truth is that you are looking to take a whole class of disorder and pretend those who suffer from it are victims of bigotry and hatred.

    There are other “whole classes” of people I regard in much the same way. The bi-polar, for example. The scizophrenic is another. What these have that homosexuals don’t have is some clinical explanation that has lead to relatively beneficial treatments. Plus, they have the sympathy of the general public that does not resemble tolerance of behaviors those sufferers manifest. The leftist, homosexual faction of psychology has simply given up trying to ascertain the causes and therefore treatments of this disorder. In other words, they call it something else, but doing so hasn’t changed what it is. You’re totally complicit in that lie, and happily so.

    I’ll be away from my computer for a few days, but can’t wait to see what absolute crap Dan will try to foist upon us in the meantime.

    • Anyone else notice Dan thinks one ought to have a psychology degree to think same sex attraction is abnormal or disordered, but you dont need a degree to think its normal?

      Notice how if a degreed professional did believe same sex attraction were disordered, he would just claim they are right wing anti homosexual bigots. He would then demand a “reasonable” degreed professional knowing all the while he’ll dismiss any tjat opposes his view.

      It doesnt get more intellectually dishonest than that.

  97. Do you have some authoritative text to let me know if that is acceptable?

    If the Theory of Evolution is correct, which you believe, then Darwin is the answer. The goal of an individual species member is to propagate their own offspring, and thus the species. In humans, that can only happen if Tab A goes into Slot B. And if that is our only purpose – which it is, according to evolutionists – then homosexuality is an abomination by evolutionary standards as well.

  98. paynehollow says:

    C2C…

    Even if it isn’t technically a mental illness, it is a state of mind. Can some states of mind not be called better or worse than others?

    Homosexuality and heterosexuality are orientations, not a state of mind.

    Can some states of mind be called better or worse? Sure, people can have opinions about better or worse states of mind. A state of mind that is mean and abusive towards others, most of us would consider that to be worse than one that is warm and accepting. A state of mind that is fearful or hateful might be considered less favorable than one that is confident and compassionate. Is that what you’re asking?

    c2c…

    Name a real mental disorder. Any one you choose. Something we can all agree is one.

    ? Mental disorders are mental disorders, whether or not you agree with them. But for what it’s worth, Alzheimers Disease is a mental disorder. A “real one.”

    What now?

    John…

    Dan thinks one ought to have a psychology degree to think same sex attraction is abnormal or disordered, but you dont need a degree to think its normal?

    Well, you have to have some EVIDENCE of some sort. You can’t merely say, “It is my personal opinion and the opinion of my particular religious denomination that SSA is abnormal or disordered… I have no evidence of it other than, you know, that just seems yucky!” and expect people to go, “huh, ya know, he’s right! That IS a disordered sort of thinking!”

    SOME evidence is required. Merely that you think “biology” teaches that “slot A goes into slot B and nowhere else and to disagree with that, you disagree with ‘biology…'” is not evidence.

    Terrance…

    then homosexuality is an abomination by evolutionary standards as well.

    Are you serious? Now “biology” and “science” is teaching that a homosexual orientation is “an abomination…” Seriously fellas, take some classes, buy a dictionary… something.

    ~Dan

  99. Oh my lord, of course Dan you are correct, the parts of the human body have no specific intended uses. So, here’s a suggestion, tonight when you and the wife go to bed how about you just slide your #$#@@# right up her nostril? Ridiculous, of course, because the nostril isn’t intended for your $%#$%#&. Same thing with some of the other options. You do realize that if gay lover A inserts his junk into gay lover ‘s anus improperly it can cause serious damage to B’s the (as Bill Cosby called it) “the lower tract”. Now any idiot can realize that it is completely natural to engage in behavior that can cause physical damage to the other person.

    Sorry, on this one, biology wins. Dan not so much.

    I’d say that since homosexuality is without a doubt an evolutionary dead end, it could be argued that it is an abomination from an evolutionary standpoint. Obviously since Darwinian theory can’t account for things like objective right or wrong, abomination is probably not the right term.

  100. paynehollow says:

    Craig, if you can provide a citation from “biology” that supports your nutty theory, I will apologize and call you the king of the word of reason and good sense.

    But. You. Can’t.

    Again, by your own measure, you would call “using my knees to play horse with my children” a perverted abomination that is against what “biology” “intended” for human knees.

    Seriously fellas, come on. If you can’t provide ANY support for crazy ideas, don’t you think it is time to take a step back, cut your losses and apologize for making a goofy claim? Rather than double down on the dumb?

    Assuming that no one can provide a letter from “Biology” informing us of her actual “intent” for our knees and other body parts, I’ll assume that you have nothing of value to say.

    You’ve lost, give up.

    ~Dan

    • Dan

      Did you seriously just doubt that the anus is not biologically intended to have things put inside it?

      Wow, you’ll go to any extent to defend gay sex. I am [—] that close to thinking you yourself are gay but wont admit it to us.

  101. paynehollow says:

    ? What are you all not getting? “Biology” is not a person. “Biology” does not HAVE intent. You keep using that phrase as if it has some meaning in the real world of adult conversation. It doesn’t.

    Are we created/evolved with body parts that serve particular purposes? Sure, we have body parts for chewing, for hearing, for urination and defecation. But the penis, for instance, is not LIMITED to ONLY use for urination, as you well know. The penis, asa hopefully you know, has nerve endings that feel good when touched by various other body parts (stop me if I’m getting too graphic) – body parts beyond someone else’s vagina – and “Biology” simply doesn’t care if we find it pleasurable to have it touched in a variety of ways.

    By your line of reasoning I should say, “Well ‘biology’ told ME that she PUT nerve endings in the penis TO BE STIMULATED, without regards to how, and ‘biology’ said you better stop talking smack about her or she’ll get you! mm hmmm!”

    And at this point, John, I’m not defending “gay sex,” I’m defending reason. As to whether or not you think I’m gay, I don’t really care, it’s not like being called “gay” is an insult, it’s just factually wrong, in this case. One doesn’t have to be gay to defend against irrational statements about gay people or batpoop crazy notions that “biology” has “intended” uses for body parts. Especially when NO ONE here is even trying to defend that crazy idea, you’re just repeating it.

    Again, if you have some – any – authoritative source to support your crazy argument, provide it. If you don’t – and you don’t – then just admit you are stating things incorrectly and move on.

    Holy cow.

    ~Dan

  102. Are you serious? Now “biology” and “science” is teaching that a homosexual orientation is “an abomination…” Seriously fellas, take some classes, buy a dictionary… something.

    I didn’t say biology is teaching that homosexuality is an abomination. But if evolutionary theory is the end all, be all of science, then they should. Those practicing homosexuality cannot propagate their own offspring or species. By evolutionary standards alone, that is an abomination, a bane, a crime, disgrace, whatever, pick your adjective. The point is that homosexuality is in no sense natural. And if leftwingers bothered to understand even half the bullshit they adhere to, they’d know that.

    Truthfully, the hypocrisy is overwhelming. Conservatives, they say, are anti-science, yet when presented with actual science (e.g., unborn children are human beings; homosexuality is unnatural by evolutionary standards;), leftists balk. You guys are run by emotion, not science, fact, or objective moral standards. So don’t come around here and start lecturing us.

  103. paynehollow says:

    Terrance…

    The point is that homosexuality is in no sense natural.

    I think the biggest problem here is you all keep using the wrong words. Homosexuality IS natural, by definition. Homosexuality happens in the natural world, it is, therefore “natural.” There really is no debate about that in the English language. You could discuss other ideas, but that one is dead before it starts.

    Natural – existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature

    Merriam Webster.

    Also, look up, “Actual science,” “unnatural” “intended” “emotion” “objective…”

    You all keep using words in ways that suggests you don’t understand their meaning.

    “run by emotion…”?? I’m pointing out the fact that homosexuality happens “in nature” – ie, it isn’t a man-made thing – thus, it IS by definition, natural. Nothing emotional about that.

    I’m pointing out the fact that “biology” does not have an agenda, nor does it have intentions. That is just a fact. You all are the ones who keep responding to simple straightforward facts with shrill “nu-uhs!” and goofy nothingness.

    Again, if you can provide ONE piece of hard evidence to support your opinions, then we could talk. But there is nothing to talk about because your “evidence” is entirely phantasmic and non-existent in the real world, relying upon made up ideas like “biology intends uses…”

    Come on, fellas, this is pretty straightforward and drily factual, I don’t know what your hangup is, but biology does not “intend” uses for body parts and homosexuality is natural, by definition. Just dry facts, men.

    ~Dan

    • I don’t think Dan knows what a “mental illness” is. For one thing, as I’ve noted before, it doesn’t exist at all because the mind is intangible and therefore cannot be ill. But let’s go with the psychobabblers and say there is such a thing.
      Alzheimers Disease is a mental disorder.

      Um, NO! Alzheimers is a brain malfunction. IT is a disease, which causes problems with the brain. It’s a defect of the brain and is treated medically. It is not treated by “rent-a-friend” psychobabbler.

      And, Dan, I’ve been studying psychology and clinical psychiatry for at least 20 years and KNOW that they are an anti-Christian field, developed by atheists and perverts to take away personal responsibility, and everyone in the world, according to them, has some sort of “mental illness” and they have become the priests of our culture.

      They have no science behind them, disagree with what is or is not an “illness” and disagree with how to treat such “illnesses,” etc I don’t need a sheepskin to be able to read psychology textbooks, books by those in the psych field, read the DSM, etc. In fact, it is just another religion.

      So Dan thinks biology does not show what the sex organs are for. MAN, he is stupid! The anus is designed (or evolved if you accept that lie) for excretion, for pushing refuse out of the body. IT was not designed/evolved for penetration and deposit. It is the organ of death, into which the organ of life is not to be inserted without causing damage.

      Homosexuality is NOT “natural” in the sense that it is not what God designed for the nature of human beings. You like to equivocate with words, don’t you. Typical leftist. God designed humans to be heterosexual. Paul called homosexual behavior unnatural. It is mankind who chooses to behave in a homosexual manner – it is not the natural behavior designed. The biological function of the sex organs is to join with sex organs of the opposite type so as to procreate.

      THAT is the fact.

    • If that is the definition of natural then so is homophobia, gay bashing, and lynching, and cannibalism. There are multiple definitions of natural.

    • If that is the definition of natural then so is homophobia, gay bashing, and lynching, and cannibalism. There are multiple definitions of natural

  104. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    NO! Alzheimers is a brain malfunction.

    According to the APA, in the DSM – IV book, Alzheimer’s is listed as a type of dementia disorder. But yes, it is also a brain malfunction. The two are not mutually exclusive. As the APA says about brain malfunctions and mental illnesses…

    Describing mental illnesses as brain malfunctions helps minimize the shame often associated with them, Kandel says. “Schizophrenia is a disease like pneumonia. Seeing it as a brain disorder destigmatizes it immediately.”

    Certainly, Kandel adds, social and environmental factors are undeniably important to understanding mental health. “But they do not act in a vacuum,” he says. “They act in the brain.”

    I’m deferring to the experts on this case, instead of Glenn because, let’s see, Glenn… how many years have you studied psychology? How many patients have you treated? Case studies have you read? What are your credentials that I should listen to you over the experts?

    http://www.dnalc.org/view/2221-DSM-IV-criteria-for-Alzheimer-s-disease.html

    Along those lines, Glenn claims…

    I’ve been studying psychology and clinical psychiatry for at least 20 years

    Oh, really? Which schools have you studied psychology at? How many classes have you passed? Where is your degree (degrees? I mean, after 20 years, surely you have multiple degrees?) from?

    By “study psychology,” do you mean you have actually studied psychology, or does that mean you’ve read right wing religious blogs and sites that talk about psychology?

    I’d really like to know what your credentials are, if you’re going to be stating that the experts have it wrong, then on what basis should we listen to you?

    Then it gets really interesting…

    and KNOW that they are an anti-Christian field, developed by atheists and perverts to take away personal responsibility

    Wow. They have a secret agenda, Glenn? Well, that IS important to know. Can you provide your documentation for this? A conspiracy of this size MUST have some documented evidence, yes?

    Or is this something we should take on your word alone?

    Do you understand that it would be irrational for us to decide, “Wow, some guy on the internet thinks that the whole mental health field is a sham, built to take away personal responsibility, I must accept that as True, because some guy on the internet said so…”? It truly would be crazy for us to just swallow such a conspiracy theory with no proof, right?

    It is the organ of death, into which the organ of life is not to be inserted without causing damage.

    Again, SOME evidence, some citation of peer-reviewed scientific support for your claims. ANY crazy man can say anything on the internet, but rational people don’t just listen to crazy claims and believe them.

    And by the way, IF the anus is “the organ of death” because it pushes excrement out, doesn’t that ALSO make the penis an “organ of death,” because it too, pushes waste out?

    You’re rambling, friend.

    Glenn…

    You like to equivocate with words, don’t you.

    If, by “equivocate with words” you mean, “Use words in the standard English usage,” then yes, I do. But then, ironically and pretty amusingly, that isn’t the English definition of “equivocate,” is it?

    Thanks for the laughs.

    Seriously, I’m writing this with a huge smile because I am so amused. Thanks.

    Dan

  105. paynehollow says:

    Indeed, John, violence IS natural. By definition. Which is not to say that it’s good, just that, by definition, it is not unnatural.

    But what definition of natural are you using?

  106. Dan,

    Please describe the difference between orientation and state of mind.

  107. I can’t even see anymore because of the smoke from all the burning obfuscation.

    Dan, does make a good point though, although probably not the one he intended. He correctly points out that the male genitalia has nerve endings that provide pleasant feelings under certain circumstances. By the same token the female genitalia also have similar nerve endings that do the same thing. Coincidentally the normal reaction from the female genitalia is to undergo some physical changes that allow it to receive the male genitalia without causing any physical harm. However, the anus does not have those nerve endings that transmit feelings of pleasure, nor does it undergo physical changes that allow it to receive objects (including male genitalia) without physical harm being caused. Now there are non natural ways to allow the anus to receive objects, however since “natural” is now the way to determine if something is right or wrong, the introduction of anything non natural becomes problematic.

    I’ve always been fascinated by the “it’s natural” line of rationalizing homosexual sex, as it seems to contradict almost every other pro gay argument.

    1. It’s “Natural – existing in nature”. The unsaid follow up is that if it’s natural it’s good.
    This is problematic on so many levels.
    a. “Homosexuality in nature” bears no relationship to the loving, supportive, monogamous (monogamish) relationships that are held up as wonderful and healthy by the pro gay folks. In nature “homosexuality” is probably more correctly called forced anal sex. It most commonly happens for one of two reasons; to demonstrate dominance (essentially anal rape) or a case of mistaken identity. It is certainly not an activity engaged in consensually, which is key we are told. Further in some cases this “homosexuality” actually causes physical harm to the receiver of the unwanted attention, and as we’ve learned actual physical harm is a bad thing.

    2. Do we really want to get our sense of right and wrong from animals?

    3. There are many, many behaviors that are “Natural – existing in nature”, that I would think that even the most open minded liberal would find problematic if humans adopted them. Rape, Murder, Incest, Robbery, Parents eating their children, Unwanted sexual advances, just to name a few. Yet, by any definition these are natural behaviors, just as animal “homosexuality is.

    4. It is unarguably an evolutionary dead end.

    I’m sure there are rationalizations for all of these contradictions, I just fail to see how one can maintain “natural=good” with any consistence.

    Of course we’ll now hear that “No natural does not equal good”, and I would agree with that. The problem is that if the “homosexuality is natural” argument is made it is inevitably made to demonstrate that homosexuality is therefore good.

  108. Dan,

    Your equivocating is very annoying. There are more definitions of the word “natural” than “occurs in nature”.

    Here’s a definition: unnatural: contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.

    • Dan,

      Alzeimers is a bonafide disease, and can be seen in the brain. Schizophrenia MAY be caused by a brain problem or it might be just an emotional problem with the person not wanting to deal with reality.
      Mental illness does not exist – the mind cannot be touched, it is intangible.

      Again, the APA and APA with their “BIBLE” DSM, call all sorts of things “mental illnesses” without any science behind it, rather it is opinions which are debated as to what causes people to feel the way they do and hundreds of theories of how to fix the problem. Essentially, it is to say whatever the problem is, it isn’t the patient’s fault. A brain malfunction, on the other hand, is organic and can be seen and treated medically without psychobabblers.

      I have never read a blog about the psych field. I did not have the funds for college, but I have studied on my own, studying college textbooks borrowed from a friend taking psychology in college, I have gone to the library and read many books by secular psychologists and psychiatrists, and I have studied books by Christian counselors and was actually working of my counselor’s certification before I ran out of money. I have done much pre-marital, marital, and family counseling. I have a about twenty books on my shelf, some by experts in the psych field who DO have their degrees and others by Christian counselors and those exposing the psychobabble field for what it is. One doesn’t need a degree to understand the various methods and non-scientific ideology behind the field. I’ve posted some articles on my blog if you care to look, where I expose the philosophies behind the founders of the field and I expose the lack of any science behind the field, rather it is a multitude of opposing ideas. And it is rare if their patients get better! It is a field to make everyone a victim.

      ME: It is the organ of death, into which the organ of life is not to be inserted without causing damage

      THE IDIOT: Again, SOME evidence, some citation of peer-reviewed scientific support for your claims. ANY crazy man can say anything on the internet, but rational people don’t just listen to crazy claims and believe them. And by the way, IF the anus is “the organ of death” because it pushes excrement out, doesn’t that ALSO make the penis an “organ of death,” because it too, pushes waste out?

      Scientific support?!?! It is a waste product coming out your ass! And the male sex organ has two channels leading into it, you nincompoop.

      Do you even understand what “equivocate” means? I don’t think so. You change the meaning of “natural” in the conversation to make it appear we are talking about the same thing.

      While we use the definition of “natural” to describe the design intended, you equivocate use the word speaking about what happens in nature, or even as Paul calls it, the “natural man” Never use what is in nature to describe man – animals in nature do all sorts of things which man doesn’t do.

  109. If occurrence in nature is the only definition of “natural”, then why would there be a need to differentiate between “natural” and “unnatural”? There would only be that which is natural, and the rest would be what? Mythical?

  110. paynehollow says:

    C2C…

    Please describe the difference between orientation and state of mind.

    Orientation, as it relates to sexuality, is not changeable. It is innate and fixed (it CAN be force “changed,” but only at psychological risk, according to research).

    A state of mind is more of an attitude. It is not innate, nor is it fixed, not in the same sense that orientation is. According to the dictionary, it is, “a temporary psychological state…”

    So, the main difference is temporary and not temporary and innate vs chosen. (acknowledging that changing one’s state of mind is not always just a simple thing).

    Why do you ask?

    • But there are people who change their orientation. In fact I wrote about a guy who was straight, got hit on the head, and woke up in the hospital gay. To that you say what?

      • While heterosexual orientation is innate by design and, if you believe the lie -evolution.

        Homosexual orientation is NOT innate. No scientific data or medical data can be found substantiating the claim of “born that way.” In fact, studies show that those who practice homosexual behavior were indeed led to that “orientation” by someone, because it is NOT innate or natural. And if they ever do find something in the brain which leads to such orientation, it would have to be a genetic defect because the human brain was not designed that way (nor did it evolve).

        By too many people like Dan deny the facts and enable the perversion.

  111. “…not made or caused by people…”

    If people are natural, and if people naturally make or create things then how can something made by people by not natural?

  112. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    I just fail to see how one can maintain “natural=good” with any consistence.

    Of course we’ll now hear that “No natural does not equal good”, and I would agree with that.

    I stated that “natural does not automatically equal good” already. Never said it did. I was only responding to Glenn and others who claimed it wasn’t natural (their way of saying, I believe, that it is disgusting, awful and bad). it is natural.

    If they want to make a case that their opinion is that it is “bad,” that’s another case. I’m just dealing with the misstatements they actually made, though, rather than arguments they haven’t made.

    Craig…

    It is unarguably an evolutionary dead end.

    If a whole society were to “go gay,” you would be correct. But, as homosexuality is a relative minority (2-10%) and as the world is quite over populated, that really isn’t an issue. So, a WHOLE SPECIES embracing homosexuality might be an evolutionary dead end, 2-10% most certainly is not.

    • No Dan, the number is not “2-10%” The numbers in every legitimate study, including by the homosexualists, shows 2-3% at the most. THe pervert Kinsey came up with the fraudulent 10% number which has been debunked for decades. And here I thought you were so educated on that stuff! Try reading some Kinsey – lots of psychological claptrap claiming just about every problem is caused by some sort of sexual dysfunction, and he was one of the biggest perverts in history.

  113. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    If people are natural, and if people naturally make or create things then how can something made by people by not natural?

    I believe the definition is speaking of human-made products, like cars, buildings, screwdrivers, etc. These human creations are not natural creations. That is the distinction.

  114. Dan,

    If natural does not equal good, then how why does this argument keep coming up to support homosexual sex? Especially since the “homosexuality” you champion does not actually exist in nature.

    I see the distinction, but I’d suggest that the natural inclination of humans is to make things (some would suggest that this is an echo of the creative nature of God), and that everything that humans make is composed of elements that occur in nature, would suggest that things made by humans are natural. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that things made by humans are a natural outcome of being human.

  115. paynehollow says:

    Dang it! I just lost a big long response.

    Short version:

    It comes down to evidence.

    If you have evidence that “biology” has “intentions” present it.

    If you have evidence that the mental health field is a big sham and conspiracy, created to remove personal responsibility from people and promote immorality, present it.

    If you have evidence that it is perverse and wrong to use our body parts in multiple ways, present it.

    etc.

    If you have no evidence, thanks for the crazy opinions, but no thanks. I prefer to work off of real world evidence, not wild guesses and conspiracy theories, however amusing they may be.

    ~Dan

  116. paynehollow says:

    Okay, one more. A couple have complained about my 2-10% of the population are gay quote. You have suggested that many studies say 2-3.5% and, indeed, many studies have said that.

    But here’s the thing: IF you look REAL closely, you will see that “2-3.5%” IS ALSO within “2-10%…” See how that works?

    I personally suspect that the latest poll from earlier in the year…

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/do-gay-people-really-make-35-population/62248/

    which places the number at 3.5% to probably be fairly accurate. But it’s hard to say, due to the difficulties of “outing” one’s self to a random survey call, to societal pressures that still exist, to personal confusion on matters of sexuality, etc. This is why I allow for an upper range. My personal thoughts would be that the number is probably closer to the lower end of the range.

    Just to clarify.

    ~Dan

  117. paynehollow says:

    And I guess I’ll answer Craig’s direct question, even though he still isn’t answering mine…

    If natural does not equal good, then how why does this argument keep coming up to support homosexual sex?

    1. They brought up “natural,” I just responded.
    2. Many of us have the opinion that this creation IS good and that natural – found in nature – tends to be a good thing. Which isn’t to say that it always is, but it certainly seems to tend that way for many of us.
    3. Thus, if clean water is natural and good, if clean air is natural and good, if standing, healthy forests are natural and good, if our God-given sexuality is natural, it also seems good. It seems wholesome, positive, beautiful, wonderful in its own self. Now, if we take our God-given orientation and use it to do unhealthy, harmful things, then THAT human reaction is not good, just as if we take the natural clean water and use it as a toilet, or use our natural clean air as a smoke stack… doing harmful things to natural things, this is not good. But the natural itself – God’s creation that God declared “Good…”? – I think most of us tend to think that is a good and positive thing.

    I would suggest that is why it is often used.

    ~Dan

  118. paynehollow says:

    John…

    so if 2% is with in 2-10, why dont you just say 2-85% of the population is gay?

    I just can’t stop hitting these softballs…

    Because John, there is no evidence that anything like 85% of the population is gay. There COULD be evidence that a larger number is possible, but it doesn’t seem to be very likely based on the data we have right now.

    For instance, in that survey I posted a minute ago, in Washington DC, 10% self-identified as gay. So, we could see that that number MIGHT be the outer edge of what is likely, but more likely is that it’s just a congregated number in that particular area.

    It’s all about the evidence, John.

    John…

    Ill trust the ucla study, 1-2% gay.

    You trust… a scientific study?? What will Glenn say?

    funtimes…

    Dan

  119. “If natural does not equal good, then how why does this argument keep coming up to support homosexual sex?”

    I see that you responded, unfortunately, you’re wordy and passionate response didn’t answer the question that was asked. I know how important it it to you that the question that gets asked gets answered, and I know that you will do so because of how important it is to you.

    I haven’t seen any direct questions from you in this thread, but I’ll check again.

    As for the other after the 75th re asking of the same question, I just skim so I’ve probably missed some. That’s the problems when you ask 35 questions per comment, no mere mortal can keep up.

    “Craig, if you can provide a citation from “biology” that supports your nutty theory,”

    If I’m reading this correctly you are suggesting that my suggestion that the female genitalia was intended to receive the male genitalia is a “nutty theory” or is it that the suggestion that the anus is NOT intended to receive objects the “nutty” part. Obviously the fact that the M/F genitalia arrangement is pretty crucial to “natural” reproduction is just a coincidence, right. It certainly couldn’t have been intended, designed, or evolved that way.

    “Intended…”?” Yes, intended.

    “By whom?” As a theist, more specifically a Christian I’d argue for God. Most on the left would suggest some sort of unguided purposeless random evolutionary mutations. For this discussion, either works.

    “Says who?” Again, I’d suggest God. Others would suggest Gaea, Evolution or Aliens.

    “Our body is beautifully and wonderfully made and I know of know such limitations as “tab a goes here…” My wife kisses me on my neck sometimes (sorry if that’s too graphic). There’s no instruction manual telling us that is okay or not okay.”

    This isn’t a question, but it does bring up an earlier comment I made, which you skipped.

    ” Do you have some authoritative text to let me know if that is acceptable?” Again, I’d suggest that the Bible is authoritative, you’d disagree. BFD.

    “My kids would sometimes walk in their hands when they were little, or run around on their knees. Have we violated some Greater Plan by “wrongly” using our body parts?”

    I am unaware of any instance where I have suggested that “walk in their hands” is the physical equivalent of anal sex. I’ve been pretty specific, but this tactic of throwing in silly unrelated “examples” is is an old tired ploy.

    “Or is that restriction entirely created by you?” No, I believe that I’ve already answered this, which makes me continue to wonder what you think is the value of asking essentially the same question over and over.

    “Therefore it is accurate to say that homosexual sex is perverting the natural function of various body parts.”

    “Natural function…”?” I’ve actually explained this in an earlier comment. If there is something specific in that comment that is too difficult for you let me know.

    “Where did you get that instruction?”

    Asked and answered.

    “Was my kids walking on their elbows and knees when they were younger, was that a “perversion” of their “natural function…”?”

    Don’t know, don’t care, since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Although since most of us crawl before we walk, and it could be argued that crawling before walking is a natural progression I guess I’d say that crawling is a normal part of human development.

    “I don’t think you really have thought that part through.”

    I don’t really care what you think. You haven’t really demonstrated the ability to grasp what I’m thinking well enough to have much credibility.

    “Come on, back off a bit. There is no One True Natural Function that has been ordained by The Body Maker or The Grand Council of Body Parts for each of our parts, is there?”

    Well, I’d suggest that some body parts perform only one function (heart, lungs) while others have multiple functions. However because something is suitable for multiple functions doesn’t mean that it is suited for all functions. For example the human hand with it’s opposable thumb is wonderfully suited for many things. It is not however well suited for grabbing the moving cooling fan in a car. More importantly, this is a gross distortion of what I have actually said.

    ” I mean, just rationally speaking, isn’t that a bit much more to claim than reality can support?”

    Since I have not made the claim you allege, what rational person would expect me to support a claim I have not made, really that’s just not rational.

    “If, on the other hand, you have some authoritative source that tells us, “INDEED, Part A IS for Slot B and Slot B only,” then I will, of course, apologize for my mistake.”

    Again, i have not made this claim. Have you considered actually discussing the actual things I have actually said?

    “Hopefully, you’ll do the same if you misspoke.”

    When I’ve misspoken, I’ve apologized. Unfortunately, you seem to have chosen a different path when you’ve misspoken. Maybe you could start now by apologizing for grossly misstating what I have actually said.

  120. Dan,

    Why must biology have intent in order for it to have a purpose?

    I have lungs. What are their purpose? Transferring oxygen into my blood, right? Why must the nature of my lungs be determined by their nature’s intent? They are there for a purpose. Right? Whether designed or evolved, they have a specific purpose. Would lung sex be pleasurable? Probably. But does that mean that it would be natural? I suppose it would be, by your definition! If I find a willing participant who would let me access their lungs for penetration through a hole that I create with a knife, since it occurs in our natural world, it must be ok?? EFFING NATURAL, right?

  121. Dan,

    People eat their own feces, drink their own urine, and practice vampirism. All of this happens in the “natural world” in which we live, so does that mean this behavior is natural? No, it doesn’t.

    You’re quibbling over semantics and pulling false notions out of your ass because you have no argument, as per usual.

  122. Terrance, it’s worse than quibbling over semantics.

    Equivocation (“to call by the same name”) is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

    “Natural” has more than one meaning. Dan just picked the meaning that seems to make him seem right.

  123. C2C,

    You couldn’t be more accurate in describing Dan’s tactics. It’s simply another way of lying. I have little doubt he is fully aware of which meaning we intend to convey with the use of a given word or term, but purposely plays the semantic game or pretends to be seeking clarification that really isn’t necessary.

    And of course he’ll do it on various levels as we see with his goofy “walking on one’s knees” or using his knee to bounce his child. Imagine trying to argue that one’s lap is not intended for use as a seat for one’s child during story telling. But to equate such an alternative use to what homosexuals do with their genitalia is about as deceitful as one can get. Where’s the moral component in any of the alternate body parts usages Dan offers as no different from what homosexuals do? Has there ever been any religious, secular or cultural taboo related to using one’s fingers to whistle? Dan has no shame in going to the lengths he does to defend behavior God has prohibited.

  124. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    to equate such an alternative use to what homosexuals do with their genitalia is about as deceitful as one can get.

    You apparently do not understand my point in mentioning other body parts. I am making the simple and UN-astounding claim that our body parts do not have “approved” uses. We will normally use our knees to bend and walk, for mobility and for sitting and work, but we may also use them to play. And none of those uses are “wrong,” in and of themselves.

    THAT is my point. It is an obvious point. Do you understand my point?

    Can you agree that, as least when we’re talking about knees, that there is not a “proper” and “improper” use of them, and that no one has authority to say, “that is an IMPROPER use of the knees, it is against nature and, thus, it is perverse…”?

    DO you agree with that fairly obvious claim? Of course, any reasonable person would, it is obvious.

    My point, then, is to make an analogy, that JUST AS the knees can be used in many ways – not always obvious ones or strictly biologically functional ones – so, too, for other body parts and you all have no basis in science or morality to say, “That is a perverse or unnatural use of the vagina, or mouth, or penis…” or whatever body part you want to point to with any authority. You are entirely free to think that your god would not approve of it (although your god has not told you that), but you simply can’t make the case in the rational adult world that these uses are innately perverse or wrong.

    That was my point and it’s just a simple statement of facts.

    You are welcome to hold any ideas you want to hold about gods or demons, but not about science or reason. Opinions you can make up all you want, but facts are facts.

    ~Dan

  125. I do not believe that you are making a good analogy at all. The purpose of the hand, for example, is varied. The purpose of the genitals, not so much. We use any number of body parts in various ways, but deciding which uses are in line with both its design as well as morality isn’t all that hard. You are attempting to validate the improper use of sexual organs by equating them to the benign uses of other body parts, most of which are not in any way in conflict with their design. More later…

  126. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    You are attempting to validate the improper use of sexual organs by equating them to the benign uses of other body parts, most of which are not in any way in conflict with their design.

    No, I’m stating a simple fact. There is no book, no professor, no evidence that says “this is an improper use of a body part.” Factually speaking, it does not exist. No one has declared with any authority, “HERE is the Approved List of Proper Body Part Usages.”

    Does not exist in the real world. If it does and you can provide it, please do. If not, thanks for your opinions, but unsupported, they mean nothing compelling to me.

    ~Dan

    • You have to remember, that although the Bible is very explicit in saying that the male penis is not to be used for sex with another male, and that a female is not to use her sexual organs for sex with another woman, Dan doesn’t accept that book as authoritative if he doesn’t “interpret” it HIS way, so therefore he can say that there is not book or other evidence which says homosexual sex is an improper use of that body part.

  127. Dan,

    At the risk of repeating myself. Just because a body part can be used for multiple things, doesn’t mean it should be used for every possible thing it could be used for.

  128. paynehollow says:

    Agreed, Craig. You shouldn’t use the lungs for inhaling toxins, or the tongue for tasting poisons, for instance. Rationally speaking, these would be a negative use of those body parts. My point remains, though, that there is no “right” “biology-approved” use of the knees or penis or heart or middle finger, rationally speaking. Now, we can say those things that we do that cause harm to us or others with our body parts is unwise, unhealthy and wrong in that sense, it’s not like biology cares if you use your middle finger for turning pages or other uses.

    That’s all I’m doing – pointing to an obvious fact, observable in the real world. You all were the ones making the argument that there are some “right” and some “perverted” uses of various body parts. Factually speaking, that is not so. Now, you can have OPINIONS about what GOD thinks about various body part uses (having sex during menstruation, for instance, which appears to be condemned for the OT Jews…) – you can have the GUESS that God thinks it is wrong and perverse to do so, but it is not demonstrable in the real world. It is your opinion. Others have other opinions.

    These are simple facts, not really debatable, I’m just stating the reality of things. Why dost thou kick against the goads?

    ~Dan

    • Isn’t it funny how when Danny boy says something, it is “obvious fact” instead of just his stupid, uneducated opinion, yet when we present bonafide facts it is always just our opinion!

  129. paynehollow says:

    If it’s obvious to you that I’m mistaken, Glenn, all you have to do is provide some specific hard evidence. If body parts DO have one (or a few) designated purposes and anything else is literally a “perversion” and not what biology “intended,” all you have to do is provide the evidence to support it.

    But pointing to an ancient holy text, saying, “SEE? I think it suggests God doesn’t like it…” is not hard evidence. It is an opinion.

    But I have said that. And you all have not provided evidence. Only engaged in ad hom attacks.

    End of story, barring any actual evidence appearing.

    ~Dan

    • Yes, we all know, Trabue, that you are a heretic who refuses to accept that the Bible is indeed the factual evidence.

      I never even intimated “SEE? I think it suggests God doesn’t like it…’

      I said the Bible factually proclaims very, very clearly what the TRUE God’s attitude is towards homosexual behavior.

      It is not an ad hominem attack to call a false teacher “a false teacher” nor is it an ad hominem attack to call a heretic “a heretic.”

      Your highly educated mind should realize that in order for an ad hominem attack to exist, one must first use that attack as a response to an argument rather than addressing the issues. Since I have addressed the issues quite clearly, as has everyone else here but you, then saying you are a heretic, a false teacher, etc is NOT an “ad hominem” attack. Of course you always pull that victim card when ever you are faced with Biblical truth, let alone biological and physiological facts.

  130. Dan,
    I’m a little confused. You insist that there is no “right” use for body parts, then you point out that there are certain uses for body parts that are “negative”. Wouldn’t a “negative” use be wrong? You also insist that using body parts in harmful ways is “unwise, unhealthy and wrong…”. So, it would seem that you are saying that it is wrong in some sense to use ones body parts in ways that cause harm. Are you suggesting that people who use body parts in ways that are “unwise, unhealthy, and wrong…”, shouldn’t use those body parts in those ways? If there is a natural way to use a body part that is either “unwise, unhealthy, or wrong…”, how does one determine which side takes precedence. Is natural more compelling than “unwise”?

    It seems as though you might be saying that any use for any body part is fair game as long as there is no harm and it is natural. I just wanted to make sure.

  131. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    it would seem that you are saying that it is wrong in some sense to use ones body parts in ways that cause harm.

    It is harmful to do things that cause harm to your body. That is a tautology. Thus, as people concerned about our health, we can say it is unwise to do things that cause our body harm.

    But biology has not set up a “right” and “wrong” to our body parts. There is no “right” way to use the knee, the penis or the middle finger, as far as “biology” is concerned. Biology holds no opinions. Biology does not “intend” for you to use your body parts a certain way.

    I don’t know what I can say to be more clear.

    But, as people concerned about our health, we can rightly consider it wise to do healthy things and unwise to do unhealthy things. Which, bringing back around to the question of marriage – this is a healthy and right way of expressing our sexuality, whereas licentious and disease prone expressions are not healthy and most of us could probably agree, not wise.

    This has been my point and hopefully you understand it now.

    ~Dan

    • Isn’t it interesting that Dan keeps discussing the wrong it is, and how unwise it is “to do things that cause our body harm,” and yet no matter how much medical evidence we provide about the very, very harmful results of homosexual behavior, he still somehow finds that homosexual behavior doesn’t fit the category of things that cause bodily harm!!!!

      This is nothing less than rank stupidity just to justify the unjustifiable.

  132. paynehollow says:

    Last time I’ll point out the obvious to you, Glenn:

    Irresponsible, disease prone sexual acting out is unhealthy. This is what research shows and what I have been pointing out.

    This reality SUPPORTS the notion of encouraging faithful, monogamous marriage relationships.

    Your evidence supports my position. I appreciate you keep pointing to evidence that supports my position, but it is puzzling and appears irrational that you think it somehow supports your position.

    ~Dan

    • No Dan, you are being a first rate FOOL.

      The data does NOT support your claims about same-sex “faithful, monogamous marriage relationships” because “faithful” and “monogamous” is rare with such perverts.

      Just like Craig and Marshall have said, you marginalize the facts when they are provided, claim they don’t say what they truly say (sort of how you “interpret” the Bible) and then say we haven’t produced evidence. IT is YOU who have no evidence to support perversion being accepted as natural.

      And the very act of anal intercourse is in and of itself dangerous, which is why normal people don’t even practice it with wives. The anus is not designed for insertion of a penis, and it can tear, stretch the sphincter muscles beyond ability to retain waste as needed, brings disease, etc. While lesbians don’t have that sort of problem (unless they decide to use their “toys” there), there is still psychological and spiritual harm – yes spiritual harm because every human being with half a brain knows that homosexual relationships are just plain wrong and violate God’s image. Studies after studies show psychological harm because they know what their doing is perverse as they try to suppress the truth of it.

      You, being an enabler of such harm to individuals, let alone harm to society when same-sex unions are given sanction and allowed to raise children with such perverse worldviews, are part of what is wrong with society as we see it self-destruct around us primarily due to sexual immorality. Which is why I have no respect for your ilk – NONE.

  133. paynehollow says:

    Glenn…

    The data does NOT support your claims about same-sex “faithful, monogamous marriage relationships” because “faithful” and “monogamous” is rare with such perverts.

    And again, thanks for supporting my position.

    IF indeed, monogamy is rare (I doubt that it is as rare as you all think, but let’s assume it is rare), then what is a good solution? To DISCOURAGE or ENCOURAGE faithful monogamy?

    Rational people could agree that to discourage licentious behavior, encouraging fidelity is a rational solution. Truly, discouraging monogamy to encourage monogamy is not a reasonable solution in any world that I can think of.

    Glenn…

    And the very act of anal intercourse is in and of itself dangerous, which is why normal people don’t even practice it with wives.

    So, are you making a definitive claim that specific sexual practices, even amongst married male/female adults is “wrong” according to your god? That’s fine if you want to hold that opinion. I expect adults to know how to use their own bodies responsibly.

    By this measure, then, are you cool with lesbian marriages? Since presumably, there is even less likelihood of anal sex?

    Or is it really not any of your business what married adults do in their bedrooms?

    Glenn…

    While lesbians don’t have that sort of problem (unless they decide to use their “toys” there), there is still psychological and spiritual harm – yes spiritual harm because every human being with half a brain knows that homosexual relationships are just plain wrong

    As always, you are welcome to your opinions, but not your own facts.

    Thanks again for your evidence in support of my position, bud!

    ~Dan

    • Dan,

      You ignorant premise that somehow by some magic wand of a certificate that says “married” a class of people known for their promiscuity will suddenly be less promiscuous?!?!?

      I’ve read of many of these “marriages” which aren’t really monogamous because they have sort of “open” relationships. Nevertheless, these perverts who practice homosexual behavior can make personal contracts and promise loyalty and devotion to each other without state sanction. But they don’t, and the reason is because they really don’t care about state sanction so much as they do about destroying the institution of marriage and family. THis has been their stated goal for decades.

      If they can’t promise fidelity without a piece of paper, they won’t do it with a piece of paper. We are already seeing “divorces” all over the place – but we also know these “divorces” are to force other states to kowtow to them. 

      As for harm, let alone personal bodily harm, medical harm and psychological harm among themselves as God gives them over to their perversion, but everyone who disagrees with them is harmed by “hate” speech laws, forcing people to serve their “weddings,” forcing their perversion to be taught in the public schools, etc, etc, etc.
      Children are being forced in a situation without either a mother or father, by having two “fathers” or two “mothers,” and now even three “parents”. Children are brought up to think a skewed view of human sexuality and then follow their parents’ footsteps in their perversion.

      Homosexual behavior IS “licentious” behavior, and real rational people wouldn’t sanction it the way people like you do.

      Anal sex is wrong for anyone. It’s called biology. Anyone with half a brain knows that it is a harmful practice. If a man is doing that to a woman, is he really any different than the man who is doing it to a man? An anus is an anus, and it is NOT designed for such practice.

      Oh, and since when did I say it was my business what people do in their bedrooms? I only said the practice was medically dangerous and unsanitary. On the other hand, every queer out there is making sure we know what they do in the bedroom every time they identify themselves as “gay.” They put it in our face whenever they discriminate against those of us who don’t want to sanction perverse behavior.

      My opinion is based on FACTS, but your opinion is based on emotion and stupidity. I’m finished here with you asininity.

  134. Dan,

    So while you appear to be willing to say that it’s “harmful” to use body parts in a way that causes harm to your own body, you won’t say that doing “harmful” things to ones own body is wrong, am I correct. Is it safe to assume that you have problems using our body parts to do harm to others. I’d assume you would say it was harmful, but would you say it was wrong?

    Let’s look at an example. Would you encourage someone to use any of their body parts to engage in an activity that would do the following?

    Has a high risk of physical tissue damage to the other persons body
    Has a high risk of spreading infection and disease (Hep A and C and E Coli infection)
    Would expose the other person to a 17 fold risk of cancer

    Personally I would strongly discourage a behavior with these risks, under any circumstances, wouldn’t you?

    Wouldn’t you agree that transmitting disease to another could be classified as wrong behavior?

    Again, I hope to gain some clarity on your position which seems to be that we SHOULD do healthy things and NOT do unhealthy things. But, it seems you would not go so far as to characterize those healthy things as right or the unhealthy things as wrong.

    Am I close?

  135. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    you won’t say that doing “harmful” things to ones own body is wrong, am I correct.

    It’s wrong, as it relates to good health and wisdom, I’d suggest. It’s a bad idea to drink too much soda – a misuse of our mouth, teeth and gut. It’s wrong to misuse your body in this harmful way. In that case, though (or the case of cigarettes or many other ways we might cause harm to our bodies), the harm is really in the habitual use of these items. If one drinks one Dr Pepper in one’s lifetime, or smokes one cigarette, there almost certainly is no harm to one’s body.

    In either case, while I think it is wrong, I don’t know that I would call it “bad” or “sinful” to drink Dr Pepper (guilty!) or smoke, just a bad idea, especially when not in moderation.

    Craig…

    Is it safe to assume that you have problems using our body parts to do harm to others. I’d assume you would say it was harmful, but would you say it was wrong?

    Obviously, causing harm to others (with or without our “body parts”) is, I think, clearly wrong or bad.

    more…

  136. Let’s look at an example. Would you encourage someone to use any of their body parts to engage in an activity that would do the following?

    Has a high risk of physical tissue damage to the other persons body
    Has a high risk of spreading infection and disease (Hep A and C and E Coli infection)
    Would expose the other person to a 17 fold risk of cancer

    Personally I would strongly discourage a behavior with these risks, under any circumstances, wouldn’t you?

    Wouldn’t you agree that transmitting disease to another could be classified as wrong behavior

  137. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    Would you encourage someone to use any of their body parts to engage in an activity that would do the following?

    Has a high risk of physical tissue damage to the other persons body
    Has a high risk of spreading infection and disease (Hep A and C and E Coli infection)
    Would expose the other person to a 17 fold risk of cancer

    Personally I would strongly discourage a behavior with these risks, under any circumstances, wouldn’t you?

    If someone were asking me my opinion and they told me that their doctor told them that tissue damage could be done by too much anal sex (I think that’s what you’re asking here, yes?), I would counsel, “Well, that’s more information than I want to know… But, since you asked, yes, I would counsel you to not engage in so much anal sex that it causes damage.”

    I would counsel that to any straight or gay friends who asked.

    Would you?

    Would you leave it at that or would you counsel them (gay or straight), “Because that anal sex can be bad if done too often, I’d counsel you to not marry that person you want to have anal sex with…”? OR, would you say, “all things in moderation. God bless your marriage…”?

    IF someone asked me about the infection rate associated with unprotected promiscuous sex and if they should have promiscuous, unprotected sex, I would counsel them NOT to have a promiscuous, unprotected sex life. I would suggest that the best, safest place (in my opinion) for sexual expression is within the confines of a loving, committed, faithful monogamous marriage – gay or straight.

    What would tell the straight or gay person who was asking you that question? You said…

    Personally I would strongly discourage a behavior with these risks, under any circumstances, wouldn’t you?

    But would you also counsel them (if they were asking your opinion, as a friend) that the best place to avoid those risks is within the confines of a loving, committed marriage relationship? If not, why not?

    Craig…

    Wouldn’t you agree that transmitting disease to another could be classified as wrong behavior?

    Yes, gay or straight people should not do that.

    Craig…

    Again, I hope to gain some clarity on your position which seems to be that we SHOULD do healthy things and NOT do unhealthy things.

    That is my position.

    Craig…

    But, it seems you would not go so far as to characterize those healthy things as right or the unhealthy things as wrong.

    Am I close?

    Again, one Dr Pepper a week? No, I don’t call that “wrong,” and certainly not sinful or bad. Ten Dr Peppers a day? Yes, that is unhealthy. Would I call it sinful? No. Stupid, yes, but sinful, no.

    Would you?

    Anal sex one time a week? I have no idea, I’m not a physician and don’t know if that sort of activity is harmful. I don’t think I would call it sinful, though. Why would I? If their doctor were telling them that once a week was harmful to them, then yes, I’d call that a bad idea, like drinking ten sodas a day.

    If you, like me, would NOT call ten sodas a day “sinful,” just stupid and unhealthy, on what basis would you not treat the anal sex thing the same way?

    Let’s say you have a straight woman friend who didn’t mind talking health to you. She told you her husband and she wanted to engage in anal sex one time a year. Her doctor has assured her that’s not a problem, from a health point of view.

    Do you consider that wrong? If so, why?

    Craig, you just asked a bunch of questions and I, systematically answered them directly, one by one. Will you do the same (I’ve bolded my 4 or so main questions to help you not miss them)?

    Thanks.

  138. Dan,

    I’m sorry but did you just insinuate that anal sex between two men is not sinful?

    In any event, I’ll answer your questions.

    Would you leave it at that or would you counsel them (gay or straight), “Because that anal sex can be bad if done too often, I’d counsel you to not marry that person you want to have anal sex with…”? OR, would you say, “all things in moderation. God bless your marriage…”?

    I don’t believe that anal sex is only harmful if done repeatedly; once is enough for both infection and tissue damage. Regardless, I certainly wouldn’t boil marriage down to sex acts. Any sex act can be unhealthy depending on the circumstances

    But would you also counsel them (if they were asking your opinion, as a friend) that the best place to avoid those risks is within the confines of a loving, committed marriage relationship?

    Certainly. But I might also expound. I would say to a gay friend, for example, that homosexual men are 600% more likely to cheat than heterosexual men and that homosexual “marriages” are much less likely to last than heterosexual marriages. I would also tell them that homosexual behavior is a sin, regardless if done in a “loving, committed marriage relationship” or otherwise.

    Would you?

    No, I wouldn’t characterize unhealthy behavior as necessarily “wrong” or sinful – unless, ya know, it is, according to Scripture, like homosexual behavior is according to Scripture.

    Do you consider that wrong?

    I don’t know. The Bible doesn’t directly prohibit anal or oral sex, but I suppose an argument could be made. If done in a homosexual relationship, then yes, it’s a sin – for the Bible says that homosexual behavior is an abomination. But it doesn’t explicitly say that the ACTS of anal and oral sex are sins. The Bible does, however, prohibit “uncleanliness” an “lewdness” with respect to sexual activity, and I imagine oral and anal sex would qualify as “unclean” and “lewd.”

  139. Dan,

    Rest assured, I’ll answer every single one of your questions when I have time.

    But until then, I see you’ve done your usual move the goal posts and answer a question that has not been asked.

    I was asking about a behavior. You’ve moved away from the behavior and tried to suggest that the context of the behavior somehow makes it less unhealthy.

    The fact is that the CDC, WebMD, the British version of WebMD, and numerous other sources are clear that anal sex is physically harmful despite the context.

    I guess you can argue that having anal sex with one person, rather than multiple persons has the potential to reduce the harm, but the medically supported fact remains that:

    “Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is THE RISKIEST form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:
    The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants can help some, but doesn’t completely prevent tearing. ”

    So, could you really in good conscience encourage anyone to engage in the riskiest form of sexual behavior in any context?

  140. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    I was asking about a behavior. You’ve moved away from the behavior and tried to suggest that the context of the behavior somehow makes it less unhealthy.

    I’ve moved no goalposts. You asked about a behavior – what I would say about folk engaging in a behavior. MY answer – what I think I would do (in response to your question about what I would do) – is just what I said. That IS my answer. I just made it specific to a real situation so as to be more clear. That is, I moved TO the behavior you were speaking of, not AWAY from.

    As to anal sex and harm, I have to say that I don’t know the medical reports say. IF the medical reports are that ONE time of anal sex is damaging and doctor’s don’t recommend it and a friend was asking, I’d go with what the doctor has said.

    But here is the specific wording you referenced and I’ll RE-answer the question, despite your not answering mine:

    Has a high risk of physical tissue damage to the other persons body

    If a friend had evidence that engaging in a behavior that had a high risk of damage to their body (or a friend’s body) and was asking if they should engage in it, I’d say that it doesn’t sound like a good idea.

    For instance, I like sassafras tea, always have. I try to dig up some roots once or twice a year and have me some. Then I read about medical reports tying drinking sassafras tea to cancer. Yikes!

    But it turns out, it’s tied to cancer IF you have sassafras tea 20 times a day, every day for years. So, there are medical reports and there are medical reports. It really depends on the details of the report. Agreed?

    New question to add to the ones you haven’t answered yet: IF doctors are NOT saying/research does not support the belief that even ONE time (of whatever behavior) is damaging and should be avoided – but rather, it’s problematic in larger quantities, would you agree that it is disingenuous or alarmist to say it should NEVER be engaged in?

    To re-answer another question of yours…

    could you really in good conscience encourage anyone to engage in the riskiest form of sexual behavior in any context?

    According to what YOU just said, if someone asked me if they should engage in behavior that is harmful to them, I’d say no. IF someone asked, what if I took the necessary precautions to reduce the risk, by using lubricant, for instance? I’d say, “Look, I’m not a doctor and that’s really between your doctor and you. I’d counsel you to not do anything to harm yourself and I trust you to make the right decisions as an adult on that point.”

    Whether that was a straight couple or gay couple, that would be my answer.

    Craig, would you agree with that counsel?

    Craig, since lesbian couples have none of these risks of harm you speak of in their behavior, does that mean you would bless them in their committed relationships?

    ~Dan

  141. Dan,

    Really? I see no evidence of this at all. What makes you say that? Just curious, I don’t want to be overly optimistic here.

    Why do you phrase questions so dishonestly? You know well that on religious grounds no Christian could legitimately bless a homosexual union, so why do you ask? It’s like you want them to admit that, apart from religion, they wouldn’t have a problem with homosexual relationships. But you’re failing to realize that in the lives of most conservative Christians, their faith is as defining as their genetics. Such a question outside those bounds simply doesn’t compute.

  142. But lesbians DO have risks of their own, even amongst those not especially promiscuous. I did a quick search and found several sites and while most of them also speak of promiscuity, that isn’t always the case.

    But I would return to this issue of “intent”. The design of a body part signifies intention. What does the body part do? It is deceitful to insist that there must be some biological statement of intention, that biology itself states intention, when honest men of character can plainly see that a given body part is made for something specific. A hand can grab, ball up into a fist (which is really the grabbing movement), or it can point each finger separately or all at once, with the fingers apart or together. It can bend and twist at the wrist. All these things are what is intended that a hand can do. What we choose to use those movements for is separate from the intended purpose of those body parts.

    It’s simply another case of Dan demanding meaning that suits and justifies his position. More equivocation.

  143. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    A hand can grab, ball up into a fist (which is really the grabbing movement), or it can point each finger separately or all at once, with the fingers apart or together. It can bend and twist at the wrist. All these things are what is intended that a hand can do.

    And not to be too graphic, but penises, vaginas, fingers, tongues and other body parts ALSO can do multiple things. Are these things not “intended…”? Says who?

    Terrance, the quote you offer is not my quote – or one that I can find anywhere on this page.

    As to what you said, though, I fully recognize that many (myself included, once upon a time) hold religious reasons why they oppose marriage. But for this conversation, I was speaking specifically of real world evidence – reasons you can hold, measure, test, observe.

    If someone is wanting to answer, “I have no biological reason for my position, I just think that God thinks it is wrong…” that is fine, but not everyone agrees with that opinion. You all are always welcome to your opinions about what God might think, but when it comes to reaching out and making your case to a wide variety of people – your fellow citizens, fellow church friends, your neighbors – you really ought to have something beyond, “I think God thinks it is wrong” if you want to be able to make your case.

    Is this not reasonable?

    Some extremist traditional muslims might, after all, say, “IT is God’s will for women to cover themselves head to toe in a burka…” but in a pluralistic society, reasonable people will respond to that… “You think this is what God thinks? Okay. So? I don’t agree with that notion. Do you have anything more compelling than your opinion about what God wants?”

    ~Dan

  144. Dan,

    While we continue to correct your heretical and blatantly purposeful misinterpretations of Scripture, I don’t think any of us are trying to base our opposition solely, or even primarily on our religious faith. So you can stop that defense against an attack not launched.

    “And not to be too graphic, but penises, vaginas, fingers, tongues and other body parts ALSO can do multiple things. Are these things not “intended…”? Says who?”

    Again, honest men do not need to be told the obvious. All those multiple things hands (for example) can do are not outside the intention of their design. To say that body parts have no intention behind their design is just a morally challenged person’s way of justifying the misuse of body parts. More lying by a most deceitful pseudo-Christian.

  145. paynehollow says:

    Marshall…

    I don’t think any of us are trying to base our opposition solely, or even primarily on our religious faith.

    But you have offered nothing else… well, except for research that supports the notion of monogamous marriage relationships – supports, not opposes. IF it is true, as research supports, that living licentious lives with unprotected sex is not healthy, then it is also true that it is reasonable to encourage either chastity or faithful, committed marriage arrangements.

    And if we are sexual beings (and we are, to varying degrees) then suggesting “be chaste forever” is not a helpful or healthy solution. Thus, this leaves us with the notion that it is reasonable to support – not oppose but support – faithful, loving marriage arrangements. What else is there? Nothing that you all have offered except “well, I think God thinks it is bad…”

    If that’s all you have, then fine – I fully support you living out that belief in your own life. I also fully support everyone making these decisions for themselves.

    Marshall…

    To say that body parts have no intention behind their design

    Okay, Marshall, provide your list of supports for the intentions of various body parts. If you have some support for this claim, put it up. If not, thanks for the unsupported opinion.

    ~Dan

  146. “Would you? Would you leave it at that or would you counsel them (gay or straight), “Because that anal sex can be bad if done too often, I’d counsel you to not marry that person you want to have anal sex with…”? OR, would you say, “all things in moderation. God bless your marriage…”?”

    I would counsel whomever that anal sex is “the most dangerous sexual activity” , and tell them what the risks are. IF they choose to ignore the risks, that’s their problem. However, the actual medical information does not suggest that an excess of anal sex is “the most dangerous” sexual activity, it suggests any anal sex is dangerous. In no way does it suggest that marriage somehow magically removes the risks. So, unlike you I would not suggest that marriage somehow removes the high risk.

    “But would you also counsel them (if they were asking your opinion, as a friend) that the best place to avoid those risks is within the confines of a loving, committed marriage relationship? If not, why not?”

    I would counsel them that I have seen no indication that the context of anal sex diminishes the risk. Since most of the dangers arise from the physical weaknesses of the anus for sex, the high risk of harm is present no matter what the context. Personally, I would counsel people who I cared about to avoid this risky behavior so they can have the best chance of remaining healthy.

    “Would you?”

    Yes, I’d call 10 Dr Peppers a day bad. I’m not sure how that relates, but you got your answer.

    “Do you consider that wrong? If so, why?”

    Wrong, probably? Potentially incredibly harmful, definitely. Interesting that you have tried to eliminate “wrong” as a category and instead focus on harm. So, now you want to re introduce wrong as a category. Again, I’d make sure they knew the risks, then it’s really up to them. The same way it is up to anyone to make their own decisions.

    “I’ve moved no goalposts. You asked about a behavior – what I would say about folk engaging in a behavior.”

    Yes, you have. In two ways. You have inserted the issue of frequency which is not mentioned in the medical things I’ve seen. In other words you’ve argued that a little anal sex is OK, just not a lot. You have no basis to introduce this assumption into the discussion of the act. You have also introduced context. Medically it is clear that the act of anal sex is dangerous regardless of context, and regardless of frequency. As you say often, you are welcome to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

  147. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    You have inserted the issue of frequency which is not mentioned in the medical things I’ve seen. In other words you’ve argued that a little anal sex is OK, just not a lot.

    I’ll have to be honest, I haven’t looked in the medical aspects of this topic much. You could be correct that even ONE time is harmful, regardless of context. Just as a reasoning adult, I would find that hard to believe, but maybe the science justifies it.

    The PRINCIPLE I support are these:

    1. If it causes you harm, I would advise against it.

    2. If you are a rational adult and want to engage in whatever behavior (that isn’t harmful to someone else), then I expect you to be informed about any risks and make adult decisions.

    3. If you ask me my opinion, I would point to #1: If it causes you harm, don’t do it.

    4. But ultimately, just as I have sometimes 3-4 Dr Peppers in one day – in spite of the potential or likely harm it may do to my body – I expect people to make their own decisions about their own physical health and…

    5. I don’t think that making a slightly or even very bad decision about one’s health in terms of lifestyle questions rises to the category of “wrong” or sinful or bad. Just bad for you.

    Craig…

    Interesting that you have tried to eliminate “wrong” as a category and instead focus on harm.

    ? I have not eliminated “wrong” as a category. In my opinion, making the likely unhealthy decision of drinking too many Dr Peppers in one day does not rise to the level of a moral wrong or a sin.

    Just to be clear: DO YOU think too many Dr Peppers in one day is a sin?

    Your answer appears to be “Wrong, probably? Potentially incredibly harmful, definitely.” And we agree that it is “potentially” unhealthy – certainly if it was a habit, but the once a month consumption of ten sodas, is that wrong in terms of being SINFUL? THAT kind of “wrong…”?

    Or are you trying to eliminate “sin” as a category and instead focus on “wrong…”?

    The reason I bring up the soda example is this: People’s personal sexual positions is REALLY something I don’t care about and don’t have an opinion on, as far as being “sinful” or “wrong.” If a particular position or practice is unhealthy, I would presume that rational adults would try to determine that for themselves. It may be that some practices rise to the level of “harmful” or “potentially harmful…” but that does not equate to me to “sinful” any more than the Dr Pepper example.

    Does it to you? Why?

    Craig…

    You have no basis to introduce this assumption into the discussion of the act.

    ? Says who? Just as with my earlier sassafras example: Frequency matters. Context matters. It’s not enough to say simply, “sassafras is carcinogenic…” Saying that but leaving out the last half of the research, “…IF taken in large quantities” matters a whole lot to the truthfulness and accuracy of the claim.

    Again, I haven’t done the research on “anal sex.” It really isn’t an area of interest of mine. But I trust people for whom it matters to do the research for themselves.

    ~Dan

    • Dan

      Your problem in this area is you argue too heavily from theory and principle, and not from reality.

      In theory, monogamy would be a good idea for anyone. But in reality, homosexuals are not monogamous — and the majority of the ones who claim to be have redefined what it means to be monogamous to include multiple outside partners.

      In theory, if there were less promiscuity in the gay community there’d be less disease. But in reality even promiscuous straight people do not run the risks gay people do for contracting disease, so promiscuity is not the only controlling factor. The same behaviors performed in the straight community do not produce the same levels of disease both physical or mental.

      In theory marriage would combat the disease and mental illness problems in the gay community, but in reality marriage has not proven to inhibit promiscuity in the gay community. They are as monogam-ish and promiscuous when married as when not.

      It seems that in reality, the problem is the homosexualness of the relationships.

  148. paynehollow says:

    A quick search looking up the topic (trying to avoid the many right wing frothing at the mouth sites for an actual medical site) found this…

    “Anal sex, if practised with care, is possible for most couples.

    It does, however, carry health risks and there are safer sexual practices that couples can enjoy.”

    It goes on to say that part of the problem associated with it is an increased chance of transmission of disease. However, if we are starting with two virgins or two disease free people, then that risk is eliminated. Thus, it is not the behavior, but the risk of passing on disease and the disease comes with unprotected sex with someone with disease, which is complicated by having multiple sexual partners. Which gets back to the notion that encouraging faithful, monogamous marriage as the safe and responsible place for sex for all people is a reasonable thing.

    http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sexandrelationships/analsex.htm#ixzz2jmNXkqBe

    There really is more information there than I am wanting to pass on in this venue, but the point is, it does not appear to be the case that anal sex is, in and of itself, the risk that you are making it out to be. For the straight or gay couple who are faithful and disease free, who take reasonable steps to enjoy the process, I don’t think that the claim “anal sex is dangerous regardless of context, and regardless of frequency.” is supported at least by this medical website. I rather doubt that your claim is true.

    I doubt this, not because I have read deeply on the matter, but just rationally, I know that MOST the things we do that cause us problems are those habits that we form and do over and over that tend to be what leads to problems. Drinking ten sodas every day for ever? Almost certainly bad for you (but, again, sinful? I don’t think so, just stupid). Once or twice year doing that? Almost certainly not bad for you.

    The Bible teaches, “Everything in moderation,” and as it turns out, this holds true for many of our health decisions. Apparently this one, as well.

    ~Dan

  149. ” IF doctors are NOT saying/research does not support the belief that even ONE time (of whatever behavior) is damaging and should be avoided – but rather, it’s problematic in larger quantities, would you agree that it is disingenuous or alarmist to say it should NEVER be engaged in?”

    I would suggest that if asked, I would honestly tell people what the risks are and let them choose if they want to take that risk.

    “Craig, would you agree with that counsel?”

    I would suggest that if asked, I would honestly tell people what the risks are and let them choose if they want to take that risk. Certainly people should do what can be done to reduce the rick. From what I’ve seen it is almost impossible to eliminate the risk.

    “Craig, since lesbian couples have none of these risks of harm you speak of in their behavior, does that mean you would bless them in their committed relationships?”

    Since, this question is completely off topic, I’m not sure what the point of it is. It is however an another excellent example of you trying to move the goal posts away from the harm inherent in a specific behavior toward gay marriage. So, in an attempt to keep more focus, here I’ll pass on this one.

  150. paynehollow says:

    John, in reality, men wouldn’t cheat on their wives or abuse their children, but some do. Does that mean that we should say, “Well, men just do that stuff sometimes…” or should we encourage the ideal?

    Yes, you are right, in theory, monogamy is good for everyone. Why not promote it?

    What is the alternative, throwing up your hands and say, “straight people and gay people will be promiscuous, there is no point in promoting stable healthy, committed marriages…”?

    Why would we not promote the ideal?

    Craig…

    in reality marriage has not proven to inhibit promiscuity in the gay community.

    For centuries, gay people have been closeted and underground, forced into a subculture that was treated as lepers and hellions. Incredibly recently, support has just begun for gay and lesbian marriage.

    In reality, it is too soon to say that marriage has not proven to inhibit promiscuity. In reality, we can see that there are indeed many faithful gay and lesbian couples. In reality, we see statistics like these…

    The percentage of heterosexual men who reported having sex with someone other than their wife dropped to 10% in 2000 from 28% in 1975; among married women, it declined to 14% from 23%. Among gay men, the percentage who cheated on a partner they lived with dropped to 59% from 83%; for lesbians it declined to 8% from 28%

    in a news story from 2011…

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/marriage/story/2011-09-05/Gay-straight-couples-more-monogamous-than-in-the-past/50267258/1

    So, in reality, it would appear that monogamy IS increasing. Given even more normalization of and support for faithful loving marriage commitments and I expect you will see that trend to continue.

    Bottom line, I don’t know what you’re encouraging. Giving up on gay folk and saying, “they are incapable of monogamy, they are sub-human (ie, not as good as normal humans – incapable of genuine commitment as a class of people) in that way…”? How would that help things?

    Craig…

    Since, this question is completely off topic, I’m not sure what the point of it is.

    How is it off topic? You seem to be suggesting that the case can be made that because “gay behavior” causes harm, it should be discouraged. I’m pointing to lesbian behavior that is NOT causing harm in the ways you cite. If you’re opposed specifically to male-male behavior because of a presumed risk of harm, then are you NOT opposed to female-female behavior, since there is no harm?

    How is that off topic? And I see that you pass – again – on answering questions when the answer to that question undermines your argument, but you want me to answer all your questions (and I do, generally) because, well, you asked them. I would suggest that this points to a lack of confidence in your own argument and/or the realization that your ideas don’t hold up to reasonable questions.

  151. “You seem to be suggesting that the case can be made that because “gay behavior” causes harm, it should be discouraged.”

    No I’m not. I’m making the case that it is a demonstrable fact that anal sex is an inherently risky behavior. It is described by Dr’s as the “most risky” sexual activity that can be engaged in. If you don’t want to focus, that’s fine, just don’t expect me to follow your diversions.

    “Craig…

    in reality marriage has not proven to inhibit promiscuity in the gay community. ”

    Now I could say that since I literally factually didn’t say this that I’ll refuse to answer any further questions etc until you correct your mistake and beg forgiveness. Or i could just say, sorry not me.

    “It may be that some practices rise to the level of “harmful” or “potentially harmful…” but that does not equate to me to “sinful” any more than the Dr Pepper example. Does it to you? Why?”

    Earlier I asked you a series of questions so that I could try to determine at what point you considered behavior to be problematic. You reasonably clearly indicated that for you the tipping point was harm.. So, as I have gone forward I have tried to use your standard to demonstrate that the behavior in question carries with it a significant risk of harm. I have specifically tried to avoid words like “wrong” or “sin” so as to stay withing your parameters of harm being the important factor. Now, you want to change the direction of the conversation and that’s fine. It’s just a different argument.

    To your question. I would argue that there are a number of behaviors that are not sinful per se, but that can be sinful for some people. For example, I don’t believe that having a beer is sinful, however if I have a beer in front of my alcoholic sister, it could be in the sense that I might be leading her into problematic behavior. So, while drinking too much Dr. Pepper might be a sin for someone, I don’t know that I could say that drinking 10 Dr Peppers a day as automatically a sin for everyone. Now, some would say that the body is the “temple of the Holy Spirit” and that anything that causes harm to the body is a sin. I’m not unsympathetic to that view, but I’m not sure I totally buy it either. However, if one takes this view then it could be successfully argued that anal sex could be sinful on that basis alone. I’m not necessarily doing so, but it is a reasonable argument that can be made. So the short version is yes, and no.

    Unfortunately, this doesn’t really help you much, as the high degree of risk with anal sex is present every single time it is engaged in, and while there are ways to mitigate the risk it cannot be eliminated.

    You also seem to be making that argument that it’s one thing if some mythical “monogamish” gay couple only as anal sex once a week, that somehow that makes it safe. Can you tell me at what number of anal sex acts per week, it would you would consider the risk unacceptable? Can you explain why (given the physical weakness and lack of lubrication in the anus), 5 acts of anal sex with the same person are inherently less risky that 5 acts with multiple people. I understand that expanding the pool increases the risk of different diseases, however it is the “structural” weakness of the anal skins that makes people more susceptible to tearing and passing on whatever disease. Of course, a tear in the skin can lead to an infection no matter what the disease status of the “giver”.

    I’d agree that in theory a mythical gay couple who is monogamous (in the literal sense of the word, not the modern gay sense of monogamish), can mitigate the harm caused by repeated anal sex. The fact remains indisputable, that that is the BEST they can hope for.

    If you’re comfortable telling your small circle of gay friends “Go ahead and engage in this “most risky” of sexual behaviors”, fine.

    “Frequency matters. Context matters. ”

    Maybe in terms of degree, but when a behavior carries a high degree of risk, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. The other problem with your Dr. Pepper analogy is that the “risk” with Dr. Pepper is fairly predicable. However, one instance of anal sex no matter what the context can cause significant harm. Ever seen a Hep C, patient. It’s not pretty. Again, if you’re happy with “risk management”, this is a fine argument to make. I can’t help but note, that you seem pretty cavalier about the risks that others are taking.

    In conclusion, if you feel comfortable forming your hunch on this based on one website that phrases things in such a way as to give your hunch the most support, that’s fine. I gave you the Web MD quote, I’ll provide others if you want. I’m glad that you feel like you’ve tied this all up in a nice neat little bow, and don’t actual need to challenge your preconceptions.

    Just so I don’t cause you too much strain, I’ll re post what that whacko insane right wing moonbat WebMD crazies have to say.

    “Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is THE RISKIEST form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:
    The anus LACKS THE NATURAL LUBRICATION the vagina has. PENETRATION CAN TEAR THE TISSUE IN SIDE THE ANSU, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV. Studies have suggested that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk for the receptive partner than vaginal exposure. Exposure to the human papillomavirus (HPV) may also lead to the development of anal warts and anal cancer. Using lubricants CAN HELP SOME, but DOESN’T”T COMPLETELY prevent tearing. ”

    Emphasis added to make sure you don’t miss those parts.

    I’d do more now, but I’d rather not do this particular search on my work computer.

  152. Just for grins I went to the website that gives Dan enough confidence to dismiss the risks in Anal sex. Here is the glowing endorsement they give for this “harmless” practice.

    “Often, it is presented as something that is both routine and painless for women. In real life, this is not the case.
    There’s evidence that anal intercourse carries a higher transmission risk than almost any other sexual activity. Information about these risks is given below.
    Anal sex, if practised with care, is possible for most couples.
    It does, however, carry health risks and there are safer sexual practices that couples can enjoy.

    Human papilloma virus (HPV): there is no doubt that anal intercourse carries a greater risk of transmission of HIV – the virus that can cause acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) – than other sexual activities, particularly for the receptive partner.
    Human papilloma virus and warts: this virus can be transmitted during anal intercourse and that may lead to anal warts.
    HPV and anal cancer: unfortunately, certain strains of HPV virus do have carcinogenic (cancer-provoking) potential. There are some types of HPV that cause cancer of the cervix in women and probably also cancer of the throat. Round about the beginning of the present century, research showed that HPV could be isolated from the tissues of many anal cancers. By 2008, it became clear that people who had been anally penetrated by multiple partners were unusually likely to get carcinoma of the anus. A Danish study has recently suggested that gay men may have a 17-fold increase in risk of anal cancer – but close inspection of this paper reveals that the number of people involved was very small. So the case is not quite proven yet, but there are enough data to suggest that if you are going in for anal intercourse, it’s safest to do it with only one regular partner.
    Hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis): this is a viral infection that can cause jaundice and abdominal pain. Hepatitis A is not usually a life-threatening illness, although sufferers can feel quite ill. It can be transmitted by oral-anal contact.
    Hepatitis C: is a cause of progressive and sometimes fatal chronic liver disease. Hepatitis C may be transmitted by anal intercourse, although this seems to be a rare occurrence. Sharing of equipment for intravenous drug use is a far more important risk for transmission.
    Escherichia coli (E. coli): may sometimes cause mild to severe, or even (very rarely) fatal, gastroenteritis. It is one of many viruses and bacteria that can be transmitted by oral-anal contact. Some E. coli strains (uropathic E. coli) can also cause urinary tract infections (UTIs), ranging from cystitis to pyelonephritis – a serious kidney infection. E. coli very readily crosses the short distance between the female anus and the female urinary opening, so causing a urinary infection. Anal intercourse can facilitate this transfer, particularly if it is immediately followed by vaginal intercourse

    Avoiding anal sex altogether is of course the best way of avoiding these risks.
    There are other, safer sexual practices that can be exciting and rewarding, but many couples may still wish to try the anal route.”

    Sounds like something I’d encourage all my friends to try.

    Dan’s website does make an excellent, but off topic point. They say that anal sex is included in 30% of porn DVD’s in Britain. I’d suggest that the increasing availability and consumption of porn have made it seem like a number of sexual behaviors are more common and more appropriate than they are in real life. Again, another topic for another post. Or not.

    • I would also suggest that anal sex with heterosexuals originate with pornography, since I don’t think a normal guy would want to participate in such an act, and I don’t think any normal woman would like such an act. Pornography has been the origin of much that is abnormal in sexual relations.

      I personally don’t see how the receptor can derive any pleasure – when I’m given a prostrate exam it is very uncomfortable – and that’s just with a finger!

      • I believe President Reagan commissioned a study about pornography. Roughly, the more porn a person watched, the less satisfied the person was with “tame” and “ordinary” scenes. Over time the person couldn’t become aroused anymore and they needed more “kinky” and depraved sex scenes to become aroused.

    • Dan essentially treated his source site just like he does his bible, keep what you like, ignore the inconvenient.

  153. This focus on physical harm is really beside the point. Cutting someone’s guts open is always physically harmful, but not always the wrong thing to do.

    There are also things that are not physically harmful that we all agree is wrong. M/F sex is the proper biological use of certain body parts, or at least (I’m sure even Dan would agree) not an improper use of them. But when it’s adultery, it’s wrong.

    Nature, biology, proper/improper or accept/unacceptable uses of body parts do not exist in a vacuum (I say this at the risk of Dan going on a tangent about the amorality of the Hoover or Dyson). We are guided by more than our beliefs about harm and biology. Harm and biology are on the side of adultery. If God says, “Thou shalt do no physical harm”, and biology “says”, “tab A into slot B = go for it”, and that’s all we had to go on, then adultery is ok. Right?

    Earlier we spoke about theft. Dan says it’s harmful. Not physically, obviously. But he’s right. It’s harmful in a sense. But if taking more money from rich people in taxes simply because they can afford it, or will not be harmed as much as a poor person would if we taxed each of them at the same rate is justification, why then is theft wrong if I only steal a little from a rich guy? It’s not only the harm that’s inflicted or even the extent to which he is harmed. Still, theft is wrong. Why?

    Theft, adultery, lying, dishonoring your parents, murder… All occur in nature. All involve the use of our bodies in ways that can only be deemed proper if Dan is right, that if our bodies CAN be used in a particular way, it can’t be “unnatural”, and it’s only our business as consenting adults.

    Why are these things wrong? Whether or not anyone is affected in any way by our actions, how can we say it’s wrong?

    I start with the understanding that your actions are not my business. But they’re not your business either. Everything is God’s business.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if He told us what was acceptable behavior? HE DID!

  154. C2C,

    I agree with you. I am attempting (so far fairly successfully) to demonstrate that even according to Dan’s standard of causing harm being the most important measure that the act of anal sex puts those who engage in it at a significant risk of physical harm. We’ll never convince Dan that any aspect of homosexuality cannot be made good as long as it’s in the context of marriage. On the one hand I realize that there is a degree of silliness to it, but there seems to be s significant consensus that anal sex is factually physically harmful. In fact it appears, even from the site that Dan believes supports his position, to be a consensus that anal sex is a risky proposition and should be avoided. But that if it is not avoided, that extraordinary care must be taken to somewhat mitigate the risks. One would think that this kind of evidence would be hard to argue with, but apparently one would be wrong about that.

  155. paynehollow says:

    Craig…

    the high degree of risk with anal sex is present every single time it is engaged in, and while there are ways to mitigate the risk it cannot be eliminated.

    The degree of risk is related to passing on disease.

    Two 20 year old virgins who wed and bed and choose to engage in anal sex have ZERO possibility of passing on disease. It is a false statement to make to say that “every single time” it involves risk.

    Just speaking of facts.

    For this reason, it is reasonable to support faithful, loving monogamous marriage relationships. It decreases the likelihood of harm and promotes good health and well-being. Whatever sex practices one engages in, gay or straight.

    Facts is facts.

    ~Dan

    • I swear Dan doesn’t know how to read and comprehend.
      The degree of risk is not limited to disease. The risk is also the damage that can be caused to the anus (possibility of causing a tear) as well as to the colon (also possibility of tear).

      And don’t forget how feces carries all sorts of germs and diseases.

  156. “Two 20 year old virgins who wed and bed and choose to engage in anal sex have ZERO possibility of passing on disease. ”

    Dan’s hunch.

    “Anal sex has a number of health risks. Anal intercourse is THE RISKIEST form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:
    The anus LACKS THE NATURAL LUBRICATION the vagina has. PENETRATION CAN TEAR THE TISSUE IN SIDE THE ANUS, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream.”

    What the doctors say. You be the judge.

    If of course you redefine disease to exclude the passing of bacteria and viruses.

    “It is a false statement to make to say that “every single time” it involves risk.”

    Dan, can you find one single solitary source that says that will tell you how to 100% guaranteed prevent tearing of the thinner tissue in the anus? Just 1?

    I did a quick search to find the Biblical text that says “everything in moderation” , and Bible Gateway couldn’t find one. I’d be interested to see where that text is in scripture.

    “It decreases the likelihood of harm…” Well I guess if you comfortable with the bar set that low, then that’s fine with me.

    If this is what you do when confronted with evidence that totally contradicts your position, why should we even bother to provide it. Instead of providing actual evidence to refute the claims of the doctors I quotes, the best you have is “Facts is facts.”. Normally when one speaks of fact, one can actually demonstrate the factuality of those facts, unfortunately as I have shown the ONE thing you linked to actually supports the point that the rest of us have been making.

    “Anal intercourse is THE RISKIEST form of sexual activity…”

    Facts are facts, Dr. Trabue.

  157. Of course, this little factual error keeps slipping your mind, you said, and I quote.

    “Craig…

    in reality marriage has not proven to inhibit promiscuity in the gay community. ”

    Now I could say that since I literally factually didn’t say this that I’ll refuse to answer any further questions etc until you correct your mistake and beg forgiveness. Or I could just say, sorry not me.

    Now, is it really that hard to admit that you attributed someone else’s comment to me? I guess it is.

  158. paynehollow says:

    Craig, clearly I typed “Craig” where I meant “John.” My apologies, a simple typo.

    As to the all things in moderation quote, I appear to be mistaken.

    Again, a simple mistake. My apologies, no harm intended.

    See how it’s done?

    ~Dan

    • I dont think the ‘all things in moderation’ quote was a mistake. I think you are so biblically illiterate you really believed it was taught. Someone familiar with the bible (i.e., actually reads it) would know thats not in the bible.

  159. paynehollow says:

    John, you have never thought something was in the Bible that wasn’t? Beyond that, it’s not an irrational teaching, do you think? It sounds biblical and I made a mistake. My apologies.

    But I really don’t think you want to get in a biblical pissing match with me. As poor a student as I may be when it comes to the Bible, I am quite confident that my 50 years of Bible study trump your biblical knowledge.

    But rather than making it a pissing match, could we not gracefully admit that we all need to learn more of the Bible and its message of grace, forgiveness and love?

    I may be a lot of things, John, but biblically illiterate is not one of them. Human, imperfect, in need of wisdom and grace? Yes, yes, and yes. But not biblically illiterate.

    ~Dan

    • Whoa John – look out! Trabue’s 50 years of “study” will trump YOUR biblical knowledge!

      Oh, and he ISN’T biblically illiterate! He just understands it differently than 2000 years of Christian scholarship.

      Of course, he thinks he trumps all the scholars who say the Bible is perspicuous when it says homosexual behavior is a sin. What an arrogant man he is! Sounds like the typical Jehovah’s Witness leader!

    • I used to think things were in the bible but werent…and then I read it.

  160. “it’s not an irrational teaching, do you think? ”

    Actually, it’s kind of irrational if you think about it. It seems like there are a number of things (which invalidates the word “everything) that are distinctly harmful even in small doses. I’m sure you could probably come up with a list after a little google search.

    As I’ve had plenty of situations where I’ve admitted where I’ve been wrong, I’m not sure that your example is all that impressive, especially since it took a couple of mentions for you to take care of it. But, hey, at least you did recognize your mistake and fix it.

    When you speak of the Bible and it’s message “of grace, forgiveness and love”, is this what you meant?

    “But I really don’t think you want to get in a biblical pissing match with me. As poor a student as I may be when it comes to the Bible, I am quite confident that my 50 years of Bible study trump your biblical knowledge.”

    Obviously humility is one of your strong suits.

    John, I will say that despite this most recent boo-boo, I’d agree that Dan is not Biblically illiterate.

  161. Dan,

    I’m pretty sure in a comment within the last week or so you boasted of having studied the Bible for 45 years, I could be wrong. But it does beg the question how old are you if you have 45-50 years of Bible study experience?

  162. paynehollow says:

    50 years old. My parents and sunday school teachers read, taught and sung the Bible to me my first five years and I’ve read it myself ever since (admittedly, a “children’s Bible” with pictures when I was 5, 6, 7-ish).

    Yes, it was perhaps wrongly proud of me to make that claim and if I erred, I apologize.

    It just is problematic to me that “he disagrees with me” is equated to “he doesn’t believe the Bible or love God” and “he made a mistake” is equated to “he is biblically illiterate…”

    I beg your collective pardons for any mistakes I have made, for any offense I caused unintentionally or any questions I may have missed.

    I pray that we all will embrace grace, show a bit of respect in our disagreements and find joy in the Way.

    Peace,

    Dan

    • So you claim to have “studied” the bible for your entire life and still thought “everything in moderation” was in there? That you thought this discredits your claims to be a serious bible student.

      I bet you think “God helps those who help themself” is in there too.

    • So it counts as “studying the Bible” when one is being read to by parents and when one looks at children’s versions?!?! I think he’s still stuck in children’s versions, which might explain why he can’t understand what the Bible really says!

      Well, I started SERIOUS study in the fall of 1973 (when I was 21) and became a believer because of it in January 1974. Since that time I have been a very serious student of the Bible. SO that makes 40 years of real adult studying. My first in-depth study after coming to Christ was so I could be able to reach Mormons – because I had left the Mormon church almost two years earlier and wanted to get the truth to them. THAT is what started me studying apologetically and why I’ve been doing apologetics since I was saved!

      And even then I would never even THINK about telling someone, “my 40 years of study trumps YOUR knowledge any day!” How do you KNOW what the other person’s credentials are?!?!?!

  163. I guess waiting for evidence to support the position that anal sex is good in moderation is not forthcoming.

    But a few questions anyway.

    Dan, you seem to be supporting anal sex as a physically and emotionally healthy and good expression of sexuality, can you provide any sort on objective evidence for this view?

    It seems as though you think that anal sex can be good, is this opinion based on your personal experience? If you have no experience, why haven’t you tried it if it is good in moderation?

    If you have tried it, have you been the giver or receiver?

    Would you encourage your children to explore this particular aspect of sexual expression? Would you encourage moderation?

    Inn anal sex terms how would you define moderation? In other words how many episodes per week would you consider to be beyond the healthy moderation you speak of?

    On what basis did you arrive at the number that you believe to be healthy moderation?

    Why do you seem to be so willing to argue in favor of anal sex being a good, healthy and non harmful thing?

    Do you think that when folks engage in anal sex that they should follow the Biblical saying about cleanliness being next to Godliness in order to mitigate the possibility of disease?

    Thanks in advance for your answers.

  164. paynehollow says:

    As it happens, I became a Christian in 1973, Glenn, at the age of ten. But I really began to study in earnest starting at the age of 16, so if you want to count then as when I started “studying” the Bible, that’s fine. I will note, though, that my very good Southern Baptist Church and my parents and church family when I was a child took Bible study seriously. I was in SS every Sunday, listening in church in the morning service and evening service, attending children’s bible clubs when I was a child, youth Bible clubs when I was a youth, taking part in Sword Drills and reading the Bible at home. At 16 – before I had even begun to study in earnest – I was often able to compete against the Seminary educated Youth Ministers in games of Bible trivia or Quick Recall. Which is not to heap praise on me, but to point out how seriously the Baptist church at least used to take Bible study. My ultimate point was simply that I’m not unfamiliar with biblical teaching. Just, as a matter of fact.

    And one of those teachings is that we are all human and prone to make mistakes, that now, we see as through a glass, darkly.

    Another of those teachings is to, when we disagree, to disagree respectfully – to avoid quarreling and show PERFECT courtesy towards all people, even those we disagree with.

    Yet another is to forgive when people apologize – even seven times seventy.

    Yet another is to be humble in all things, that pride cometh before a fall.

    Yet another teaching that I learned, although not through the Bible directly, was the notion of the logical error of ad hom attacks. Let your argument stand on its own merits, be prepared to make a defense for your positions without engaging in attacks on the one with whom you disagree.

    My only point, Glenn, was that I’m not biblically illiterate. And if I’m not mistaken, John is a rather young man, so if nothing else, I knew that I had been studying the Bible longer and, again, was taking issue with such a young man suggesting I was biblically illiterate, when I was studying the Bible before he was in his diapers, most likely.

    ~Dan

  165. paynehollow says:

    Craig, I have a hard time believing you seriously want me to keep answering questions from you. And especially questions of a personal nature.

    Have a bit of good taste.

    I will say this: When it comes to what people do in their bedroom, you’d be best off minding your own business. The Bible warns against being a busybody, a gossip and a meddler, those are some other teachings I’ve learned from the Bible.

    ~Dan

    • Dan
      Reading, listening, and memorizing passages is NOT necessarily serious study. Most Christians do that, and I can tell from experience that most Christians I know who have done exactly as you describe have very little discernment and lack real understanding in much of what they are reading. As John said, all that doesn’t equate to knowledge.

      I’m not talking about memorizing (although I have about 500 passages memorized for use with cults and false teachers), or just reading and listening. I’m talking about serious in depth study so as to understand how the original authors meant it and how the original audiences understood it, seeking the nuances of the Hebrew and Greek when compared to the English translations, reading and studying the great Christian scholars over the centuries, sitting in classes under some of the great teachers of the day, reading commentaries from all perspectives, studying the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers, etc.

      I think you are indeed “Biblically illiterate” – you may perhaps be able to read what it says, but you have demonstrated way too many times on way to many blogs that you do not understand it as it was written – either that or you dismiss it with your own ideas of what you think the authors SHOULD have said. You practice eisegesis on a level with any cult leader or false teacher. Which is why I can say whole-heartedly that you have a god made in YOUR own image.

      And for the record, from the last few years of reading what YOU write and how you interpret the Bible, versus what John writes and how he interprets the Bible, I’d say John is substantially far above you in Biblical knowledge – you can’t hold a candle to him.

  166. paynehollow says:

    John…

    Studying longer doesn’t mean more wise or knowledgeable. ..As we’ve seen.

    No, but certainly studying any text for decades indicates that someone can’t possibly be illiterate about that text, the false claim that you made. And as I learned in the Bible, we should not make false claims.

    • And as I learned in the Bible, we should not make false claims.

      Look in the mirror, bub. You make false claims all the time about what Scripture says about homosexual behavior, let alone a host of other things.

    • just because you say you’re not biblically illiterate doesn’t make my claim false. After all, after 45 years of “serious study” you thought “everything in moderation” was in the bible, and it isn’t. I think my assessment is spot on. How funny is it that me, a “young man” knew it wasn’t biblical as soon as you wrote it?

  167. Dan, You have a serious problem (not ad homonym). The problem is that you claim to know the bible. Fine. I, for one do not want to get into that sort of pissing match. But you defend homosexuality, something that is clearly frowned upon in the bible! Whatever “inconsistencies” people find there, God’s stance on homosexuality is simply not one. It’s not the least bit wishy-washy. It’s perfectly clear.

    Why must you defend it? Some understanding of what it means to be Christ-like? Jesus, HIMSELF, forgave the adulteress and the thieves at His side at His crucifixion. And so should we! I do.

    But defending adultery and theft is clearly NOT Christ-like. Why then defend homosexual acts?

    I’ll be honest. I’ve had doubts about you being who you say you are. But IF you are a Christian, brother, you have a problem.

  168. Dan,

    You can choose which of the questions are not too personal to answer, it’s just that it seems to me that when someone is this committed to defending something when the actual evidence goes against him, that there might be some other motivation. I was simply asking questions to attempt to discern what is behind your tenacious desire for anal sex to be healthy and not harmful. If you choose to be selective, fine. I have no problem with that.

    Or you could just deal with all the comments I’ve made that you’ve ignored, either one is fine.

    John, If you think my questions crossed a line please feel free to delete as much of the comment as you please. Again, I’m just trying to separate the truth, from what seems to be the case.

  169. Dan,
    I just re looked at the questions, I can see that 2 of them might get into areas that would be two personal. Also, I can see that one might make you uncomfortable. But the rest are clearly based on what seems to be your unwavering defense of anal sex as a good, healthy and wholesome thing despite the evidence to the contrary.

    Feel free to choose not to answer the personal ones, I think the uncomfortable one has probative value, but if you’d rather not I’ll understand.

  170. paynehollow says:

    I have NOT said that anal sex is good, healthy or wholesome. I’ve said it’s a matter of personal taste, as are other sexual positions. (As an aside question that you most likely won’t answer, what OTHER sexual positions are you staking our a position on?)

    I REALLY don’t want to get into what people do in their bedrooms. I have made it clear that IF a couple wants to engage in a behavior that might be harmful, I would expect them to research the practice and inform themselves of the risk and make rational adult decisions. I have said that I would discourage behavior that is harmful. I have said that, if there is SOME risk involved, then I would expect adults to weigh that and make their decision.

    If you look at my actual words, I expect you all could learn my actual positions and maybe – MAYBE – successfully be able to restate them correctly, without making the many many mistakes and misrepresentations you make.

    Craig, re: “the questions you have ignored…” funny. Really funny.

    C2C…

    It’s not the least bit wishy-washy. It’s perfectly clear.

    Why must you defend it? Some understanding of what it means to be Christ-like? Jesus, HIMSELF, forgave the adulteress and the thieves at His side at His crucifixion. And so should we! I do.

    But defending adultery and theft is clearly NOT Christ-like. Why then defend homosexual acts?

    Because, c2c, I do NOT think that homosexual acts are in any way equal to adultery or theft. The thing is, friend, even though you are certain that your position is not in mistake, not everyone agrees. Christians of good faith simply have other opinions.

    I defend marriage for all people because I believe marriage to be a moral good – for straight or gay folk. I defend my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters because they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I disagree with the traditional view for one simple reason, c2c: Because I think it is mistaken. BECAUSE I value biblical teachings, because I value striving to walk in the steps of Jesus and the ways of God, I disagree with opinions that I think are mistaken.

    Now, I know (I’m relatively sure, based on what you have said) that you sincerely don’t think people COULD really believe what I believe, but in fact, I honestly sincerely do believe just what I say I believe. Now, I could be mistaken, but I’m not making things up. This is honestly my sincere position, based on Bible study and prayer and seeking God’s way.

    Any of us can be mistaken, but I hope you can see that people might honestly disagree.

    Peace out, my brothers,

    Dan

    • Dan said: I REALLY don’t want to get into what people do in their bedrooms.

      However this entire thread is Dan telling us how we’re wrong and should care about what gay people do in their bedrooms (and bathroom stalls) and accept it as godly behavior, that we should care about it.

  171. Seems to me that Craig’s questions are appropriate given the position that the particular act in question can be done without or with less risk if done “in moderation”. That “in moderation” is the point around which all Craig’s questions revolve. Dan is always concerned about harm. We’ve maintained that harm is inevitable within a homosexual episode, or that the risk of the act in question cannot be performed without a high degree of risk. How can anyone suggest that harm can be mitigated without any clear idea of how? The point was made (and well supported) that the harm inherent in the act cannot be eliminated. That makes it a harmful activity and a good reason to encourage avoidance at all costs.

    All this talk of risk suggests that one could continue playing with fire if one wears a flame retardant suit. But risk still exists and few would suggest “playing” with fire is a good idea or worthy of support.

  172. paynehollow says:

    Marshall, there is risk in driving cars. Tens of thousands people are killed in the US every year from cars. Millions of people in the US are maimed and harmed from car wrecks. Damage is done to our air, water and ground, increasing risks of asthma and toxic poisoning.

    The CDC says that STDs cost an estimated $17 billion a year.

    The AAA estimates that car wrecks (wrecks alone, not counting the pollution costs or just maintenance costs or health costs, etc) costs $164 billion a year.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB120468598041712629

    The CDC says that an estimated 15,529 people with an AIDS diagnosis died in 2010.

    Over 30,000 people die each year in the US from car wrecks.

    Given that the threat from cars is much worse than sex, do you feel it necessary to advise adults of these risks? Do you think they should stop driving because of these very real risks and costs and deaths?

    Or do you think we should continue playing with fire if one wears a flame retardant suit?

    (Oh, and much of the harm done in car wrecks is to innocent bystanders, not willing participants who chose to take any risks they might have taken).

    My position is that I would discourage – consistently – anyone who asked my opinion from taking risks. But, at the same time, for people making decisions about their own personal “risks,” I am much less concerned than those who take risks and bring costs to other people’s lives.

    But tell me: Are you all consistent? Are you twice as worried about telling people the driving risks that exist as you are for the sex risks they might risk?

    ~Dan

  173. paynehollow says:

    At a guess, you all aren’t consistent. At a guess, you all don’t worry anywhere NEAR as much about the risks of car driving (risks largely to others, in addition to the driver) as you do about the perceived risks of some sex practices. In fact, at a guess, you all would RESENT people pointing out the risks of car driving, maybe even call such a meddler a communist or America-hater for that. But you tell me. Are you twice as concerned about the greater risk involved with driving?

    ~Dan

  174. Dan,

    Answer the questions don’t answer the questions, whatever. It seems like you have chosen to slink away since you have nothing concrete to rebut the actual medical evidence provided. Now, it seems to me that you are attached to this position that anal sex does not cause harm, and it seems that there no reason for you to be this attached. You could help to clarify this by answering some questions, but that’s your choice.

    ” I’ve said it’s a matter of personal taste, as are other sexual positions. (As an aside question that you most likely won’t answer, what OTHER sexual positions are you staking our a position on?)”

    Clearly this is a sign of desperation. To simply equate anal sex with different sexual positions is disingenuous in the extreme. This is either the second or third time Dan has moved the goal posts in this one thread.

    As an aside I’m not staking a position on any sexual positions since the different positions that a male/female couple might engage in are fundamentally different and in no way comparable to anal sex. For the record I do agree that anal sex is risky independent of the context (M/F, M/M, F/F).

    “If you look at my actual words, I expect you all could learn my actual positions…”

    Obviously not, since your mutating positions have raised questions about your positions.

    It seems that you position is that you acknowledge some small degree if inherent risk in anal sex, you feel (without any support or evidence) that anal sex loses it’s risk if practiced infrequently, (although you won’t clarify what level of frequency you feel to be an acceptable level of risk), and that anal sex loses it’s risk if it is practiced infrequently within some sort of marriage arrangement (again with no support that demonstrates how marriage reduces the inherent risk). It also seems that you feel that your providing one link that actually supports everyone else’s point (as has been demonstrated by actually quoting from the piece), is sufficient for you to “prove” your hunch. Especially if by “prove” you mean undermine.

    So, go ahead, answer, don’t answer, I don’t really care.

    I also promise not to do a blog post based on your inconsistency.

  175. Yet one more goal post move, this has to be a new record.

    The glaring flaw in this new glaringly bad analogy is that no one here is denying that there is risk in driving cars.

    The other flaw is the presumption that people are unaware of the risks posed by driving.

    But hey, if only people would just engage in married driving, then the risk becomes almost nil.

  176. What’s more, the fact is that the proper use of cars does not provide much risk (aside from mechanical failures unforeseen). But there is no proper use of the body parts to eliminate the harm from anal sex.

  177. The driving comparison doesn’t quite do it. Wrecking cars is what puts us at risk of bodily harm. It is wise to avoid crashing your car if avoiding bodily harm is your value. There are people who wreck cars on purpose. Stunt drivers, for example. They risk bodily harm for a living by using a car improperly.

    Still, the possibility of them getting hurt alone doesn’t make stunt driving immoral.

    Neither does the risks one takes when practicing anal sex alone make it immoral. There’s more to it.

  178. Despite the misleading numbers provided, driving in and of itself not necessarily dangerous. Even if you include accidents, the majority of the “damage” is to property, not people.

    The problem with the driving numbers is (and this is quite common on the left), that you have to account for the number of vehicle miles driven rather than to simply look at the out of context raw numbers.

    I’d be interested to do the research on the 15k+ AIDS number and correlate that number to various behaviors. I’d be willing to bet that even after all these years that the most common risk factors will include anal sex and drug use.

  179. Here’s another reason why Dan’s auto analogy is so unsurprisingly wrong: The stats he uses does not account for the fact that of the AIDS numbers, we’re talking about costs and numbers of deaths within a tiny percentage of the population. That is to say that most people are not so promiscuous (or homosexual) to ever contract the virus. Who is accounting for those numbers in financial and human lives? Mostly homosexuals, bi-sexuals and the heterosexuals whose own promiscuity put them in contact with (directly or indirectly) those who carried the virus.

    But the numbers put forth regarding risks of driving cover the entire population of drivers in this country, including all those who contracted and died from AIDS. That is to say, the percentage of people affected by auto accidents is far smaller than the percentage of homosexuals, drug users and the few others who contracted and died from AIDS. Another way to understand this is that the CDC states that of all the new syphilis cases, over 60% come from that 2% of the population who like to pretend they are so put upon by most of the other 98%. That is to say, homosexuals.

  180. Another problem with the driving analogy that driving has benefits that seem to outweigh the risks.

    The ability to drive allows people to access jobs, food, distant family, medical services, and any number of things that are positive to both the individual as well as society.

    In contrast, the best you can say about anal sex is that it provides some degree of sexual satisfaction for the two participants.

    So, we can contrast something with wide ranging benefits with something that at best provides a short term transitory “benefit” while running a high risk of long term harm.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Hat tip for the link to the voter registration site: Sifting Reality […]

Any Thoughts?

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

%d bloggers like this: