Discussion

• April 12, 2007

  8:06 AM

  Julio Gomez writes:

  Another example of left wing extremists forcing laws onto the public when they can't win at the ballot box.
  

• April 12, 2007

  8:23 AM

  Tbone writes:

  Well, this should be good.

  OH NO! THE GAYS ARE COMING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! HIDE THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN! ITS THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!

• April 12, 2007

  8:27 AM

  Rich Hulten writes:

  Another reason why I moved out of Colorado.
  I find it interesting that this "special interest" group has found a way to be recognized by having a tantrum just like a little kid. AND HAS WON! Well, Colorado you have finally been Californicated. Enjoy and as the Madagascar penguin said, "Smile and wave boys, smile and wave." And I agree with Julio.

• April 12, 2007

  8:29 AM

  chris writes:

  Unreal.

  We just voted this crap down with Ref. I and the very next year they bring back up and try to force it down the voters' throats. I certainly hope people are paying attention to all of this. And, fortunately, I think they are. Democrats will be shocked in 2008 when they get run out of office for their heavy-handed secular extremism.

• April 12, 2007

  8:33 AM

  Julio Gomez writes:

  T-bone- You so funny. Love the jokes? how about some "nappy headed hos" jokes.
  Try to maintain some semblance of intelligence in a discussion. Thanks.
  

• April 12, 2007

  8:35 AM

  JD writes:

  Julio and Chris are both correct. But I guess it's what we deserve for electing Dems to the Senate, House and Guv...

  Sad... Very, very sad.....

• April 12, 2007

  8:38 AM

  666 writes:

  I think that a child would be safer adopted by a same-sex couple than if they were adopted by a child-molesting priest.

  All of the ignorant holier-than-thou idiots who are shouting this down are just ashamed of their own failings as parents, as spouses, and as human beings. You're afraid that, if given the chance, same-sex couples could prove to be better parents than you.

  Christianity is a religion of hate in this country. Politicians, bible-thumping preachers, ignorant protestors...if Jesus existed, he'd wipe you all off the face of the earth in contempt. You are hardly examples of morality and virtue...more like hatred and evil cruelty.

• April 12, 2007

  8:40 AM

  666 writes:

  I think that a child would be safer adopted by a same-sex couple than if they were adopted by a child-molesting priest.

  All of the ignorant holier-than-thou idiots who are shouting this down are just ashamed of their own failings as parents, as spouses, and as human beings. You're afraid that, if given the chance, same-sex couples could prove to be better parents than you.

  Christianity is a religion of hate in this country. Politicians, bible-thumping preachers, ignorant protestors...if Jesus existed, he'd wipe you all off the face of the earth in contempt. You are hardly examples of morality and virtue...more like hatred and evil cruelty.

• April 12, 2007

  8:48 AM

  Leo writes:

  Julio-
  Get off your fake horse and tell us why you are better than a gay person? Why would you, who ever you are be a better parent?

• April 12, 2007

  8:54 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  For those "Republicans" who voted
  for Democrats this past election to
  "teach my party a lesson". How do
  you like the results? Also, it is hard
  enough being a kid growing-up
  in our wierd culture; isn't it just a bit
  much for a boy or girl to have to
  introduce their "folks" as "Mom and
  Mom", or "Dad and Dad"? Might
  work in California or the Republic of Boulder, but will never "play" in
  Peoria; or most other places
  "regular" folks live. Thanks for reading. Jimbo

• April 12, 2007

  9:07 AM

  x writes:

  Just read the word of GOD, The Holy Bible. Homosexuality is clearly, simply condemned. You can't go against God's word. If you do there is only one way to go, Damation=HELL! You can't fight Divine Positive Law, and natural law. If you are a GOOD CHRISTIAN you'll clearly understand this. America is falling and the reason is simple.

• April 12, 2007

  9:09 AM

  WhoAmI writes:

  Fine, and we all better be prapared for the lawsuits from these adopted kids 20 or 30 years from now when they claim, "What the hell were you all thinking way back in 2007 by allowing gay people to adopt me?? My life has been ruined by this and I do not know who I am and what my real sexual identity is. Can I have $1 million please??"

• April 12, 2007

  9:14 AM

  Rich Hulten writes:

  666 I'll take issue with you, since you have attempted to draw attention with your ignorant, one sided tirade. Throughout history religion has attempted to teach morality. The Jews knew this and Moses is attributed to getting the Ten Commandments. Even back then people's baser instincts drove them. I'll not trouble you with historical instances, but offer you the chance to discover them. Child molesting priests have been "discovered" because the Catholic Church pays better than other religions. Jesus wouldn't "wipe out" any particular group of people. He'd let them destroy themselves with their own vitriol. As far as same sex couples raising children...Let me ask you a question or two. Has anyone looked farther down the road farther than their own selfishness? What do you expect to produce? Life is not a Billy Crystal TV show created by Hollywood's loose grasp of reality. And to rebut your last accusation about "hated and evil cruelty." By using the words that you have chosen, you are putting yourself at risk of being called a shrill harpy and will, in time, isolate yourself from society. Not a good position to be in if you want to raise society above its present state. I think that the Democratic agenda in Denver has gone to far by still allowing the the same behavior in the downtown bathhouses. And I know first hand of men being unconcerned about who catches their STD's. AIDS comes immediately to mind. They let the CDC make the telephone calls. Please rethink you comments and rejoin this group with more substantial words.

• April 12, 2007

  9:15 AM

  JW writes:

  Actually, Kids of gay parents have no problem with two dads or moms. Untill they hit jr high, they really dont even know its different. As with racism, this kind of "hate" is learned.

  And this bill is not JUST about same sex couples. Its about allowing two people to have legal rights and responsibilities for a child they are raising together even if they are not married. Gay, straight, it doesnt matter.

• April 12, 2007

  9:23 AM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Hey voters get what they elect. If this is the will of the people there in nothing anyone can do but to try again in 2008. Republicans have only themselves to blame if they cannot offer a better alterntive than this.

• April 12, 2007

  9:24 AM

  xy writes:

  This is just wrong. Not one positive thing can come out of this. I hope the decent citizens of Colorado will stand up and recall Mr. Ritter and vote out the liberals running this state right into the ground.

• April 12, 2007

  9:33 AM

  JB writes:

  Wow I read these comments and I shouldn't be shocked but I am. Christians who are supposed to be about love one another are so into hate. The bible says Homosexuality is a sin. It also says women should be treated like cattle and so on... What a bunch of crock. You all are so brain washed. Everyone deserves to have the same rights under the laws of this country. We are law abiding citizens who want to adopt the children we are caring for and love as our own. We are not child molestors any more than a Straight father is always going to molest his daughters. To lump all gays under the child molestor tag is simply ignorant and hateful. I hope your God is paying attention to how much hate you have and how you are not spreading his real message to love everyone.

• April 12, 2007

  9:34 AM

  James M. Holmes writes:

  Good. It is about time the fear and ignorance is being confronted about gay people.

  On one hand, I can understand the arguement that these children could have some problems with having to explain "dad and dad or vise-versa" growing up and they may have some harrassment because of it. This is a legit worry and definitly a something that needs to be taken into account.

  But on the other hand, there are too many unloved and unwanted children in this country and homosexual people can provide a loving and caring home for these children. I don't see how that could be a bad thing. In my opinion it is better to have a loving home with some people who happen to be gay then growing up on the streets unloved and unwanted. We have too many people in the later group filling our jails right now.

  I have a friend who had both his parents break up and both came "out of the closet" shortly after. They were both gay and were hiding who they were for years. It caused some problems in the beginning, but my friend will be the first to tell you they were both great parents to him and his siblings. He is, to this day, a very confident, "normal" and successful man and has a very good relationship with both his parents... and he wasn't "turned gay" because of it.

  Unfortanatly, I see this post being filled will homophobic losers (who are probably insecure in their own sexuallity) spewing their ignorant fear of these people throughout the day. I would hope people who chime in today will be willing to look at both sides of this debate and try not to de-humanize people who they see as "different". There are legitimate concerns on both sides of this debate and I know alot of conservatives (especially the bible-thumpers who supposidly believe in love of ALL mankind, but rarely practice it ) are going to cry the sky is falling. I would like to just point out, that conservatives are supposed to believe in getting the government OUT of peoples lives. The make-up of one's family and who they love should NEVER be the government's business. EVER!

• April 12, 2007

  9:34 AM

  Jim writes:

  What happened to the filibuster Republicans? Is it not still a parliamentary move to halt/delay an act as grievous as this law? Another step by liberals to reach their utopia and screw this country in the process, and all I'm hearing is vocal opposition with no action! Step up to the plate and exhaust all means afforded you.

• April 12, 2007

  9:41 AM

  tooty frooty writes:

  Total crap and agenda. Renfroe is right ,it is an attack on the traditional family. This should only be allowed under very narrow circumstances, such if the child is a blood relative. That sets okay.

  If the child is not related by blood and a very closerelative. No adoptive rights. If gays have no children, that too bad.

• April 12, 2007

  9:46 AM

  lr writes:

  This isn't about the "gay agenda." This in about protecting children.

  I have a friend who is raising her grandchild while her drug addict son is off committing crimes and doing time. She cannot get state benefits for him and cannot place him on her insurance.

  This law would make their lives much easier. With this law, she would be able to adopt him as a second parent without going through a lengthy court process of terminating her son's parental rights. The boy's mother died a year after he was born and she is the only mother he has known. Nothing will prevent the boy being taken away from her on a whim by her degenerate son. What kind of life would that lead to for this boy? Why wouldn't we as a community say to this boy, "we'll do everything in our power to protect you and give you a stable life."

  Ignorance and fear is driving most comments on this page. It's time to look at the big picture. Don't miss the forest because you're looking at one tree.

• April 12, 2007

  9:47 AM

  666 writes:

  Rich Hulten

  Since you have "taken issue with me" but have yet to produce any kind of rational, logical refutal, I might as well play along, if only out of pity.

  It's foolish to talk of morality in regards to a religion that has a history of torturing and killing people for simply being accused of having sinned, let alone actually committing the sins. We're talking about a religion that has historically criminalized the killing of the faithful, but condoned the killing of those not of the faith. A religion in which forgiveness was purchased from the church leaders with coin, instead of being earned by redeeming oneself.

  This is a religion in which the moral failings of the faithful are a cause for minor concern, whereas the sincere desire of others to live peaceful, fulfilling lives is curtailed by the fact that the faituful don't even recognize those folks' right to even exist. A religion where the real basic facts of the universe are condemned in favor of a fractured, fairy tale interpretation of history and reality. This is the religion of self-contradiction and hypocrisy.

  Rich, your rebuttal is haphazard and weak, and makes some grossly insupportable assumptions. Your mention of STDs in connection with the "Democratic agenda" illustrates your weak grip on morality, as well as your penchant for defaming something you don't understand by making medieval assumptions.

  And you may think that my talk of hatred and cruelty is self-contradictory, given my tone, but I am not part of the social and political movement whose goal is to, by law, restrict the very existence of certain people just because they're different. The entire anti-gay movement is less about morality than about using religion as an excuse for hate. You expend far more effort to prevent any kind of same-sex lifestyle, while by comparison turning a blind eye to the hideous immorality of your fellow faithful. "Morality" is more than praying when you're supposed to and hating the people and things that the Bible tells you to. Christians didn't invent morality, they just used it as an excuse to conquer their enemies.

• April 12, 2007

  9:51 AM

  Disappointed writes:

  I see a lot of trash talking on both sides of this argument, it is a shame we are not looking at what is best for the children.

  Life for these children is already chaotic but throwing a gay mom and dad into the mix makes it even worse for them.

  I try to vote for the best representative each election year but I guess I will have to reconsider this strategy and vote my faith next time.
  

• April 12, 2007

  9:52 AM

  Rich Hulten writes:

  JB I need to speak to you. The predominant fear is that children need to see normality in their lives. At home and school. Peer pressure pushes middle school kids many ways. Sooner or later the parents will have to enter the child's public life. And I'll have to ask you the same question that I've asked 666, "Is it that you want to raise an asset to the community or is this for your own selfish reasons?" I think it may be to push your views on society and eventually there will be victims on the beaches of our society.

• April 12, 2007

  9:56 AM

  jay writes:

  Religion should never be justification for discrimination. If yours is encouraging it...find another if you absolutely need to have one.

• April 12, 2007

  9:58 AM

  Rich Hulten writes:

  666, I quit. Your eloquence and points are to be considered. Enjoy life in the big city that you are creating.Make sure you show this concession to all your friends.

• April 12, 2007

  10:01 AM

  666 writes:

  Look who thinks they can define "normal" in accordance with their beliefs. Everyone thinks they can define the things they approve of as "normal", and everything else as "wrong". Typical 12th century logic, Rich.

  What's more selfish than wanting the entire world to be restricted and mandated by their own prejudices? Just because you yourself don't subscribe to something doesn't mean that you have a right to ban it. And allowing it to exist is not any violation of your beliefs. You yourself are not being required to be gay. All that is asked of you is that you not threaten the well-being of people that have nothing to do with you, whose lives only affect you because you won't stop meddling in their lives.

• April 12, 2007

  10:08 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Pushing views on Society. It seems that is what you are trying to do. I can't say that there isn't a little selfishness involved. I will say that it is better for a child to be raised by one loving, caring person than to be left alone in the foster system. What happens to the kids then? I will take my chances that raising a kid in a loving safe environment allows them to grow up to be productive members of society.

• April 12, 2007

  10:10 AM

  PTD writes:

  I find it so hypocritical that all these people write in an say how bad it it is that a Gay couple want to raise a child! They use religion as a basis for all their beliefs yet the ratio of happy marriages gets lower every year. Divorce is a terrible trauma to any child .No one trys to stop anyone thats been divorced from adopting or extending rites.. Talk about BIG MOUTH hypocrits!!!!!!!
  Its so unbelievable that so many STRAIGHT people think they know everything about any subject......Get your facts straight.....and get married before you have children and financially support any child you have.!!!!!!!

• April 12, 2007

  10:14 AM

  Jim writes:

  Ir,
  Your friend has the ability/right to file for gardianship of her grandson under current law. Given the state of her son, there shouldn't be a problem. As for this bill, when.... rather, IF it passes, it will not make it any easier for her to receive the help you stated. She would still need to be declared the legal gardian. this bill does nothing but give gays the right to adopt and file for govenrment handouts. Which, by the way, would reduce the available resources your friend seeks.

• April 12, 2007

  10:19 AM

  Dan Sorrells writes:

  I find it interesting to hear about how this law will further promulgate the "homesexual agenda," and the justification nearly universally used is Biblical. Seems to me that the religious right is the one with the agenda, and that is one of force feeding us their view of Christianity, and further, codifying it into law. I hope this law represents a step toward undoing their intolerant and uncompassionate - truly unChristian - agenda.

• April 12, 2007

  10:19 AM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  JB,

  "The bible says Homosexuality is a sin. It also says women should be treated like cattle and so on... "

  You are correct that the Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin. It also says that fornication and adultery are sins. There is very little moralizing out of many on those subjects.

  It does not in any way shape of form call for the mistreatment of women. it does say just the opposite. Any man who does not love his wife in a self sacrificial way is sinning. Islam does indeed treat women very poorly, but it is politically incorrect to call them to account for their actions.

  Ephesians 5

  25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

  26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

  27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

  28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

  29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

  30because we are members of His body.

  31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.

  
  666,

  I agree with you that families should be the ones who decide where a child is placed for adoption. Unfortunately the government has usurped this role and therefore we have the mess that exists today. Just say no to government totalitarianism.

• April 12, 2007

  10:22 AM

  Call Haggerd, you did before writes:

  I'm enjoying reading the Dobson supporter spews of hatred here. You people have been fu$%ed in brain so hard by your own Church and your own AM HATE RADIO JOCKS you forgot who to hate today.
  Answer "us" this riddle-
  If you are such a good can do nothing wrong Christian, and your spouse that you met at sunday school is such a good can do nothing wrong Christian, then:
  HOW CAN YOUR SEED AND YOUR SPOUSES SEED CREATE A GAY CHILD?
  Quick, call Haggerd and get an answer before he takes his nooner up the poop shoot today.

• April 12, 2007

  10:24 AM

  666 writes:

  Look at Jim, automatically assuming that any gay parent will be a welfare warrior. Any negative assumption you can make, eh, Jim?

  All of the gay people I know are pretty well-off, through hard work and perseverance, which is difficult in the extreme for those of them that are open about it. And that is because of people like Jim and Rich. Those attitudes towards successful gay people are just like the attitudes towards successful women and ethnic minorities 100 years ago.

  If this were 100 years in the past, I'd be willing to bet that Rich and Jim would be arguing against things like women voting and interracial marriage, all for the sake of "tradition". Typical hard-line conservative fear of progress. They're apes clinging to the branches of the trees of the past, refusing to set foot upon the ground and walk upright into the future.

• April 12, 2007

  10:26 AM

  wnc writes:

  A lot of the discussion on these posting revolves around the fact that homosexuality according to the bible is wrong. I as this... the bible also says that to kill is a sin. How then, do all of the Christian naysayer’s in relation to abortion, justify killing doctors for their work in that field. Is this not still killing for a religious agenda? Does this not align Christians with other radical religions that persecute the innocent in the name of their religion?

  Very little has been said about that fact that the average child in a foster home is far more likely to be molested at the hand of the foster parent, or some other child within the care. Little has been said about that fact that these children grow-up feeling so alone and unloved, they are exponentially more likely to commit suicide or find themselves in jail simply to get attention.

  Yes, the best family situation for a child is one with a mother and a father... however, is it not better for these children to have a family versus not? If a couple, whether homosexual or heterosexual can offer a loving home to a child, is this not the better solution?

• April 12, 2007

  10:32 AM

  Fitz writes:

  An all important fact that we need to keep in the forefront of our minds...

  
  “According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.”

  
  Being an adopted child has enough difficulties (not growing up with your own parents) - We should think of the children themselves.

  They are not consumer goods. The state has the right and should put them into homes of married couples so they have a Mother and a Father to model behavior and look up to as examples.

• April 12, 2007

  10:36 AM

  666 writes:

  wnc

  Notice also that the majority of the support of the war is on the religious right. I don't recall the fifth commandment saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill...except for al Qaeda and other suspected terrorists".

  The opposition to same sex adoption is plagued with the same fautly logic as the anti-stem cell movement. Those folks make and spread the false assumtion that "babies" would be killed to enable the research, when in reality the resources that are needed (embryos) are already being thrown in the trash. Stem cell research has nothing to do with abortion but they want people to believe that it does.

  By the same token, the anti-same-sex-adoption people want people to believe that allowing children to learn about and grow up with different kinds of families and lifestyles will make them psycopathic killers or something. And they accuse others of being immoral!

• April 12, 2007

  10:41 AM

  Right Wing Moron writes:

  I'd rather a child grow up with no parents than 2 parents of the same sex.

  Cause the bible says so.

• April 12, 2007

  10:44 AM

  666 writes:

  Fitz ignores the alarming tendency of heterosexual adoptive and foster parents to abuse, torture and molest their kids. Sure, that would be far better than letting them grow up with gay parents who don't mistreat them in any way.

  This isn't about letting same sex couples adopt in order to relieve some burden of unadopted children. This is about allowing same sex couples the same privilege that is frequently abused terribly by hererosexuals. Are you afraid that homosexuals will make the heterosexual parents look bad by comparison?

• April 12, 2007

  10:48 AM

  lesbian writes:

  Once again the brain washed religious groups are trying to force their views onto everyone else. Here is an idea...NOT everyone is a Christian!!! NOT everyone lives their life according to YOUR beliefs! I shouldn't have to live by what YOU think is moral. Keep the government out of my PERSONAL life. As long as no one is getting hurt, then does it really matter? Oh, but if we let gay people adopt then their kids will be made fun of? Yeah, by whose kids? YOURS, because you are all ignorant. Do you let your kids make fun of black people,hispanics, asians, or people with handicaps? NO? Then dont let them make fun of children with two mommies or two daddies!!! Have you noticed that most people who hate gays live little sheltered lives? They are NOT around anybody but people like themselves. You have no clue. If you want a good perspective, why dont you go and find a gay couple with children and talk to them. Ask them how they feel. Instead of just judging them from afar. How about this, I dont think that blue eyed people should have kids with brown eyed people. The kids eyes will come out all confused and they will be made fun of by other kids because their eyes wont match both parents. Stupid. Or my favorite, (made popular in the 60's) Blacks shouldnt marry whites because the kids will grow up all confused and people will make fun of them. GEEZ!! Half of you people are too nosey!! Pay attention to your own lives and try to make your own life better. The world isn't going to end just because a single mom whose husband left her for a younger woman, gets together with another woman, because she is tired of feeling like a second class citizen, and then wants her partner to adopt her child, to make the childs life better!! That my friends is a common problem. Lets not make an amendment to BAN adultery. (The most common breakdown of YOUR HOLY traditional family!) Or the fact that sexual predators and murderers are allowed to get married and make babies. WOW!!! Where are our priorities! My wife is currently pregnant and I hope this bill passes so I can add my child to my work benefits, since my wife is a stay at home mom. But of course you crazy Christians will probably hope that my child just gets sick and dies just because he has two mommies. IDIOTS!! Keep your hate to yourself, let YOUR God judge me when I die, you mean nothing!
  Just remember gays are your teachers, cops, firefighters, preachers, managers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, athletes, realtors,bus drivers, mayors, governers, ect... We are everywhere and we are not going away, so get over it!

• April 12, 2007

  10:50 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Even though I voted against civil unions.I'm not going into my reasoning.I do think children should be in a loving home not foster care or group homes.I think commited couples and single people can make good parents and give these children the one thing they want ,someone to love them.People who adopt have alot of love in their hearts to even consider it. We have so many children waiting for that love I think gay couples can provide a loving home or even a gay single person.Foster care is sometimes more damaging to the child than the situations they came out of.
  The only thing I hope that doesn't happen is people going overseas and adopting ,designer kids like Angelina and Madonna.Though other countries probably won't allow gay couples to adopt.

  I think they can fill a void where married couples who can't have children only want babies.There are alot of older children that need loving homes. I say yes and I think a child won't care about the same sex issue as long as he or she are treated with love and kindness from anyone who adopts them is also willing to undo the damage done to that child already.That is a honorable deed.

• April 12, 2007

  10:52 AM

  jay writes:

  Hogar, does the love in the bible justify the hate or discrimination? As we've established in the past, the bible is a religious text written by men. It is in no way a credible text for information regarding public policy...it is a framework for life, should you choose its path...but not for everyone. As we've also established in the past, you are more than welcome to vote for individuals you believe will legislate from the "Good Book"...and others are welcome to vote for those who keep personal religious beliefs out of policy decisions dealing with the general population. In this case, the Senate has chosen to keep religion out of this policy decision concerning the well-being of children. I applaud their effort to keep religion out of gov't...particularly in cases in which dicrimination is being cloaked in priests' robes. You can certainly disagree, but quoting religious texts, written by men and containing moral inconsistencies isn't helping your cause in justifying your public policy stances.

• April 12, 2007

  10:53 AM

  Fitz writes:

  666

  Obviously your hyperbolic and intellectually unfair individual who puts words in peoples mouths. By way of demonstration I will compare what you said with what I actually wrote.

  We will leave it to the readers of this thread to distinguish between hyperventilating rants by insecure homosexuals and the clear light of reason concerning public policy in adoption law.

  
  (666 writes)
  "Fitz ignores the alarming tendency of heterosexual adoptive and foster parents to abuse, torture and molest their kids. Sure, that would be far better than letting them grow up with gay parents who don't mistreat them in any way."

  With what I actually said....

  (Fitz wrote)
  An all important fact that we need to keep in the forefront of our minds...

  
  “According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.”

  
  Being an adopted child has enough difficulties (not growing up with your own parents) - We should think of the children themselves.

  They are not consumer goods. The state has the right and should put them into homes of married couples so they have a Mother and a Father to model behavior and look up to as examples.

• April 12, 2007

  10:54 AM

  Jeff writes:

  Wow. A lot of opinions here, huh?

  I am a Christian, so those of you already offended can reply that I have no clue, cling to my religion because I am afraid, and that I am a hypocrite.

  Ok, for the rest of you...

  To speak scientifically for a minute, look at the Galapagos Islands as all the proof that you need to discount homosexuality as a choice vs. "born with it". Natural selection tells us that homosexuality would breed itself out as there is NO way for a homosexual couple to produce offspring. That said, the homosexual gene (that doesn't exist anyways) COULDN'T be passed on.

  Regarding these couples raising children, I agree with the comments of Fitz citing the many married couples currently seeking to adopt as they cannot have children of their own. There is not a shortage of heterosexual loving homes for these children to go to. When there is, come talk to me. My religion does drive my thoughts regarding this...and many...topics. But be careful in automatically assuming that makes me an idiot. There is more "proof" to support my views than you may care to get into...

  ...and 666, if you're still reading, don't get going on stem-cell research. Embryonic Stem Cells have cured NOTHING and there is nothing but the hope that they could. On the other hand, Adult Stem Cells have been used to cure different types of disease already. I support Stem Cell research, but not at the cost of life...especially when you cannot prove to me that there is any proof that Embryonic Stem Cells could cure anything.

• April 12, 2007

  10:58 AM

  Jim writes:

  Well 666,
  Thanks for the insight of my psyche. but alas, your wrong. I too know gay people, to include a family member. I have no problem with a person deciding to be gay. They have that right to choose. I base my statement on the bills sponsor Sen. Veiga, who says "same-sex couples, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and other relatives have a hard time getting government benefits and providing health care coverage to children they're raising" Now if this is all shes concerned with, why not broaden current requirements? No, her desire is to main stream gay marriage. She uses this concern as a guise for her agenda. My brother who is both successful and open believes this bill is not needed. But thanks again for correcting me!

• April 12, 2007

  10:58 AM

  lesbian writes:

  Fitz, your an idiot! Its not about homosexuals trying to go and adopt kids out of adoption centers, its about mothers and fathers who maybe already have kids of their own and meet somebody of the same sex who wants to adopt them so they are covered medically and financially. Its about two people, (mainly lesbians) who go to sperm banks to get pregnant, and want the non birthing mother to enjoy the same government rights as well.
  Keep up the hate though I'm sure your God is proud of you. I can't wait until we reach the kingdom of heaven and your God turns out to be a black bi-sexual and this is all a test to see how you treat others who are different from you. Remember, God somehow made man in his image, so there might be some fairies flying around up there!! LOL I hope that when you die and God send a male angel to come and get you, you dont refuse thinking that its a gay guy trying to convert you!

• April 12, 2007

  11:04 AM

  Jeff writes:

  If a homosexual couple makes a choice, they are bound by that choice and the consequences that come with it. That means childless! I don't say that to be mean, but rather to say that there is a consequence to everything we do, every day. If you can't live with the consequence, MAKE A DIFFERENT CHOICE.

  Let me oversimplify...

  I am a Rockies fan...consequences to that choice? Most definately!!!!!

  ...by the way "lesbian", who is showing hate, you or Fitz? I just read both of your posts again and you seem a bit more hateful. And when I say "bit", I mean SIGNIFICANTLY...

• April 12, 2007

  11:07 AM

  JD writes:

  As I read the comments on a very divided topic, the one item lacking is a trust issue. "Gays in the military.. can't trust 'em" or "The gay agenda.. can't trust 'em". They'll raise kids to be gay.. can't trust 'em. Straight parents have gay kids, so why can't gay parents raise straight kids.. oh yeah, can't trust 'em. A bunch of hooey.

  If it's a biblical concern, the man at the gate will be the one to judge, not me.

  My opinion is simple, if gay couples want to marry or adopt, go for it. They should be allowed to suffer and be as frustrated as the rest of us.

• April 12, 2007

  11:09 AM

  JW writes:

  Self-induced ignorance is an UGLY thing.

• April 12, 2007

  11:12 AM

  The Watcher writes:

  666

  I've been following your comments and I think you are my ex-wife. It was a nice argument you were having with Rich H., but you drifted off the point by asserting that he was using religion as a platform. Human morality and decency was his argument. You do sound like he hit a soft spot and I still get thrilled when you get on the soap box. You always did like to be the center of attention. I just wish you wouldn't be so mean.

• April 12, 2007

  11:15 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Hey Jeff,
  Do you not do any research first or do you just make up stuff as you go along. Type in your internet browser "gay animals" and you will find several information on animals. there are over 1,500 species of animals that are either homosexual, bi-sexual, or asexual. But that might just be another gay agenda. Animals cant be gay! oh no there would be NO animals left in the world. WRONG!!!
  And I'm not hateful, I'm just sick and tired of STRANGERS telling me who can and cant love. I am a loving, tax paying never committed a crime woman who is treated like dirt in my own country by my fellow americans who would rather hate me. And by the way for those of you who dont belive your born straight or gay, how about this, Fitz go out tonight and meet a gay guy and try to start a relationship with him. Kiss another man. How would that make you feel? disgusting? Well I feel the same way. I have never liked men in a sexual way. And no I have never been raped or molested and I have a mother and a father. Its just the way I feel, like you. Quit trying to say that gays choose to be this way. We choose to be gay, no more than you choose to be staright.

• April 12, 2007

  11:17 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  when will thumpers like jeff and fritz join us in the 21st century and realize that homosexuality isn't a choice, evolution is real, gravity exists, stem cell research isn't chopping up babies, the earth revolves around the sun, black people have the right to marry white people, women are not chattle, contraception isn't a scheme of the devil, you can't go blind masturbating and god will not fix global warming

• April 12, 2007

  11:21 AM

  666 writes:

  Jeff

  How can embryonic stem cell research produce any results with right-wing primitives preventing it from getting any decent funding? Embryonic stem cell research can't be proven if you won't let anyone prove it.

  Besides, my point still stands. With people holding back the resources needed for the reaearch, the embryos that would be used in research are just being thrown in the trash. The only thing people accomplish by holding back the research is that they prevent the embryos from acheiving any sort of useful purpose at all. Ideology vs. practicality.

  The same thing applies here. How is anyone affected negatively by allowing same sex couples the opportunity to care for and raise a child that has been deprived of its natural parents? You try to make up these grandiose excuses, but it all boils down to the fact that your dislike of homosexuality in general is the only real motive you have. Ideology vs. practicality.

  Honestly, I don't think you realize how foolish it is for people to assume that, if there is indeed a God, that such a being would care so much about the gender or sexual orientation of 2 people who have a commitment to care for each other and for a child that needs to be cared for. For God to exist, that person would need to be so far beyond such petty bigotry that the very idea of such a religious ban on those ideas is self-blasphemous. You're saying that the being that allegedly created the universe, set all the complex machinery of quantum physics and cosmic ecology into motion, is so narrow minded and backwards as to agree with a 2000 year old human prejudice? Are you saying that God is immune to progress? That He believes the world is flat and that it is the center of the universe, that illnesses are caused by demons and the subjective, fickle morality of religion makes any sense at all?

  Seriously...if there is a God, you're making Him out to be quite the primitive, unimaginative being.

• April 12, 2007

  11:23 AM

  Fitz writes:

  “Do you not do any research first or do you just make up stuff as you go along. Type in your internet browser "gay animals" and you will find several information on animals. there are over 1,500 species of animals that are either homosexual, bi-sexual, or asexual. But that might just be another gay agenda. Animals cant be gay! oh no there would be NO animals left in the world. WRONG!!!”

  When my dog humps my leg in does not mean that dogs are “naturally” attracted to legs! The most widespread (dis) information in this genre concerns the “gay” penguins. Two male penguins have been known to nurture (false) eggs(rocks) together & simulate pair bonding – (BUT ONLY) when there are an insufficient number of female penguins to mate with. Obviously this is a manifestation of the drive to reproduce and mating instincts. It is hardly an argument for homosexuality being “natural”.

  
  You should do your research first!

• April 12, 2007

  11:24 AM

  Liberal Butt Shittage writes:

  It's just the latest example of the Liberal agenda to destroy families.

• April 12, 2007

  11:28 AM

  Fitz writes:

  666

  Did you know the embryonic stem cell research is illegal in Germany?

  NOT - deprived of federal funding, NOT - open to other sources of state & private funding. Not legal but unsupported...

  Rather it is completely banned at the federal level from being conducted within Germany.

  
  (hmmmm....why Germany???)
  

• April 12, 2007

  11:31 AM

  666 writes:

  Why the hell is that even relevant? Are we a German colony???

• April 12, 2007

  11:33 AM

  Fitz writes:

  I guess that did a fly by, huh?

• April 12, 2007

  11:41 AM

  james writes:

  Meanwhile the bigoted comments here written by cave dwellers thinking the earth is 10,000 years old and the rapture will happen any day - they fail to see any connection between the headline two paragraphs down "Teen Beaten for being Gay"

  Keep your head and ass in your bible and stop governing the way others live their lives. It simple doesn't effect you. And when you do attempt to control society through your arcane theological nonsense, it results in nothing but evil actions by your "sheeple"

  james www.futuregringo.com

• April 12, 2007

  11:42 AM

  The Watcher writes:

  Fitz,

  That was an interesting reach about stem cell being illegal in Germany. It ain't relevant to this conversation, but I kinda liked my ex-wives answer. She gets rough. "A fly-by" that was cute.

• April 12, 2007

  11:45 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  OK Fitz,
  Like I said its just ANOTHER gay agenda. NONE of it is true, scientists just make this stuff up. Thats why I said go out tonight and meet you a nice young man and have sex with him. Just try it, and if you cant do it, then that must mean you were BORN straight. I will try the same and if I cant do it, what does that mean? I couldnt have been born straight. What do you call it? And please dont say the typical, your confused, you havent met the right man, your ugly ect... I have No problem attracting men, I just dont like men in that type of relationship. In fact most men can't believe that I'm gay, like all gay women are supposed to be ugly, fat and can't attract the opposite sex.
  Maybe one day scientists will figure out that "bizarre" human gay brain disease that causes milions of humans to want to be with the same sex. Its crazy! We all just appeared out of nowhere wanting to be gay! Even if scientists did find a "gay" gene, I'm sure the religious right would just blame it on another "gay" agenda and discredit the scientific facts. Because then the bible would be wrong if we are born gay! You wouldnt be able to talk down to people anymore. What a shame.

• April 12, 2007

  11:46 AM

  Jeff writes:

  Ok, 11:15 and 11:17, at least be brave enough to put down your name if you want to talk...even make one up I suppose!

  I love how I am automatically defined as a hateful bigot because I am a Christian. When did I oppose African Americans voting, define woman as cattle, or question evolution or gravity (clever by the way...actually made me laugh)? I didn't. I don't presume to know everything. (By the way, on evolution, there are many people a heck of a lot smarter than I am that have disproven evolution again and again). What I do know is what the Bible tells me. I have to look at things from that perspective when I consider anything in life. There is sin in my own life, but that doesn't make it right! I need Christ to be redeemed, just like everyone else does. The question each of us must ask is, "Where is MY line? What will I stand for?" Each of us defines that differently, but don't get upset with me because I have limits or rules that I choose to live my life by. I don't let my kid play in the street when he wants to or eat a bunch of candy before bed. Does that make me a bad parent because I have limits? Of course not. That said, when is enough enough for you? Each of us answers that question at some point, but I caution anyone to think that earth is just a big old form of Romp-A-Room and that God gives everyone an "All Access Pass" just because we did what we thought we should do. There are rules. Live by them or don't, but remember there is a consequence for your decision!

• April 12, 2007

  11:49 AM

  lesbian writes:

  James,
  Don't you know that the story about the teen being beaten for being gay was just made up by the Gay agenda!! Come on dude thats not what really happened, he probably tried to hit on the six boys as they were driving by, which gave them reason to kick his ass. Its acceptable. But dont let anyone say "nappy headed ho's!! That's just racist, and black people can't help being black.
  (By the way I am a black, lesbian woman.)

• April 12, 2007

  11:51 AM

  Damon James writes:

  I love reading all these personal attacks. Has nothing to do with any of it. What it comes down to is the will of the people.

  It's nice to know that when the voters vote,
  their voices are not heard. Here, just a year after
  the elections, the defeat of Referendum I and approval of Amendment 43 are just forgotten.

  I know, I know. Neither Ref I or Amendment 43 had
  language concerning children. But you know and I know that the use of children in HB07-1330 is just a way to let loose of Ref I and Amendment 43 in the long run. That liberal judge will make that decision in the future. Funny how things work out. Funny how the voice of voters are gradually falling silent.

  Now we're watching as Democrats align themselves with each other and go against the will of the people. And it's nice to know that the lobbyists who fill the pockets are getting their agenda's across, while the rest of us, who have just votes, are being dumped on. The game continues to play on.

  Don't you love the government?

• April 12, 2007

  11:56 AM

  Jeff writes:

  11:45, pick a name...

  My definition of your choice for homosexuality is just defined as sin. Here's what I mean. I am married, but I have lustful thoughts towards attractive women. I can choose to act on those feelings or not. If I don't choose to act on those feelings, they don't just go away! I have to subdue those feelings and be faithful to my wife. Plain and simple. Your choice of not subduing your feelings of homosexuality are just that...your choice. I don't agree with it, but I will allow you to choose to live your life as you want. I'm just saying that I believe there is a consequence to it, that's all. You don't have to agree with me nor I with you. That's the beauty of it...

• April 12, 2007

  11:58 AM

  Fitz writes:

  1145 (says)

  OK Fitz,
  ”Like I said its just ANOTHER gay agenda. NONE of it is true, scientists just make this stuff up….I'm sure the religious right would just blame it on another "gay" agenda and discredit the scientific facts.”

  No sir …Here is what I said (visa a vie) “gay” animals.

  ""When my dog humps my leg in does not mean that dogs are “naturally” attracted to legs! The most widespread (dis) information in this genre concerns the “gay” penguins. Two male penguins have been known to nurture (false) eggs(rocks) together & simulate pair bonding – (BUT ONLY) when there are an insufficient number of female penguins to mate with. Obviously this is a manifestation of the drive to reproduce and mating instincts. It is hardly an argument for homosexuality being “natural”. ""

  I never said that “Scientists Made this stuff up” because their part of the “gay agenda”. No – what I’m saying is the science says quite a bit MORE about same-sex animal phenomena than is useful to your cause. Rather than being truthful & sophisticated, you misrepresent the science for your own ends.
  The scientist themselves aren’t biased, your interpretation of the data is.
  

• April 12, 2007

  12:05 PM

  chris writes:

  We're going too far off on a tagent here. Let's stick to the debate: should the legislature allow gay couples to adopt?

  It doesn't matter whether or not you are a Christian, a homosexual, a Republican or Democrat. What matter most is if you are a small 'd' democrat.

  Coloradans said no to this sort of dangerous public policy. We said that children have a natural right to a mom and a dad. The problem is that the heavy-handed Democrats are slapping the electorate in the face.

  Let's hope these anti-democratic Democrats get booted out in '08.

• April 12, 2007

  12:08 PM

  jay writes:

  I say this every time this kind of fundie debate comes up.

  You folks on the side of discrimination against homosexuals will be viewed by history the same way we now view those who were against giving women and minorities the right to vote, own land and marry.

  How does that feel...knowing that eventually you'll be thought of in the same light?

• April 12, 2007

  12:12 PM

  chris writes:

  And, Jay, you will be on the same morally regressive bandwagon as it leads this country off a cliff. How does that feel?

  We'll look back on these heady days--full of infanticidal abortion and homosexual 'pride parades'--and we'll look at the people propogating those evils with the same disdain with which we view slave-owners. Standing strong for the traditional family is not discriminatory--it is moral and it is right.

• April 12, 2007

  12:15 PM

  Fitz writes:

  Chris - (you correct this topic is too important to get distracted by their tangents)

  "Let's hope these anti-democratic Democrats get booted out in '08."

  We need to make sure they get booted in 08!!!

  Both recent initiatives show that people think children need Mothers & Fathers and wont settle for imitations.

  Its obvious subterfuge to try and sneak the camels nose under the tent. In a matter of days people will be saying..."well if you let them adopt, then they should get married!!!"

  As I stated before (and always bears repeating)

  “According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.”

  
  Being an adopted child has enough difficulties (not growing up with your own parents) - We should think of the children themselves.

  They are not consumer goods. The state has the right and should put them into homes of married couples so they have a Mother and a Father to model behavior and look up to as examples.
  

• April 12, 2007

  12:17 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  So the lesson from the far religious right is "be a traditional family or else"?

• April 12, 2007

  12:17 PM

  Oh really? writes:

  Jeff says...

  "I need Christ to be redeemed, just like everyone else does".

  Very telling indeed. Sad and pathetic...

• April 12, 2007

  12:22 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  A man and a man, or a woman and a woman can't have child naturally. It's just not the way it works. So, why on earth should you be allowed to adopt?

  
  P.S. Despite all of your denial, being "gay" is a choice.

• April 12, 2007

  12:34 PM

  jay writes:

  "morally regressive bandwagon"?

  That's pretty funny Chris...I'm going to have to start throwing that phrase into the rotation. Your idea of what is morally regressive or evil is borne from your religious beliefs...not facts...and thus still isn't justification for discrimination. It is not your job to be the morality police, no matter what your leaders say on Sundays.

  And hey people...let's sweep clear a with a few myths...

  Homosexuality is no more of a choice than is being born a woman or black...which is why I've asked how you'll feel to be included with notorious company in the pages of history.

  Being unable to naturaly conceive a child isn't a prerequisite for marriage or adoption.

  The bible isn't a divine text. Its words have no credible bearing on public policy...again...no matter what you hear on Sunday.

  I'm not even going to get started on those of you who don't believe in the science of evolution...you know who you are.

• April 12, 2007

  12:40 PM

  am 760 writes:

  Today the right is scared of the gays again. Tomorrow it will be the terrorists. The next day the immigrants. The next day the liberals.
  Hate, smear and fear, all the right has too offer. Your the best righties, keep it up,lol.

• April 12, 2007

  12:41 PM

  Hatred 101 writes:

  I'm enjoying this discussion and the lessons to be learned. My parents were wrong to teach me to love and be kind. Hating is a high, better than drugs, better than porn, better than rap music.

• April 12, 2007

  12:42 PM

  Fitz writes:

  Jay (says)

  “I say this every time this kind of fundie debate comes up.
  You folks on the side of discrimination against homosexuals will be viewed by history the same way we now view those who were against giving women and minorities the right to vote, own land and marry.
  How does that feel...knowing that eventually you'll be thought of in the same light?”

  “The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”

  Rev. Jesse Jackson
  Remarks in an address at Harvard Law School

  “The defense of marriage is not about discrimination. As an African-American, I know something about discrimination. The institution of slavery was about the oppression of an entire people. The institution of segregation was about discrimination. The institution of Jim Crow laws, including laws against interracial marriage, was about discrimination. The traditional institution of marriage is not discrimination. And I find it offensive to call it that. Marriage was not created to oppress people. It was created for children. It boggles my mind that people would compare the traditional institution of marriage to slavery. “

  Senate Testimony of Reverend Richard Richardson
  St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church
  The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston
  Children's Services of Roxbury, Inc.
  Boston, MA

  “Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
  Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
  What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

  Walter Fauntroy
  Former DC Delegate to Congress
  Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus
  Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
  Family in Focus 2/27/04
  

• April 12, 2007

  12:42 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  While we're on the subject of why gays have no place in civilized society:

  http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/topstories_story_102103945.html

• April 12, 2007

  12:44 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Not from the religious right, but from some one with the moral strength to say NO to something so egregious as homosexuality. I'm not being PC here. I have no interest in a gay, homo, carpet-muncher or fag other than to get my house remodeled or to order dinner. Stereotyping? Sure, and it is fun as all get out.

  Regarding the state legislature passing a bill contrary to the wishes of the voters. This present group is going to pass whatever they can to pay their constituency back and piss off the opposition. Eventually, I hope, that this will cause a Civil War in Colorado and bring all this petty societal BS to a head. The representative government of this country has gotten out of hand and is too big and costly. As long as they can throw out an occasional bone, you won't get around to thinking about how expensive it is to pay these leeches that lie for your votes.

• April 12, 2007

  12:46 PM

  benn writes:

  Wow, I can't believe the ignorant claims that some of you fundies are yelling about.
  "We must think of the children, oh how will the children grow up with two mommies... blah blah blah"

  Stop spouting of LIES and BULLSHIT and post some sort of support for your views. Everything I have heard says that children with gay parents have no more problems then any other child. Let me go see if I can find you some stats.

  You fundie righties sicken me with your ignorance and hatred.

• April 12, 2007

  12:47 PM

  am 760 writes:

  Chris, Jesus doesn't want you to worship him, he wants you to act like him.
  Try it someday and maybe you could actually be considered a Christian.
  You know, love thy neighbor, Judge thee and thee shall not be judged, Do unto others as you'd have them do to you.
  Really just simple common senses stuff that shouldn't be to hard to follow, unless your a brainwashed bigot.

• April 12, 2007

  12:48 PM

  Sasha writes:

  Attack each other all you want, the bottom line is that in REALITY, gay folks have kids - if people like it or not. Not passing this bill is not going to change that fact, it will not discourage mothers and fathers who are gay and have children to suddenly "change". What is real here is helping families, however they come - the same as we do for single parent homes (from divorce, death, whatever) and grandparents who raise their grandchildren, or relatives who take on the responsibility.
  What this bill allows is for responsible humans to raise other responsible humans. No matter how you want to hate them, they will be there doing exactly what they are doing, with or without your support. So I say support them - let them take on the responsibility of parenthood with added support - make them be responsible for their parenting under the law. Because with or without this law, they are going to be there, might as well make them as accountable as everyone else.

• April 12, 2007

  12:51 PM

  benn writes:

  * As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or lesbian parent. (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, a service of the U.S. Administration for Children and Families.)
  * There is absolutely no evidence that children are psychologically or physically harmed in any way by having LGBT parents. There is, however, much evidence that shows that they are not.
  * People with LGBT parents have the same incidence of homosexuality as the general population, about 10%. No research has ever shown that LGBT parents have any affect on the sexuality of their children. (Patterson, Charlotte J. 1992)
  * Research claims that children with LGBT parents are exposed to more people of the opposite sex than many kids of straight parents. (Rofes, E.E., 1983, Herdt, 1989)
  * Studies have shown that people with LGBT parents are more open-minded about a wide variety of things than people with straight parents. (Harris and Turner, 1985/86)
  * Daughters of lesbians have higher self-esteem than daughters of straight women. Sons are more caring and less aggressive. (Hoeffer, 1981)
  * On measures of psychosocial well-being, school functioning, and romantic relationships and behaviors, teens with same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers with opposite-sex parents. A more important predictor of teens' psychological and social adjustment is the quality of the relationships they have with their parents. (National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 2004)
  * Most "problems" that kids of LGBT parents face actually stem from the challenges of dealing with divorce and the homophobia and transphobia in society rather then the sexual orientation or gender identity of their parents.

• April 12, 2007

  1:09 PM

  Fitz writes:

  Men and women are members of a class that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of a class that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that can never produce children.

  Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.

  Self-pity is the worst kind of narcissism.

  So called gay “marriage” does two things necessarily. (that is it follows axiomatically from the very definitional change)
  #1. It androgynies the institution.
  #2. It separates it from any necessary connection to procreation.

  You can have this type of yuppie coupling as our ideal, but it fails to promote (and indeed undermines) the integration of the two sexes as a essential part of marriage. Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can conceive children. Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage. That any combination of adult is sufficient.

  It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not.
  Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”. We cant defend what we cant define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage, this will have a net effect. (leaving aside the already discernable effects in Europe) That effect is that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable.

  Of coarse I’m going further than that. Mine is not a defensive crouch. I find you to be deeply inhumane and narcissistic in your demands. 40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment.

  For you to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption.

  We can and must rebuild the social institution of marriage. Its important that all children are born into married households with their own natural parents. This standard should be advanced not undermined.
  The institution of marriage is infinitely more important than a vehicle for your inclusion.

• April 12, 2007

  1:12 PM

  Hatred 101 writes:

  1242

  That is a funny link. The dude hits on a lesbian and gets in a fight with her girlfriend. He gets handed his ass in a sling and then says it was a hate crime. If he hit on a woman and the boyfriend handed him his ass in a sling, then it would be something else? Funny stuff! It should go in the book, How to Pick Up Chicks, the Lesbian Problem.

• April 12, 2007

  1:18 PM

  jay writes:

  Fritz I can't comment on your slavery posts as I never mentioned slavery in my question...but it's good to know you were listening. As marriage predates religion...why is religion involved in defining marriage?

• April 12, 2007

  1:22 PM

  Hatred 101 writes:

  "Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that can never produce children."

  Posted by Fitz

  Dude, that's not correct. Gay men cannot produce children, but lesbians can. i.e. by turkey baister, David Crosby, etc.

  I

• April 12, 2007

  1:23 PM

  james writes:

  Anyone who truly believes that being gay is a "choice" is already brainwashed by their meth smoking church leaders and needs to save themselves by getting their butts to a therapist. Not a church run therapist, but a real therapist who deals with logic, science reason.

  Your god is nothing more than a political tool used the theocrats to promotic their idealogy and agency. You're sheep and you're being used by them. Awake and accept it already.

  And of course the default response to such lunatics: "When did you CHOOSE to be straight?"

  www.futuregringo.com

• April 12, 2007

  1:25 PM

  Fitz writes:

  Regarding: Benn's 12:51 PM statistics (below) Concerning the research on "gay" parenting

  Steven Nock, a sociologist at the University of Virginia who was asked to review several hundred studies as an expert witness for the Attorney General of Canada.
  Nock concluded: Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that

  1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and

  2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.14

  Design flaws researchers have found in these studies include very basic limitations:

  a. No nationally representative sample.
  Even scholars enthusiastic about unisex parenting, such as Stacey and Biblarz,
  acknowledge that “there are no studies of child development based on random,
  representative samples of [same-sex couple] families.”15

  b. Limited outcome measures. Many of the outcomes measured by the research are
  unrelated to standard measures of child well-being used by family sociologists
  (perhaps because most of the researchers are developmental psychologists, not
  sociologists).

  c. Reliance on maternal reports. Many studies rely on a mother’s report of her parenting skills and abilities, rather than objective measures of child outcomes.

  d. No long-term studies. All of the studies conducted to date focus on static or short term measures of child development. Few or none follow children of unisex parents
  to adulthood.

  14 Nock Aff. ¶ 3, Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada, No. 684/00 (Ont. Sup. Ct. of Justice) In 1995, prominent Berkeley sociologist Diana Baumrind reviewed various parenting studies, including the work of Charlotte Patterson and David Flaks. Diana Baumrind, 1995. “Commentary on Sexual Orientation: Research and Social Policy Implications,” Developmental Psychology 31(1): 130. In her review, Professor Baumrind evaluated, among other things, the claim that children of homosexual parents suffered no adverse outcomes, and were no more likely to develop a homosexual sexual orientation than were children not raised in such homes. Problems Baumrind found with the research she reviewed included the use of small, self-selected convenience samples, reliance on self-report instruments, and biased study populations consisting of disproportionately privileged, educated, and well-off parents. Due to these flaws, Baumrind questioned
  the conclusions on both “theoretical and empirical grounds.” Id. at 133-134. Another review, prepared by Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai in 2001, looked at 49 separate parenting studies before concluding that “the methods used in these studies are so flawed that the studies prove nothing.” Robert Lerner & Althea K. Nagai, 2001. No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting (Washington, D.C.: Marriage Law Project): 6.

  15 Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, 2001. “(How) Does The Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”, American
  Sociological Review 66:159, 166.
  

• April 12, 2007

  1:34 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  there you go fitz, show us one of the most consistent mainstays of modern organized religion

  disregard the science and facts if they do not support your emotional convictions

• April 12, 2007

  1:37 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Fitz, your abilities to lump arguments as well as data are truly astounding. I particularly like how you neatly avoid a fatal flaw in your argument concerning marriage by insisting on "classes" of people who can produce children. If you think this successfully gets around the fiddly logic whereby people who are physiologically incapable of producing offspring are still allowed to marry and adopt, you are wrong. The questions remain: is marriage solely for the purpose of procreation? Can only married people have children?

  One might well wonder why we have "love" at all--it only gets in the way of God's plan of ensuring a heterosexual couple to rear children. According to God's plan here, wouldn't it be sinful to fall in love and pair with someone who is physiologically incapable of rearing children? I mean, if they can't have kids, what are they doing together, right?

  Incidentally, anyone who claims to have "disproven" evolution is lying. The best any scientists have ever managed is mounting superb challenges to particular aspects of evolutionary theory--about which, by the way, there is a great deal of debate among all scientists. Evolution as a holistic, systemic process has never been "disproven," and whatever weaknesses there has been shown for particular aspects of it (and there are), have never been satisfactorily explained another way. The best ID can do is say, "See, you haven't explained this." ID has never put forth any testable hypotheses about other processes that may be at work, supernatural or otherwise.

  Anyway, I would like to turn to a theological component here. So, if homosexuality is a chioice, and it is a sin, I have a series of questions for you:

  1. What is "homosexuality" then? Is it okay to think homosexual thoughts, but not okay to do them? Or is it rather a thought crime? Or both? How much of it constitutes sin?

  2. How much homosexuality do you have to be engaged in in order to go to hell? Is Haggard facing eternal damnation?

  3. Let's just say that it's sin in all its forms, and those who partake in it will be judged. Who's the victim? How does a consensual relationship between two adults affect you one way or the other? Is it the sin itself or merely its visibility that offends you? By the way, who are you to judge? You may well believe that homosexuality is a sin, but as far as I know nobody here is the embodiment of God's judgement on earth.

  To that end: I believe there are a host of cardinal sins of which many of us may disapprove, but we don't make them illegal. You can be as gluttonous and vain as you like, but who are we to legislate such behavior? Do you propose that morbidly obese people "offend God" by their girth, and should be restricted as to what restaurants they are allowed to attend or the medical care they receive?

  In short: I cannot understand how you can justify REGULATING homosexuality by dint of denial of access to legal rights/responsibilities to which all other citizens have unquestioned access. You are more than welcome to attempt to dissuade people from being homosexual (good luck with that) but not to withhold civic access to them based on this "sin."

• April 12, 2007

  1:43 PM

  Lesbian and Lovin' it! writes:

  If heterosexuals took care of the kids they produced, then homosexual adoption wouldn't be an issue.

  So, breeders, take care of your kids and you won't need to worry about us adopting them!

• April 12, 2007

  1:43 PM

  Fitz writes:

  (further) FYI Regarding: Benn's 12:51 PM statistics (below) Concerning the research on "gay" parenting

  The vast majority of these studies compare single lesbian mothers to single heterosexual mothers.
  As sociologist Charlotte Patterson, a leading researcher on gay and lesbian parenting, recently summed up, “[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with
  children in divorced heterosexual motherheaded families.”16 Most of the gay parenting literature thus
  compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) but, in our opinion, they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most
  protective a child well-being is the intact, married biological family. Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.

  16 Charlotte J. Patterson et al., 2000. “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Research, Law and Policy,” in Bette L.
  Bottoms et al., eds., Children and the Law: Social Science and Policy 10-11 (available from lead author at cjp@virginia.edu); see also Charlotte J. Patterson, 2000. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men,” Journal of
  Marriage and Family 62: 1052-1069.
  

• April 12, 2007

  1:44 PM

  Sasha writes:

  Fitz states:
  "40 years of a sexual revolution has given us 50% divorce rates, 70% illegitimacy rates and falling rates of marriage overall, cohabitation and un-chosen childlessness. The social scientific evidence for divorce and Fatherless-ness is in. It leads to sky high crime, depression, suicide, violence, gang activity, and a perpetual cycle of child abandonment. For you to throw the entire institution up for redefinition is the height of self absorption."

  How exactly do you fix that? And how is it self absortion? Sounds to me like it needs a change because the current course is not so hot. But I doubt that not allowing people who love their kids to have legal rights is the right course - what would you do with gays who have kids? Take the kids away? Will you be adopting them or providing for the therapy they will need after being ripped from their family?

  How do you close whatever "Pandora's Box" has opened with the "sexual revolution"? I would say that you can't - you can't make everyone believe one religion, you can't make everyone have the same cultural values, you can't make people not make bad choices.

  What you CAN do is educate people about the things that help to fix the problems - how about we teach kids of appropriate ages about birth control, and at the same time talk to them about what a truly healthy and happy relationship means so that when they are ready to marry, it might stick. How about we lead by example and instead of pointing the fingers at everyone else as to why everything is so messed up, we start at home and make our own families, friends, and neighbors, feel safe and secure by supporting them and supporting a healthy environment. Or we could just continue on this route "It isn't my fault, must be the gays" "It isn't my fault, must be the single moms" "It isn't my fault, must be those religious freaks". All of you need to come to your senses, you don't change the world by saying ALL of something is wrong, you figure out how to integrate what is good (and good means love between pepople - see the Bible for that whole concept). Turn your riffs on the child abusers, the murders, the drunk drivers, the drug dealers - now there is evil that I can get behind a crusade to crush.

• April 12, 2007

  1:51 PM

  Fitz writes:

  Dirk Gently 01:37 PM (says)

  In short: I cannot understand how you can justify REGULATING homosexuality by dint of denial of access to legal rights/responsibilities to which all other citizens have unquestioned access. You are more than welcome to attempt to dissuade people from being homosexual (good luck with that) but not to withhold civic access to them based on this "sin."

  I have not mentioned either “SIN” nor attempts at “REGULATING homosexuality” : {Those our your words.}

  Regarding Above…(Bold emphasis mine)

  This is something the law does all the time…

  "Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded beyond its traditional moorings."

  In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)
  

• April 12, 2007

  1:59 PM

  Sasha writes:

  Fitz - a quick web search shows you using these same research quotes on quite a few pages where this topic is discussed. Perhaps you should update your arguement - Charlotte Patterson is actually a researcher that SUPPORTS gay parents (as does the American Psyhcoloigcal Association - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html). Since you are in to references, here are a few for you to check out - as recommended by the APA, and I highly doubt that a group such as them would bother to post "questionable research":
  Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers' parental competence: A review of the literature. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 67 - 78.

  Conger, J.J. (1975). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1974: Minutes of the Annual meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 30, 620-651.

  Conger, J. J. (1977). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 1976: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives. American Psychologist, 32, 408-438.

  DeLeon, P.H. (1993). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1992: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives August 13 and 16, 1992, and February 26-28, 1993, Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 48, 782.

  DeLeon, P.H. (1995). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1994: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives August 11 and 14, 1994, Los Angeles, CA, and February 17-19, 1995, Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 49, 627-628.

  Falk, P.J. (1994). Lesbian mothers: Psychosocial assumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941-947.

  Fox, R.E. (1991). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the year 1990: Minutes of the annual meeting of the Council of Representatives August 9 and 12, 1990, Boston, MA, and February 8-9, 1991, Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 45, 845.

  Levant, R.F. (2000). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 1999: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Representatives February 19-21, 1999, Washington, DC, and August 19 and 22, 1999, Boston, MA, and Minutes of the February, June, August, and December 1999 Meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 55, 832-890.

  Lofton v. Secretary of Department of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004).

  Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869-1876.

  Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674-697.

  Patterson, C.J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1052- 1069.

  Patterson, C.J. (2004a). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Summary of research findings. In Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  Patterson, C. J. (2004b). Gay fathers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley.

  Patterson, C. J., Fulcher, M., & Wainright, J. (2002). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Research, law, and policy. In B. L. Bottoms, M. B. Kovera, and B. D. McAuliff (Eds.), Children, Social Science and the Law (pp, 176 - 199). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  Perrin, E. C., and the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2002). Technical Report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Pediatrics, 109, 341 - 344.

  Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T.J. (2001). (How) Does sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 65, 159-183.

  Tasker, F. (1999). Children in lesbian-led families - A review. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 4, 153 - 166.

  Tasker, F., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family. New York: Guilford Press. Return to top of the page
  

• April 12, 2007

  2:00 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  For the record, more of Fritz's rhetoric such as PJ McGuiness court statements can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com

• April 12, 2007

  2:03 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  which of course is heaviy endorsed by the extremist group focus on the family

• April 12, 2007

  2:06 PM

  JW writes:

  Here is a link to an NPR interview with Stephen Nock and a few others.

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1907673

• April 12, 2007

  2:06 PM

  jay writes:

  sorry...that was me..forgot to sign in.

  Bottomline...Fritz, you're still justifying discrimination borne from your religious beliefs. I"m not sure such a stance is sustainable.

• April 12, 2007

  2:07 PM

  Sin King writes:

  I have sinned and I can't help it. I love crab legs, lobster, pork tenerloins, roast pork, bar-b-q smoked pork spare ribs, etufoie, Maryland crab cakes, and all the derivations of crustacian and cleaved hooved dishes.

  Help me Jesus!

• April 12, 2007

  2:08 PM

  Jeff writes:

  This is my last post on this. I don't understand why my views agitate people in the way that they do. I am not a bigot, rather I try to act in love and tolerance in all I do. That said, I do have a moral standard that I live my life by. If you don't agree with the Bible, then you are not subjected to its teachings. I have not said once that I oppose homosexuals, I just feel as though they are living in sin...same as me. How, or if, they acknowledge their sin is up to them. But again, please don't prevent me from having a moral standard that I live by! I do not condone hate crimes and was just as sick as the rest of the public was when that student was beaten in Laramie, WY for being gay. I do not consider myself that...at all. I do live my life and would encourage you to do the same. I respect those who disagree with me and back it up with legitimate discussion. Those who throw out the "bigot" "radical rightie" "Bible thumper" have no need to even talk to me. Your bigotry towards me and my beliefs is evidence enough of your intent. You do not desire intelligent discussion where two people CAN disagree, you simply desire to tear down.

  Dirk, as you seem to be asking sincerely, let me do my best to explain my position regarding your questions:

  1. What is "homosexuality" then? Is it okay to think homosexual thoughts, but not okay to do them? Or is it rather a thought crime? Or both? How much of it constitutes sin?

  Thoughts and actions are equally sinful. I wouldn't say criminal, but certainly something that needs to be forgiven. An example I used in an earlier post was regarding lustful thoughts towards a woman. I need to acknoledge my weakness and pray for forgivness, which is immediately given as Christ has died for every sin I have done and will do. That said, I still have the responsibility to acknowledge that sin and ask for forgiveness.

  2. How much homosexuality do you have to be engaged in in order to go to hell? Is Haggard facing eternal damnation?

  None and no. Repentence, or the acknoldgement of that sin, is sufficient in God's eye. To accept Christ as the ransom for your sin is enough.

  3. Let's just say that it's sin in all its forms, and those who partake in it will be judged. Who's the victim? How does a consensual relationship between two adults affect you one way or the other? Is it the sin itself or merely its visibility that offends you? By the way, who are you to judge? You may well believe that homosexuality is a sin, but as far as I know nobody here is the embodiment of God's judgement on earth.

  So true! We are not to judge, but we are to stand firm in our faith. My example to that is voting for a certain way on a topic or not. My faith leads me on certain issues. A consensual homosexual relationship, visible or not, is no more offensive to me than an adulterous relationship. Both are wrong, but both are redeemable through Christ.

  I hope this clears up my views Dirk. I do not expect that this will open the eyes of anyone posting today, but I hope that gives you an idea of where it is I am coming from...

• April 12, 2007

  2:13 PM

  jay writes:

  Nice post Jeff. Thanks for sharing your religious feelings on the matter. You are free to live to your own "moral standards"...but please realize that you don't have the right to restrict the rights of others. I think you need to understand that your views don't justify discrimination. Does anything? Those of us that disagree with your position do so becaue it is not your job to police the morality of those around you.

• April 12, 2007

  2:14 PM

  Fitz writes:

  Sasha (asks)

  How exactly do you fix that?

  By maintaining and advancing a culture of marriage that upholds the idea that children should be born into families with their own married Mothers and Fathers.

  And how is it self absorption?

  This bid for marriage and adoption rights by homosexuals has nothing to do with the importance of the institution nor the needs of children. It is an (obvious) bid for inclusion and societal approval.

  To say it another way: (as I noted below)

  “Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.”
  ”Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
  ”What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

  Walter Fauntroy
  Former DC Delegate to Congress
  Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus
  Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

  Also:

  “According to statistics provided by both the National Survey of Family Growth and the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute there are approximately 120,000 children in the United States waiting to be adopted each year. About half of these children are adopted by family members, leaving about 60,000 children who are waiting to be adopted by non-related adoptive parents. By contrast, each year there are anywhere between 70,000 and 162,000 married couples in the United States who have either filed for adoption or in process of filing. That means that in any given year, there are between 1.2 and 2.7 married couples per waiting child. In other words, there is no child-centered need to open up adoption to homosexual couples.”

  Sasha (writes)

  "Perhaps you should update your argument - Charlotte Patterson is actually a researcher that SUPPORTS gay parents"

  I am aware of that, its part of the reason her admission that…

  “[M]ost studies have compared children in divorced lesbian mother-headed families with
  children in divorced heterosexual motherheaded families.”16

  16 Charlotte J. Patterson et al., 2000. “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Research, Law and Policy,” in Bette L.
  Bottoms et al., eds., Children and the Law: Social Science and Policy 10-11 (available from lead author at
  cjp@virginia.edu); see also Charlotte J. Patterson, 2000. “Family Relationships of Lesbians and Gay Men,” Journal of
  Marriage and Family 62: 1052-1069.

  
  Is so important…BECAUSE

  “Most of the gay parenting literature thus compares children in some fatherless families to children in other fatherless family forms. The results may be relevant for some legal policy debates (such as custody disputes) they are not designed to shed light on family structure per se, and cannot credibly be used to contradict the current weight of social science: family structure matters, and the family structure that is most protective a child well-being is the intact, married biological family. Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.”
  

• April 12, 2007

  2:16 PM

  Sasha writes:

  But wait, there is more, Fitz quotes the San Francisco Supreme Court and quotes McGuiness, but he leaves out that there were dissents from the majority, they concurred, but wrote of their dissent as well. Concurring Judge Parrilli writes in the same document "The forms marriages can take have changed over the centuries, and will continue to change if history is a reliable teacher. It seems rational that allowing more people to participate in the institution of marriage would only strengthen that institution, not diminish it. Loving covenant relationships encourage stability and mirror the Divine-human relationship of some religious traditions. Seemingly, it would be wise to encourage such formal commitment, especially where children and families are involved."
  Kline writes a much more direct disent. This was a very close vote - and even those who agreed recorded that they believe that the decision would be overturned soon.

• April 12, 2007

  2:19 PM

  Sin King writes:

  Jeff,

  But do women have lustful thoughts about you? That is the question.

• April 12, 2007

  2:21 PM

  jay writes:

  lol...thank you Sasha...very astute...garbage in garbage out as they say...

  Damn nice try though Fritz...still comes down to discrimination due to religious beliefs. I'm not a religious man...but I would had to think if I was that I would be a part of an organization that fostered discrimination against my fellow man or woman.

• April 12, 2007

  2:23 PM

  Sin King writes:

  Fitz,

  Haven't you ever heard the expression, "less is more." Don't you think you're being a tidy bit verbose there, big fella?

• April 12, 2007

  2:23 PM

  jay writes:

  "hate to think"...not "had to think"

  fingers aren't cooperating today

• April 12, 2007

  2:25 PM

  Fitz writes:

  Sasha

  "Fitz quotes the San Francisco Supreme Court and quotes McGuiness, but he leaves out that there were dissents from the majority, they concurred, but wrote of their dissent as well."

  Of coarse there were dissents. The Massachusetts Goodrich decision had dissents also. That was a 4-3 decision, another squeaker with strong dissents.

  As far as...

  "and even those who agreed recorded that they believe that the decision would be overturned soon.

  I guess we'll have to see.
  

• April 12, 2007

  2:27 PM

  JW writes:

  "By maintaining and advancing a culture of marriage that upholds the idea that children should be born into families with their own married Mothers and Fathers."

  Utopian Ideal. Aint gona happen.

  "Children do best when raised by their own married mother and father.”

  Nice. But again, Utopian to believe all children will be raised by their own mother and father, AND to believe that this is ALWAYS true, regardless of what kind of mother and father they have.

  A far better measure would be to decide when children do THE WORST. Know that, and then you can decide if gay parents are better than the worst case scenario. If they are, then gay parenting is a value to society.

• April 12, 2007

  2:29 PM

  Jeff writes:

  Jay, well said and thank you. I know that it appears that by voting one way or another that there is the feeling I am discriminating against someone of a differeing view, such as gay marriage, adoption, and so on. However, this country is based on choices that we decide together as a democracy...for better or worse. If someone does not consult the Bible before voting one way or another, I do not feel as though they are discriminating against me. Instead I feel as though they are voting a certain way based on their own beliefs. I am unjustified in calling that person discriminatory towards me, but the flip side of that is true also.

  ...I just can't stay away! LOL

• April 12, 2007

  2:34 PM

  benn writes:

  Here is an interesting newspaper article that has 4-5 interviews from children of gay parents.

  http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/living/17019582.htm

• April 12, 2007

  2:34 PM

  jay writes:

  dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm'ə-nā'shən) n.

  Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

  I would say your position qualifies Jeff...sorry buddy...it's not me...it's Merriam.

• April 12, 2007

  2:35 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Fitz:

  First of all, the language of "traditional definition" is entirely rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition. That is appropriate for a judge to cite, but it is not necessarily THE tradition for a theoretically secular law of the land. Secondly, I don't necessarily reject the claims of judges who interpret the laws to mean that gays are excluded from such things and adoption and marriage (although I think a good case can be made for this--see Dred Scott v. Sandford). What interests me, rather, is whether such laws are just. It is my contention that they are not, and I have listed reasons as to why. Would you care to respond to those, as well as to the theological questions?

  But to return to the marriage issue for a moment, the judge's analogy is a faulty one. A better analogy might be if people with certain kinds of children, say, were not granted the ability to vote on "personal decisions regarding child rearing and education," because their children were not historically the "right" children. In other words, gays may not have been historically married, but they hav been historically in relationships. As such, they deserve all the same privileges afforded to other relationships, including making them "official" and having power of attorney, because they have a vested interest in romantic relationships, though not marriage per se.

  Rearing children in a loving way should not be a problem unless someone can demonstrate systematic, irrefutable evidence that such relationships, due only to their nature, create a harmful or unsafe environment to the children. The evidence so far seems to suggest that this is not the case.

• April 12, 2007

  2:39 PM

  Fitz writes:

  JW

  ”Utopian Ideal. Aint gona happen”

  No its called a standard, like any other. Laws against theft, or laws promoting responsible driving are not void because all people will never follow them all of the time.

  ”Nice. But again, Utopian to believe all children will be raised by their own mother and father, AND to believe that this is ALWAYS true, regardless of what kind of mother and father they have.”

  Laws are about promoting the best norms we have. That’s what laws are. As stated above. No one said “always” those are your silly words. Don’t be sophomoric; I’m simply promoting a valuable standard. Like the voters in Colorado just did.
  

• April 12, 2007

  2:50 PM

  Sasha writes:

  I am sure that none of this is going to change minds today - but the beauty of our country is that we can have this discussion. We could go on and on, pick a sentence or two out of competing literature and throw it back and forth at each other (research studies, the Bible, etc.) but that is all that we would accomplish.
  I'm with Jay, you can't have a Utopian ideal or as Fitz calls it, a standard, set forth and hope that everyone jumps on the bandwagon (see the fall of Communism for the inevitable results). You will never have only one "culture" for America and that is why it is such a privilege to live here - it is what we are founded on. And as for laws against theft vs. laws against gay marriage - apples and oranges - if you steal my car I am unable to be a productive member of society, I can't go to work, I can't shop to support the economy, I can't do many things. Let two guys get married - my life stays the same and so do the lives of my kids, I wouldn't even know about it and wouldn't care other than to say "be good to each other".
  Thanks for the debate, it is good to know that there are those out there that still want intellectual discourse, but for today the end of the line for me is this - stay in reality, work with what you have, there is no ONE anything in our society - so make the best of what you have and integrate the good things like love, health, happiness, and understanding. Don't hate people who are raising happy, healthy kids in a loving environment, hate the ones that destroy children’s lives with abuse and dysfunction.
  

• April 12, 2007

  2:53 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Jeff,

  Let me explain the "rules" of this blog as dictated by those who reject the Bible.

  1. You must admit that you are a bigot and that your beliefs may never be voiced in public.

  2. You may never speak your opinion on any matter because you are a religious bigot and all your thinking has been permanently tainted.

  3. Only those who create their opinions out of thin air can be trusted because they all agree that only they can be trusted.

  4. Only those who say that their beliefs are based on science (even though they voice opinions that cannot be proven using the scientific method) can be allowed to make pronouncements that effect public policy.

  5. Democracy cannot function when it is tainted by input from those who believe the Bible.

  6. Once a person admits to believing the Bible, nothing that person says will ever be allowed on this blog.

  Jay,

  I was not posting the Bible verse to support my position on this blog, it was to correct the incorrect statement made by JB regarding what the Bible says. Those who do not believe the Bible should not try tell others what it says.

  666,

  "Notice also that the majority of the support of the war is on the religious right. I don't recall the fifth commandment saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill...except for al Qaeda and other suspected terrorists"."

  The correct translation of the 6th commandment is "You shall not murder." There has alwasy been an etymological difference between murder and legal killing. The Bible is very clear that legitimate governments have the right to execute criminals and defend themselves from agression. Likewise people have the right to defend themselves even to the point of killing the attacker.

• April 12, 2007

  2:54 PM

  Jeff writes:

  Damn Merriam!

  By definition then, yes I am discriminatory...but so are you and so are we all if we have a different view than anyone, right?

  ...which basically would qualify this whole thread!

  Tell me you don't make assumptions about me the minute that you hear that I am a "Christian" and I'll call you a liar! It's a natural thing to stereotype people, but don't place me in that fanatical category shooting aboritionist doctors and participating in hate crimes. I do feel discriminated against as I am constantly told that I believe in fairy tales, am not intelligent enough to formulate my own opinions, and that I am living in a world that has long since passed me by. Sound discriminatory to you? Sure does, but the minute I say anything, I'm a crazy right wing fanatic! I live with the consequences of my opinions and would hope that others do the same. I hope that, while we should be strong in our opinions, we can find a way to agree to disagree in a humble and respectful way.

  Discrimination exists everywhere towards everyone in one way or another...

• April 12, 2007

  2:57 PM

  jay writes:

  Jeff, when Christians don't have the right to marry or adopt children you can talk about being discriminated against...until then...you're the guy in the black hat on this issue.

  Well, it is clear that a certain portion of the population will forever defend their right to regulate the behavior of those they feel aren't living up to their "standards"...I'm sure the folks who were on the wrong side of women's and minority rights were just as passionate about their "views" as well....so I'll ask an unrelated question. I found two stray dogs today while walking my dogs at lunch. Neither has a tag or collar. Both haven't been groomed or bathed in quite some time....and judging from the quick work they made of two heaping bowls of dog food, they haven't eaten in a while either. I would put out fliers if I thought they had homes or owners that were looking for them, but I seriously doubt it. I don't want to take them to a shelter that will euthanize them if they aren't adopted. Any thoughts? Suggestions? Anyone know of a good "no-kill" shelters close to downtown?

• April 12, 2007

  3:04 PM

  JW writes:

  "No its called a standard, like any other. Laws against theft, or laws promoting responsible driving are not void because all people will never follow them all of the time."

  You said, "maintaining and advancing a culture of marriage that upholds the idea that children should be born into families with their own married Mothers and Fathers."

  That is a UTOPIAN IDEAL. I have no problem with you pushing that, but REALITY calls for some OTHER solutions when your UTOPIAN IDEAL (or standard, or wtf ever you want to call it) cannot be upheld. Communism was a utopian Standard for a social system. REALITY required something else, even in "Communist" Russia.

  "No one said “always” those are your silly words."

  Sigh. Critical thinking chump. Take a class. You completely missed the point. Children may very well do best when "Raised by their biological mothers and fathers". But in terms of using this as an argument against gay parenting, well, you can, if your understanding is SOPHOMORIC. If its not, you understand that regardless of the ideal situation, less than ideal situations exist, and you have to deal with those as well.

  A far better measure of the valitidy of gay parenting is the "worst case scenario". If gay parenting is better than that, then it has some value. Just being worse than "the best case scenario" doesnt make it valueless.

• April 12, 2007

  3:10 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Jay,

  People are protected based on their inclusion in protected classes.
  Here is what wiki says about two of the classes.

  Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)

  Political affiliation

  Since sexual orientation is only protected in some jurisdictions, and political affiliation has no qualifiers, you should stop your discrimination of Republicans, if you want other to repect peoples sexual orientation. ;-)

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

• April 12, 2007

  3:13 PM

  JW writes:

  Jay,

  http://www.maxfund.org/

• April 12, 2007

  3:17 PM

  666 writes:

  What's your definition of discriminating against Republicans, Hogar? Not letting them get their way?

• April 12, 2007

  3:18 PM

  jay writes:

  Funny Hogar....I would be just as much against a position attempting to restrict the rights of Republicans as I would black people, or gay people or blonde people. I'm intolerant of ignorance...does that make me a discriminator?

• April 12, 2007

  3:24 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  If you stop someone from beating the crap out a helpless victim, does that mean you are discriminating against bullies?

• April 12, 2007

  3:33 PM

  chris writes:

  Not to be theocratic about things--but I really dont' care what this blog's liberals have to say on the issue. The people of the Great State of Colorado have already spoken and they've said no to gay adoptions. It doesn't matter if Jennifer Viagra disagrees. It doesn't matter if liberals disagree. It doesn't matter if 'Lesbian and loving it' disagrees. What matters is that this is settled law. We've already spoken on this issue and the secular extremists are trying to cram their minority opinion down our throats.

• April 12, 2007

  3:34 PM

  Bruce writes:

  Those who are opposing this measure based on religious grounds, though I share their view, are spinning their wheels and will never get anywhere. The religion argument is only compelling to people who practice (not merely claim) their religion.
  What this bill and those who support it really are saying is that homosexual couples who, by definition, cannot naturally produce offspring is morally equivalent and equally vaild as heterosexual couples who can naturally produce offspring. Homosexuals make a choice to have such a relationship, even if they are genetically predisposed to being homosexual, a choice that precludes them from having children.
  For those who make the argument that religious people who oppose gay marriage or gay adoption are forcing their morality on everybody else, I say look in the mirror, because that is precisely what you are doing. But you are only able to do so through a parliamentary trick. Every time this issue comes up for a vote, where the citizenry makes its choice in accordance with the best democratic tradition, you lose.

• April 12, 2007

  3:36 PM

  jay writes:

  "secular extremists"

  you're on a roll today Chris

  Like I said...eventually history will look upon those of you on your side of this debate with the same regard we hold for the folks who were against women and minority rights. Hope you can live with that.

  JW, thanks for the link to Max Fund...

• April 12, 2007

  3:43 PM

  am 760 writes:

  JW, thanks for posting that link. What a great organization. I just had my 9 yr old shepard, chow, wolf mix in for his 2nd ACL surgery. He's 3 weeks out and still recovering but when he gets back to normal I was thinking of getting him a companion.
  My present dog, Austin, sure helped my first dog live longer, thanks to the companionship and now I want to do the same for him.
  Thanks again for that link. I tell you though looking at all those dogs waiting for a home gets me a little teary eyed. Hope other people can help.

• April 12, 2007

  3:44 PM

  Fitz writes:

  “Like I said...eventually history will look upon those of you on your side of this debate with the same regard we hold for the folks who were against women and minority rights. Hope you can live with that.”

  This is beyond moral certitude. Apparently Jay has clairvoyance!
  

• April 12, 2007

  3:45 PM

  jay writes:

  am760,
  We used http://www.petfinder.com to find a companion for our 11 year old golden (she was 8 at the time). Great site with avenues to most of the shelters in the country.

• April 12, 2007

  3:47 PM

  JW writes:

  "The people of the Great State of Colorado have already spoken and they've said no to gay adoptions."

  Good God you freaks are confused.

  
  GAYS CAN ADOPT. CURRENTLY. RIGHT NOW!

  This law has nothing to do with that. It is about allowing a SECOND person to fill the role, legally speaking, of a second parent in situations where a single PERSON (gay or straight) has already adopted a child.

  For FUCKS SAKE!

  If you nutjobs want to freak out...at least do the research to figure out what you are freaking out about!

  Hehe. Here is some help...nutters.

  "Current Colorado law contains no provision barring individual homosexuals from petitioning for adoption, but a Colorado Supreme Court ruling does bar homosexual couples from qualifying for what is commonly referred to as step-parent or second-parent adoptions. HB 1330 would overrule that decision. "
  

• April 12, 2007

  3:49 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Jay,

  All persons are allowed to marry a preson of the opposite sex and adopt kids. All persons are not allowed to marry persons of the same sex. This applies to all people regardless of their sexual orientation, so there is no discrimination involved. There is no discrimination involved and everyone is treated the same under that law.

• April 12, 2007

  3:54 PM

  JW writes:

  The only problem I have with those No kill Shelters is that I cannot adopt from them.

  Hey, they wont kill the animals there right? So I get mine from places that WILL kill them if they arent adopted.

  The place on s. platt said they are no kill, but they arent really. They just keep animals for a longer than normal time, and if they are demed "Unadoptable" off they go to the death camp. Thats where we got my dog from. Better than the euthanasia lines other places have, but all in all, its a bad thing to be a dog in a shelter.

• April 12, 2007

  3:56 PM

  jay writes:

  On today of all days Hogar, you qualify as living in my man Kurt's 51st State.

• April 12, 2007

  3:59 PM

  JW writes:

  Hogar,

  
  All persons are allowed to worship satan. All persons are not allowed to worship Christ. The laws apply to all people equally.

  
  Discrimination there? After all, being a Christian is a choice for sure.

• April 12, 2007

  4:08 PM

  benn writes:

  ahaha, i saw this and couldn't stop laughing:

  http://www.thenextleft.com/blogatory/archives/images/crybaby.jpg

• April 12, 2007

  4:15 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  JW,

  Just repeal the 1st amendment an you have every right to pass that law. You will not be able to enforce it unless you can read my mind. I require no outward evidence of my worship of God.

  On the worshiping Satan thing, I would definitely be headed for jail.

  I think you should make the passage of those laws your life's work.

• April 12, 2007

  4:32 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Hogar, it's very irritating how you try to pass off such intellectually dishonest stuff as "all persons cannot marry another person of the same sex" as merely being about equal protection under the law. I mean, COME ON.

  Bruce, see the many comments here about the logical problem with disallowing those who cannot naturally produce children. Last I checked, that's the main reason as to why heterosexuals go looking to adopt--because they cannot biologically produce children. But I will concede your main point: that this is a legislative end-around, in a way. I qualify it with "in a way" because this isn't about Ref. I. But since it's clearly an intimately related issue, the Dems may indeed pay for over-reaching here.

  But hey, now you know what it's like to be in the legislative minority in a system as screwy as ours. Fun, huh? Now imagine that everything the Dems do that you like goes on and on, with little recourse, for like 12 years, but particularly accelerated the last 6 years. Now you know what it feels like to be in the opposition left in this country. Wheeee!

  And right on, JW: single gays can already adopt. So wouldn't you think that having a loving couple of gays, who can provide a better family support mechanism than just one, would be a good idea?

  And I see nobody's tackled the theological questions I posted earlier. Hogar, you're usually the most versed on such issues--any thoughts?

• April 12, 2007

  4:40 PM

  Glad 2B Free writes:

  You right wing religious types really take yourselves way too seriously. You all have no sense of humor, no joy in your hearts. I couldn't stand to be in the same room with any of you. I'm glad you all are stuck in your cul-de-sacs, swallowed up by your misery and self pity. I just wish you would try not to justify your poor of spirit lives by trying to make everyone else as miserable as you are.

• April 12, 2007

  4:45 PM

  am 760 writes:

  JW, Dirk, Jay, I just had to tell you that Hogar just told me on the Imus blog that he hadn't supported the repubican party since 1981. Have I been missing something? Sure sounded like a republican cheerleader to me.

• April 12, 2007

  4:53 PM

  am 760 writes:

  Jay thanks for the link. I agree w/ JW in that I would almost rather adopt from the Dumb Friends League though since we know those dogs are euthanized more frequently.
  Either way its just sad to see so many happy little faces needing a home. I wish I could take in more than 2.

• April 12, 2007

  4:55 PM

  Dave writes:

  This law is just one more indication of the downward spiral of our society. Homosexual behavior is destructive physically, mentally, and spiritually, and treating it as "normal" behavior is absurd. Teaching children that homosexuality is normal is despicable. The left's tendency toward indiscriminate tolerance illustrates their inability to distinguish right from wrong and their moral bankruptcy.

• April 12, 2007

  5:03 PM

  am 760 writes:

  Dave, we on the left are not saying its normal. We are saying Live and let live, Judge thee and thee shall not be judged, Treat other as you want to be treated.
  Live your life, what does it matter if the person next door is gay and adopts a kid. How does that affect you in a negative way?
  See most of us on the left try to follow the teachings of Jesus, or all religions for that matter, trying to love all and not discriminate against people for what ever reason

• April 12, 2007

  5:09 PM

  jay writes:

  "indiscriminate tolerance"

  "moral bankruptcy"

  You fundies have such colorful buzzwords and phrases.

  Is this stuff handed out at the rallies or church or what? Do you guys have brainwashing sessions to think up new doublespeak? Do you all get like a checklist of people and activities that are on the new blacklist or do you take a vote on that kind of stuff.

• April 12, 2007

  5:19 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Quit throwing the Bible around unless you follow every part of it. Homosexuality is mentioned as much as marrying your husbands brother and sleeping with him if your husband dies. Even if the brother is married, he must sleep with the widow or be stoned to death. There are many things in the Bible you perfect "straight moral kings" are NOT following.

  If you are Christian you follow Christ's teaching. He talks over and over about not judging others and loving God, yourself and neighbors, including your enemies. Read up or shut up. As far as the law....marriage is not sacred now. There is nothing left to protect. All you right to lifers..."have the babies, let dads walk away, be single moms and then, someone else raise them but not same sex couples...just everyone else...you holier than thou judgers are just like the Jewish temple leaders who Jesus ignored. It is between God and the person. You DONT KNOW!

• April 12, 2007

  5:44 PM

  JW writes:

  "JW,

  Just repeal the 1st amendment an you have every right to pass that law. You will not be able to enforce it unless you can read my mind. I require no outward evidence of my worship of God.

  On the worshiping Satan thing, I would definitely be headed for jail.

  I think you should make the passage of those laws your life's work."

  Oh STFU Hogar, that shit is tired. You know damn well A) I dont worship Satan and B) I have no interest whatsoever of taking ANY of your rights away.

  That crap is annoying you sanctimonious prick. Try sticking to the discussion, instead of impressing us all with your pigheaded retardation whenever religious piety is on your mind.

• April 12, 2007

  5:49 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  5:19, here is the lovely progression of current relgious right thinking on the issues:

  1. Don't teach sicko contraception in school
  (resulting in higher teen pregnancies, so the girl faces a series of choices, but...)

  2. No abortions!
  (...so the girl carries the baby to term, and wants to put it up for adoption with a couple she trusts who happens to be gay, but...

  3. Fags can't adopt!
  (...so the girl tries to raise the kid on her own, except...)

  4. No welfare handouts for "irresponsible" single moms!
  (which perpetuates the poverty/ignorance/desperation trifecta that causes so many of the social ills they decry)

  You people are classic. Provide for the needy, eh? Just not lest ye be judged? Nah, just easier to stir up some hatred for gays, "welfare vampires" and poor folks.

  But okay, I'll play nice, now: how, oh great oracle Dave, does the practice of homosexuality, which has been around as long as there has been humans (before if you count homosexual behavior among animals), will lead to the downfall of civilization? There's all the same gay sex as there ever was, they just aren't hiding the fact. Is God going to smite us because gays are now in the open and we're advocating for gay folks to be treated like human beings?

• April 12, 2007

  5:58 PM

  Dave writes:

  am760 & the "unknown commenter":
  I am indeed a Christian, but I try not to just pick & choose the teachings of Jesus that I like and ignore the others. He did say 'Judge not that you be not judged", and he also said that He came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. He told the woman at the well to "go and sin no more", not "go and do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't bother anyone else". The unknown commenter brings out the old tired arguments about Old Testament laws, not understanding the purpose thereof, there is a difference between ceremonial laws and moral laws which you need to research. Homosexuality is clearly against God's moral law and identified as such throughout the Old and New Testaments. Don't blame me, blame God for that. In any event, I'm not a "straight moral king" or a "holier than thou judger", I'm as sinful as anyone else and that's why I need Christ.
  As for jay, you write some mildly humorous questions, but none worth responding to.

• April 12, 2007

  6:16 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Dave:

  Ceremonial laws and moral laws? I'm pretty sure most of the stuff in Leviticus (from which the bulk of anti-gay Christians draw their stuff) is intended to be viewed as moral law. I suppose we can make distinctions between homosexuality and say, not wearing mixed fibers and not eating shellfish. But aren't adulterous women to be stoned to death? Isn't adultery moral, and not just ceremonial?

  Here's the problem with your assertion, Dave: any serious Christian knows that the Bible is filled with contradictions and in many places dubious translations. The key here is that, if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, you justify the discrepancies by working out what it is the underlying MEANING or INTENT of God may be. If it were so that everyone agreed on this and it were abundantly clear, there would be only one Christian church, one denomination.

  But again, if we assume homosexuality is going against God's law, then this is sin without victims (unless you count the immortal souls of homosexuals). So if nobody's directly hurt by their sin, why do you care?

  Also, how does this affect our society as a whole again? I just don't get the leap of logic (or faith, as it may be).

• April 12, 2007

  6:25 PM

  True Native writes:

  Once again
  Is being a murderer or a child molester morally wrong? Why do we allow them to get married? Can someone who follows the bible please explain this to me? People on death row getting married and having babies? I dont understand how a gay person is worse, or how you discriminate based on a book that not everyone follows. Is being Christian a requirment for living in America? I happen to be Native American and we have several tribes that believe in women cohabitating and only "hooking" up with men for procreation. Did all of my ancestors go to hell because they didnt assimilate to the Christian ways?

• April 12, 2007

  6:34 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Good point, True Native. History is littered with all sorts of examples about how marriage as defined as one man and one woman is not "traditional" everywhere or for all time (including Europe).

  So...golly. Another myth runs up against reality.

• April 12, 2007

  7:38 PM

  Dave writes:

  Dirk, I believe it is important when reading the Bible to understand the relationship between Law and Gospel. Leviticus concerns mainly the service of worship and the special duties of the Levites. It was written for Israel when it was truly a theocracy and the rules and penalties were accordingly much stricter. Spiritual holiness is symbolized by physical perfection in Leviticus, and in the end the Law points out how we can never meet God's standard for holiness, we need God's mercy which is eventually shown in Christ - the Gospel. The New Testament book of Hebrews explains how the old Jewish system has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. As far as "sin without victims", there are no distinctions about this in the Bible, sin is what separates us from God, victims or not. When society endorses immoral acts, it does affect everyone in the society, like it or not.
  True Native, yes "being a murderer or a child molester is morally wrong" (but I think you knew that). I never said homosexual behavior was worse or better than any other immoral act, but it is immoral. "Is being Christian a requirment for living in America?" No (but I think you knew that one too). "Did all of my ancestors go to hell...?" I have no idea, that's for God to judge, not me.

• April 12, 2007

  8:47 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Dave, I appreciate the parsing between Law and Gospel. That makes a little more sense (I still have major problems with it, but I can see how it could make sense).

  But I'm still having some problems with the whole notion of individual sin affecting us all. So, I can see how murders do not reflect well on human kind, but is this our collective sin? Does God punish us all for this sort of sin?

  I suppose you could argue that the situation is akin to God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But I thought Jesus' Gospel was supposed to save us from that kind of fate (as the rainbow saves us from being flooded out). Also, when I say "sin without victims" what I mean is that unlke murder, the "sin" of homosexuality does not adversely affect another person. It is among the most individual of sins. So along similar lines: it is a sin to covet. This, I think you'll agree, proliferates throughout society and has no direct "victim" as a result of the sin. Arguably, our society endorses the view that "look but don't touch" is okay. Are we suffering because we endorse coveting?

  And I want to reiterate my questions about what makes homosexuality sin, anyway: is it the thought, the deed, or both, and how much do you think constitutes "sin"? Is Ted Haggard going to hell, despite doing many other "godly" works? Which were the worst sins--the blow jobs, the lying, or the cheating?

  Of course I don't believe in the Bible or sin as such (though I still have a highly refined sense of morals). But speaking as someone who does, how do you conceptualize such issues?

• April 12, 2007

  10:12 PM

  Steve writes:

  This is another example of how worthless a democratic party controlled Senate is, at any level of government. In their short stint with their power back they have shamelessly pandered to the homosexual minority (against the obvious will of the majority of US citizens), attempted to completely undercut our soldiers fighting the war on terror (who are more than willing to finish the job they've started), become complete tools for an enemy that wants to destroy us (Nancy Pelosi), and threatened to destroy the best economy this country has experienced in years and years. Democrats fail to take any meaningful action on the most crucial issues facing America, but are so quick to submit to any angry, vocal minority regardless of the consequences to the nation as a whole. As usual, any opposition or difference of opinion from a conservative point of view is dismissed as hate. The so-called democratic “party of tolerance” has no tolerance for any opposing viewpoints, that’s where the true hate lies. The conservatives in this country are the only ones really concerned with maintaining this country's greatness and protecting its citizens, including gay citizens. If our true enemies, the Islamist terrorists, are able to impose their worldview, homosexuals would be the first to be executed. Political scientist Samuel P Huntington stated that civilization is not murdered; they commit suicide. The Democrats are currently playing the role of Dr. Kevorkian.

• April 13, 2007

  8:57 AM

  Dave writes:

  Dirk, thanks for the thoughtful questions, I'm no "oracle" but here's what I believe, based on Scripture. First, I don't believe that sins such as homosexuality, infidelity, lust, coveting, etc. are "victimless" - I suspect Ted Hagggard's family and friends were greatly affected by his "private" sin, even before it was publicized. These "victimless" sins also affect society as a whole when society accepts them as "normal" and lowers moral standards. The Bible is clear that individuals are responsible only for their own sins, but our sins have earthly consequences, for example an abusive alcoholic's family may suffer for generations because of one person's actions. Sins in both thought and deed separate us from God, but actions obviously have a greater impact on other people in most cases. As for Haggard going to hell, that's certainly not my place to determine, it's God's. I do know that God's mercy and love and justice are infinite, and he can be reconciled with God through Christ. Thankfully, it's not our works that determine where we spend eternity, it's whether we recognize our sinful nature and rely on the mercy of God shown through the death and resurrection of Christ.

• April 13, 2007

  9:08 AM

  David Hakala writes:

  It seems the sanctity of dictionaries is more important than the welfare of children to some of our dully (sic) elected representatives. I don't care if two different species of gay animals adopt a kid, as long as the couple can raise a healthy, happy child.

  Homosexuality is not contagious.

• April 13, 2007

  9:16 AM

  JW writes:

  "I do know that God's mercy and love and justice are infinite"

  What about hell? It seems to me that an infinite loving God wouldnt make people burn forever. And this applies to a God whose justice is infinite. What kind of crime do you have to commit to make eternal fire your just punnishment? I cannot think of one. Even Hitler doesnt deserve to be in that kind of pain FOREVER. To be sure, the man was a monster, and deserves some form of punnishment, but burning forever? That seems in humane to say the least. And of course, in the modern dogma of Christianity, you dont have to murder millions and start a world war to end up in eternal flame. All you have to do is not believe Jesus was your personal savior. This means that very good people, who's only "Crime" is to not be religious may burn forever as well. What kind of "Justice" and "Love" is that? "You don't believe in me, and you commited some minor sins in your life. Even though the balance of your life was good...burn forever."

  I just cant get that one. Its so flawed. If some human said you have to burn to death for your crimes, we would universally call that person insane and evil. But some God will burn you forever, yet he is "Infinitely loving, and just." Yea, ok.

• April 13, 2007

  9:29 AM

  Pot and/or Kettle for President writes:

  It's just so amazing (not) how often the conservatwits keep coming back to the Bible in this discussion - as though the Bible means anything in regards to the law - and keep using the word "morality" as though only their definition of the word matters. The same kind of parenting that produces this anti-gay swill inspired those kids in Pueblo to attack that gay teen.

  Tell us some more about how your definition of morality is the only one that matters, right-wankers, while you instruct your children to terrorize any of their fellows who are honest enough to own up to who they are. Tell us about how being gay is evil, while your spawn run amok and commit acts of savagery against people who've done nothing to them.

  Driving a car or buying a gun requires a license or permit, but people can inflict their offspring on society and fill their heads with hate and violence and there's no limitation or regulation to this at all.

  I'd personally rather give a gun to a felon or a car to a drunk than encourage a hateful bigot to breed.

• April 13, 2007

  9:51 AM

  Dave writes:

  JW, we're veering off the original topic, but this is important. God does not "make people burn forever". Your eternal destiny is your own personal choice. He does not want anyone to go to hell, on the contrary He sacrificed His own Son in order that we might have eternal life. People have the free will to reject Him, and if they choose to separate themselves from God, God would be evil indeed if He made these people spend eternity with Him.
  What's your philosophy, JW? What do you believe will happen to you when you die, and what's the basis for your belief?

• April 13, 2007

  9:59 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  Dave - You must be new here. JW, jay and the like believe whatever Richard Dawkins tells them to believe. They're mindless footsoldiers who have no meaning in their lives, and cannot think for themselves, so they seek to minimize the world around them.

• April 13, 2007

  10:03 AM

  JW writes:

  Dave,

  Its my understanding that God sets the rules regarding who goes to hell, and who doesnt. Yes, its personal choice to believe in him or not, but I cannot see how chosing not to believe in God is so evil that the just punnishment is eternal fire. IF God really does love you so much, it seems to me that the crime of not believing in him when hes given us so little reason to do so would not be punnishable by eternal flame. And again, anyone who said death by fire was the punnishment for ANY crime would be labled insane. We arent talking about a painful death which eventually ends. With God, we are talking about that kind of pain FOREVER. I cant see that as anything but sick and twisted, regardless of how its justified.

  My philosophy is that I don't know. Could be there is an afterlife. Could be there isnt. If there is...could be any possible type of afterlife, including ones that havent even been thought of by mankind.

  And yes, this is all off topic, but this whole freaking thread is off topic. This law doesnt allow gays to adopt. They already can. This law just makes it possible for a single adopting parent to add a second parent, regardless of straight, or gay.

  This discussion IS on topic in relation to the actual course of this thread, because it speaks to the morallity of God himself. While it is unquestioned by belivers, again, I don't see how a God that can be responsible for casting people into eternal flame can be a moral and just God, PERIOD. You can say it is the choice of people, but thats just passing the buck. In the end, GOD decides to cast you into flame eternally. His reasons dont make it just, or loving, or moral, or anything other than evil.

• April 13, 2007

  10:25 AM

  Pot N' Kettle for Re-Election writes:

  Re: 9:59

  An anti-liberal ally of the conservative nazis, calling someone else a mindless footsoldier??? That's freakin hilarious.

  Tell us some more, dancing monkey. Tell us how it's really the liberals that are trying to force beliefs on people, in spite of the fact that it's the conservatives who are trying to legislate their religion and personal philosophy. Tell us how requiring someone to not hurt, oppress or harrass someone else is equivalent to "forcing beliefs" on people.

  Not letting fanatic fundamentalists legislate homosexuals within an inch of their lives is not "forcing beliefs". Preventing fundies from hurting or oppressing homosexuals, preventing them from restricting their rights, is not "forcing beliefs", it's preserving equality in the face of unfair persecution. You talk of "protected classes" and how unfair that is, but if it wasn't for your hatred and oppression those "protected classes" wouldn't need to be treated any differently.

• April 13, 2007

  10:28 AM

  jay writes:

  "It was only 40 years ago — on June 12, 1967 — that the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down a Virginia statute barring whites from marrying nonwhites. The decision also overturned similar bans in 15 other states."

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18090277/

  Only a matter of time people.

• April 13, 2007

  10:41 AM

  Dustin writes:

  unfortunately there are far too many children without good homes and loving parents. While I think that any child will be best suited for a Mother and a Father, if there are not enough good heterosexual families able to adopt, then good homosexual partners should be allowed to fill the void. As long as heterosexual families get priority then I do not think there is a problem.

• April 13, 2007

  10:42 AM

  Shirley MacLaine (and all her previous incarnations) for President writes:

  Jay, I think that some of the prosecution team that convicted Jeter and Loving have been reincarnated and are blogging on this very forum. Ooooooo.....creepy

  I also think that Fitz is the reincarnation of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach.

• April 13, 2007

  11:01 AM

  Anonymous writes:

  wtf does this issue have to do with race???

  This is about sexual preference, which is a choice. Race is not a choice.

  Let's keep on topic, kids.

• April 13, 2007

  11:14 AM

  I'm thinkin Arbys writes:

  Sexual orientation isn't a choice. It's a biochemical arrangement...that is, unless you want to argue that the only reason heterosexuals are the way they are is because they choose to be.

  Religion is a choice...unless your parents are fundamentalist Christian, in which case you have no choice but to grow up a hateful small-minded bigot. Personal moral philosophy is a choice...at least until the Conservatwits legislate that too, and make the phrase "free country" a complete joke. Then the only choice will be whether to go to Arbys or Subway for lunch...unless the conservatives want to make an amendment for that too.

  Is that OK with you values nazis? Can I eat my medium roast beef and mozzarella sticks, or will you label me a deviant and throw me in jail?

• April 13, 2007

  11:15 AM

  jay writes:

  Here we go again.

  Welcome to the 21st century Mr. Denier! Here in this new enlightened age a few things have been cleared up:

  Homosexuality isn't a choice. Global warming isn't a myth. Stem cell research isn't "chopping up babies". Evolution is the real deal. The earth is more than 10,000 years old. This planet, indeed all the planets in our solar system, orbits the sun. Cancer can't be cured with prayer. Vaccinations aren't evil.

  Let's try to stay on planet earth, kids.

• April 13, 2007

  11:21 AM

  Dave writes:

  JW, God does indeed set the rules, as you say. Each person needs to decide whether they define good & evil, or if He does. If you are the arbiter of good & evil, what makes your definition better or worse than that of other humans? You seem to believe that God as described in the Bible is immoral, but what is the basis of your morality?
  9:59, you guessed it, I am new to this forum, but am not surprised by the comments. As Solomon said long ago, there is nothing new under the sun. But it's always interesting to see that those who whine about Christians being haters are typically the ones spewing the juvenile hatred, generalizations, and name-calling, e.g. "conservatwits", "conservative nazis", "dancing monkey", "fundies", "hateful bigots", "if you disagree with my behavior that means you hate me", etc.

• April 13, 2007

  11:26 AM

  Odin for President, Vishnu for VP, Zeus for Sec. of State, and Marduk for Def. Sec. writes:

  I think it's funny that, although the part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality originated in Jewish scripture and was only borrowed by the later Christian sect, the Christians are the ones making the biggest stink over it, as though they invented the idea. Real original guys, religious plagiarism.

  Practically the entire faith is borrowed from bits and pieces of much older religions, you know. And they only keep the parts that they think will benefit them in terms of social engineering and political influence.

• April 13, 2007

  11:35 AM

  Pot and Kettle Forever (no term limits) writes:

  Dave thinks that my name calling is "juvenile hatred". What would you call trying to outlaw someone's lifestyle because you disagree with it? Mature hatred???

• April 13, 2007

  11:41 AM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Posted by Dirk Gently on April 12, 2007 08:47 PM

  "And I want to reiterate my questions about what makes homosexuality sin, anyway: is it the thought, the deed, or both, and how much do you think constitutes "sin"? "

  The meaning of the word sin is to miss the mark. The Bible teaches that God has established perfect standards of moral perfection. Sin can manifest itself in thought, attitude, word and action. It is always about believing that something that is not perfect; which should not be the "aim" of our life, whould be something that we "aim" for. I have never been tempted to sin in the manner of a homosexual, but before I converted, I was a fornicator. That misses the mark also, and I was just as guilty before God for my sin as an homosexual is for theirs.

  "Is Ted Haggard going to hell, despite doing many other "godly" works? Which were the worst sins--the blow jobs, the lying, or the cheating?"

  The Bible teaches that a person is either saved or they are not saved.
  It teaches that a person can know they are saved, and it teaches that a person can believe they are saved but not be. I am just as guilty as Ted Haggard with regard to the justification for my going to Hell. I know that I have been forgiven, not because I have attained any level of righteous life, but because I have adandoned my own filthy righteousness and have received the righteousness of Christ. That does not mean that I don't sin, it does mean that when I sin, I see it as sin, I turn away from it and start walking in the right direction again.

  Each sin has degrees of offense, but all carry the same penalty, separation from God. Murder can manifest itself from genocide to calling someone stupid. Theft can range from stealing a country to not giving to those in need. Lying can go from deceiving a whole country like Hitler did, to not speaking the truth in a way that is helpful to a person.

  Of course I don't believe in the Bible or sin as such (though I still have a highly refined sense of morals). But speaking as someone who does, how do you conceptualize such issues?

  The Bible says that "by the works of the law, no one will be justified."

• April 13, 2007

  11:49 AM

  JW writes:

  "JW, God does indeed set the rules, as you say. Each person needs to decide whether they define good & evil, or if He does. If you are the arbiter of good & evil, what makes your definition better or worse than that of other humans? You seem to believe that God as described in the Bible is immoral, but what is the basis of your morality?"

  Pretty much based on the teachings of Jesus, or as its called, "The Golden Rule". I try to do unto others as I would have done to me. No, Im not perfect in this regard.

  However, its pretty easy to say I wouldnt burn someone for all eternity just because they didnt believe in me when I gave them no proof of my existance whatsoever. Thats evil. I wouldnt want it done to me, and Im pretty sure no one would. Try to imagine Jesus as he is described in the bible saying "Sorry, you have to burn." I cant.

  Keep in mind, I dont buy that part of Christianity. If God really is infinitely loving and just, hes not burning anyone, for any length of time. And I dont care that some guy 2000 years ago said it in a book. You simply cannot be infinitely loving and just, and sentence people to eternal fire for any reason.

  And I think thats pretty much the crux of why people who arent "Believers" dislike "Believers". Once "Faith" enters the picture, reality has no bearing on belief. It doesnt matter that the God described in the Bible is sick and twisted if looked at rationally, becasue faith says hes "Infinitely loving and just" despite his penchant for barbequing those who dont believe in him. Its the same thing Jihadists use. They have "Faith" that God supports their agenda and methods. Reality has nothing to do with it.

  So, when Chritstians sit there and make moral judgements about homosexuals, because they have "Faith" that their God says its bad...well, yea, according to a 2000 year old book thats true. So what? That same God thinks its cool to burn people forever. How moral is that?

  Why the hell would I let a being who will burn people forever set my moral beliefs regarding ANYTHING?

• April 13, 2007

  11:50 AM

  9:59 writes:

  Dave - You'll find a lot of namecalling, profanity and general childishness from jw, jay and the like. When the left can't make a point, they often revert to those.

  From what I've observed, the absolute gold standard on this blog comes from Hogar, Dirk Gently, History Buff and David(R)

• April 13, 2007

  11:50 AM

  Tricky McSly for Archbishop writes:

  OK, I have to admit...despite all the concepts that Christianity "borrowed" from other religions, they did create one thing themselves...the insidious degree of twisted, contradictory, self-affirming anti-logic that they use as the basis of all their moral pronouncements. That's something no one thought of before Christianity.

• April 13, 2007

  11:58 AM

  Dave writes:

  Pot, I am not "trying to outlaw someone's lifestyle", nor do I know of anyone else doing so. Overstating the issue weakens your position.

• April 13, 2007

  12:00 PM

  Pot and Kettle, Supreme Arbiters of Justice writes:

  The "left" can't make a point, you say, oh temporal one? You mean they can't make a point that you're willing to agree with, one that you're willing to look ar objectively and without bias, and that you'll actually consider outside of any personal prejudice.

  By comparison, Madame Clock, the "right" tends to resort to things like "just because" and "because God said so" as their argument. As far as "points" go, that's about as pointy as a bowling ball.

• April 13, 2007

  12:05 PM

  Pot and Kettle, Lords of All Creation writes:

  So, Dave, you didn't vote for any of those lovely initiatives and referenda that were created to deny homosexuals the ability to live their lives as themselves?

• April 13, 2007

  12:42 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  In the Kingdom of Mustang in the Himalayas, the marriage standard is two husbands for every wife. My understanding is that the women ask each other in the morning, "which Himalaya?"

  ;-)

  http://www.digitalhimalaya.com/projectteam/turin/downloads/review_dhungel.pdf

• April 13, 2007

  1:34 PM

  Dave writes:

  Pot, I have voted not to redefine marriage to include homosexuals and not to give special rights to people on the basis of their sexual behavior, neither of which "outlaw someone's lifestyle".

• April 13, 2007

  1:51 PM

  JW writes:

  Dave,

  "I have voted not to redefine marriage to include homosexuals "

  Ref I wasnt gay marriage.

  "not to give special rights to people on the basis of their sexual behavior"

  Its not about their sexual behavior accept for people who worry about that kind of thing.

  And Im still waiting for you to tell me why a God who believes burning people for all eternity is moral is a good judge of morality for other issues, like homosexuallity, or abortion for that matter.

• April 13, 2007

  2:19 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Dave, we've been over this many times on this blog over the months (years?), but there is a lot of disagreement over the whole "special rights" issue--I would maintain that equal rights are not special rights, they are only "specially granted" because they were traditionally refused. To me "special rights" indicates that they are somehow superior or granted in an unfair way. I don't see how that would apply to homosexual couples adopting, or for them having the same legal status as heterosexual married couples.

  Dave and Hogar:

  I concur with JW regarding the hell issue. If you want to believe in an omipotent, infinitely wise and compassionate God who in the Old Testament at least is also a real sadist, you are of course welcome to. But it really gets my hackles up, because it seems to me that the same attitude tends to be reflected in the most ardent believers: my way or the highway, be good...OR ELSE. I was raised a Christian, but I decided at about 12 or so that hell as such was probably not real, and soon after that I decided that if God was as described in the Bible, well screw him. What a passive-aggressive jerk.

  One mistake a lot of faithful make is in confusing atheism with nihilism. As an atheist or an agnostic, you can believe in all sorts of things, and you can be profoundly committed to the sanctity of life and the dignity of human kind without being threatened/comforted by God (witness Kurt Vonnegut, may he rest in peace). There are volumes of material written about how to live a just, moral life, which is its own reward, on top of which it's a good way to organize society. Consider it from the point of view of a non-Christian: here are all these millions of people who are working hard to live a just, moral life, based on a very old book, written by men. If there's no God, then this book is really not much different than anything written by Locke, Hobbes, or Plato. "What guides your life?" I might ask. You would answer, "The Bible." And although you would understand that to be God instilling you with moral values, I would understand it to be a moral philosophy based on men's ideas written down. In terms of the practical effect of your works on earth, and since none of us cant testify as to the existence of the afterlife, what's the difference? I could follow all the precepts in the Bible and not believe in God, other than of course the commandment to believe in God, which is entirely personal/psychological. You would be unable to tell me apart, morally, from a devout Christian.

  Here's where agnostics verging on atheism get really frustrated with people of faith. Number one, all the major religions can come off like death cults. In a tough spot? No problem--give yourself over to God and die in his name. You'll go to heaven! If on the other hand there is no afterlife, someone's just wasted his/her life. From that standpoint atheism can be seen to be MORE concerned with life here on earth--because it's all we have. Secondly, you folks tend to be extremely dogmatic about your views, because you think they are God's word and imbued with eternal providence. Therefore on certain issues you become utterly inflexible, no matter what evidence or force of argument you encounter. It's as if I hit you in the face, and then you said, "No,you didn't." "But just now--I hit you in the face!" "No, God says otherwise." "Look, there's a mark on your cheek!" "God put it there, just now." It's enough to make me tear my hair out.

  Now, regarding the sin issue, which each of you answered in about a 75% fashion:

  1. When I say "victimless" I don't include cheating or whatever. As you point out, there are victims (coveting is only victimless so long as nobody acts on it--after that, victims abound). I'm talking about a consensual relationship between two adults, whereby they make each other happy, and they don't bother anyone else. How does that have a consequence for society? If you are saying "it lowers the moral standard" this doesn't really satisfy me, because it doesn't affect whether the sin occurs--only whether someone feels threatened by other people for committing it. And only the really perverse would think, "Hey, he's buggering that guy. Guess that means I can go hurt someone, since all bets are off."

  2. When I was asking about sin, I guess I'm asking for a couple of things. First, you can have homosexual "acts" without being a practicing homosexual (sodomy, group sex, etc.); so I'm suggesting there that the sort of sin to which you object is not limited to homosexuals. Secondly, surely there is a threshold for sin whereby it affects your final judgment, unless you believe in absolution (I don't know if either of you do). And here JW's point returns: for all we know, Hitler saw the light, converted, confessed, etc. just before he died. Meanwhile, there is someone like myself who endavors to treat others well, do no harm, help out where I can, and spread as much kindness as possible, but I don't believe in God or give myself to Jesus. In some theological circles, Hitler goes to heaven, and I face eternal hellfire.

  That doesn't seem just to me. In fact, it seems completely bass ackwards. But back to the point: surely at some point Hitler did so much bad that he was beyond redemption, right? So how homosexual do you have to be to be beyond redemption?

  Obviously I'm not asking you to judge where the line is, only to pursue the logical extension of your view that homosexuality is sin.

• April 13, 2007

  2:28 PM

  Dave writes:

  JW, my response to Pot referred to Amendment 43 and to Amendment 2 of 1992, not Ref. I. Amendment 2 was indeed about granting protected status based on sexual behavior.
  
  I already discussed God's desire NOT to "burn people for all eternity", his gift of mercy in Jesus Christ, the free will of humans to reject Him, and that He is not going to force people into heaven if they reject Him. God, by definition, determines what is moral and what is not. I happen to prefer His judgment to any human's judgment, it appears you believe differently.

• April 13, 2007

  2:45 PM

  am 760 writes:

  The so called Christians blogging on this site are just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time.
  You can quote the Bible and may no it inside and out but you do not live the way Jesus asked you to.
  The Pharisees were always questioning Jesus about how he was doing things against what Scripture said, like not washing before eating, or eating certain foods, or not observing the sabbath.
  Matthew chapter 23 to 24 kind of sums up so called modern day Christians. There is to much for me to write so look it up yourself but here are 2 verses, verse 15 &27.
  "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
  27-"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like white washed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead mens's bones and all uncleanness.
  And lastly
  Matthew 12:37- "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words be condemned.
  Jesus does not want you to worship him he wants you to act like him.

  Its a cop out to think that all you have to do to be a Christian is to believe Jesus died for your sins, or was the son of God. No, you are supposed to follow his teachings, which he said the #1 moral value was, Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
  Therefore, presecuting people for whatever reason is WRONG. So Focus on your own family and behaviour and let others do the same.
  Original Native and Dirk you have some great posts today.

• April 13, 2007

  2:46 PM

  JW writes:

  "JW, my response to Pot referred to Amendment 43 and to Amendment 2 of 1992, not Ref. I. Amendment 2 was indeed about granting protected status based on sexual behavior. "

  Did you vote for or against REF I?

  "I already discussed God's desire NOT to "burn people for all eternity""

  
  I dont wana do it! But I will if you dont bow down to me!

  " his gift of mercy in Jesus Christ, the free will of humans to reject Him, and that He is not going to force people into heaven if they reject Him."

  lol. But he will force them into eternal flame if they do? My, how much mercy can you take?
  

  "God, by definition, determines what is moral and what is not."

  Dude, thats if he exists. I gota tell you, I dont think an "All knowing, all powerful, infallable GOD" would make the mistake in morallity that is required to say burning people forever is moral, and having sex out of wedlock is not. Whether he exists or not, that kind of morallity sounds distinctly HUMAN to me.

  "I happen to prefer His judgment to any human's judgment, it appears you believe differently."

  Yea well, apparently you feel burining people forever is good morals. Again, thats faith for you. Totally ignores reality. If you are right, there should be a way to justify burning people at the stake. If God says burning them forever is good, surely there is a good reason to burn them just a little bit until they are dead.

• April 13, 2007

  2:58 PM

  Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:

  Dirk,

  I doubt that I could ever convince you with regard to your questions. I would recommend that you read from the works of Jonathan Edwards. He was the first president of Princeton and the most rigorous intellect that I have ever encountered. He has a very right of center theological bent, but his logic is consistent. You can read both volumes of his work online.

  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.toc.html

  I would like to answer some of your questions. I believe that the 10 commandments are listed in the order of importance. That is to say that a right relationship with God and parents will generally help avoid problems with your fellow man. There can certainly be a married man whose treatment of his wife would be far more sinful than that committed by two homosexuals in a "loving relationship." That does not make either of them right.

  The Bible is far more interested in restoring man's relationship with God than about classifying the various degrees of sin. There is no benefit to try and justify one sin as being better than another.

  I will say that Christians should be far more concerned about the adultery and other sins that do go on in churches rather than the the behavior of the gay community.

  God does want his kingdom to come, but he has already prescribed that it will come through the Gospel, not through the political process.

• April 13, 2007

  3:05 PM

  Dona Dunsmore writes:

  This has become so tiresome. Why can't religous people see that they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against people they disagree with just because they are the majority?

  The minute you start arguing in favor of discrimination, using the bible or any other emotionally based argument as your authority, you lose all credibility.
  

• April 13, 2007

  3:16 PM

  jay writes:

  Well said Dona...while it may be entertaining to watch the fundies run themselves in circles trying to justify and rationalize their discrimination...it quickly becomes like watching a car wreck...there's only so much you can take. Time for some new topics...I don't know how many times we can recycle Imus, Nacchio and illegal immigration.

• April 13, 2007

  3:23 PM

  FYI writes:

  It all boils down to guilt, fear and manipulation by means of both. Those are the underlying principles of religion, any religion. A set of rules, often arbitrary and sometimes contradictory, is established so that the religion can have an idendity defined by their behavior. The idea of eternal punishment for breaking these rules is the means to scare believers into staying faithful and obedient.

  The idea of Hell, ruled by a Devil, which was not consistent with the philosophy of biblical times but a later invention, is meant not only to keep you scared straight, but also to blame someone other than God for the existence of evil.

  The idea that homosexuality is an abomination is, as so many of the "preachers" here can tell you, based on the principle that it is by choice that one does such things, is such a way. However, it should be noted that this idea is found alongside such archaic mandates as the proper way to butcher an animal for sacrifice, or when not to touch various people or things, to avoid "impurity". Over the centuries, the church has graduallly weeded the most old fashined and truly unnecessary rules, attempting to keep as "current" as they can without changing the faith too much. But this would typically only happen long after the rules became obviously outdated.

  It's comparable to officially retiring the horse and buggy right about...now. We know that such things are outdated and we have already adapted our lives and moved beyond it, but if it was part of the religion we'd still see a lot of carriages bouncing around today (no doubt plastered with American flags and little fish decals).

  It takes a long time for the church to admit that it's wrong. The idea of a solar system with the sun in the middle was older than Christianity itself, but it was regarded as blasphemy and foolishness, even as more and more scientists were discovering things that proved that it was true. As time went by, the church was forced to relinquish their opposition to social and scientific progress, though they never gave up without a fight.

  It's my theory that the current particularly stubborn attitude of the church toward homosexuality is more a product of the church's desperate desire to maintain control of its followers (a sentiment echoed by the conservative side of the spectrum) than an expression of doctrine. Soon, as their blind ignorance and circular logic fails them, they'll accept homosexuality, if only to avoid the threat of extinction.

• April 13, 2007

  3:35 PM

  history buff writes:

  "Amendment 2 was indeed about granting protected status based on sexual behavior." Posted by Dave.

  Wow! That severely mistates what Amendment 2 all about. Amendment 2 basically said that if a homosexual person was denied any of the rights conferred on other citizens, that they had no recourse to the goverment or the courts to seek protection from discrimination.

  You should read Romer v. Evans. The Supreme Court said the law singles out a class of persons for discrimination. It said the special rights argument was implausible because the law had the effect of preventing a class of persons from participating in the political process. It also said the law had no rational basis because it would impose a broad disability upon homosexuals by forbidding them, but no other group, from seeking protection from discrimination.

  Amendment 2 created a status based classification of persons for its own sake, something the equal protection clause does not allow. In other words, it stripped a class of persons of their constitutional rights.

  You have to be careful with language. Most people don't analyze what they say. There are things that sound good to the ear, but under analysis are deeply flawed.

• April 13, 2007

  3:49 PM

  Dave writes:

  am760:
  1) As you know nothing about me or the way I live, your long statement about the Pharisees is irrelevant. I happen to believe Jesus wants us to worship Him AND act like Him, and I do my best.
  2) I do believe we are to follow all of His teachings, and I don't pick & choose the ones I like, as many evidently do on this blog.
  3) Jesus said the first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, not the "Golden Rule" (although if you follow the first commandment, the Golden Rule will follow). The second greatest is to love your neighbor as yourself. I believe both of these, and I also believe loving your neighbor DOESN'T include endorsing whatever he does, especially when it's clearly defined as sin in Scripture. Jesus told sinners to "go and sin no more", not "go do whatever feels good to you".
  4) I don't believe in "presecuting people for whatever reason" ( I'm guessing you meant persecuting here). Disagreeing with someone's behavior doesn't constitute persecution, or hate, or bigotry, or any of the other absurd assertions made by the pro-gay-rights community. Jesus was clear about lovingly identifying and correcting sinful behavior, beginning with your own; you and others here just seem to ignore those passages.
  5) I suggest if you and other non-Christians want to understand and emulate Jesus, then read ALL of the New Testament rather than just picking & choosing the parts you agree with. Then read all of the Old Testament and understand how the Law directly points to the Gospel of Jesus as the Messiah. If you reject the Bible altogether, that's your choice, but treating it like a cafeteria does you and others little good.

  JW: You clearly want to define your own God rather than understand the One that exists, and until that changes, I guess we'll disagree. A God that you are fully able to understand, comprehend, and explain is no God at all - YOU would be God, in that case.

  jay & Dona: You're right, this is tiresome. The only reason I and many others speak out on this is because of the efforts of the "gay-rights" community to force their morality (or lack thereof) on society via gay marriage laws, gay adoption laws, forced "diversity" training, etc. We will continue to do so, tiresome or not.

• April 13, 2007

  4:01 PM

  666 writes:

  Really, Dave? Jesus really said those things Himself? Were you there in person when he did it, or did he confirm this rumor to you directly?

  I will give the Old Testament this...it was in print (in one form or another) long before the Bible existed. The New Testament, though, was written a few centuries after the events described in it supposedly took place. No one can ever truly know what Jesus really said. All we have to go by is the description as per some overworked and underpaid church scribe, who would have to trace his family tree back to his great-great-great grandfather in order to find anyone who actually lived in New Testament times.

  And of course, the most recent Bibles are even more paraphrased and re-interpreted, like a game of "telephone" (where you whisper a rumor around the room and see how weird it has become when it comes back to you) played over a period of 2000 years. That's a lot of time for misinterpretation and revision to skew and blur things.

  What Dave refers to as the word of God or of Jesus is actually the word of some nameless hack who was scribbling away in some monastery about 1800 years ago. And if that's not true...well then, either God or Jesus are welcome to point out the truth. They can call me on my cell. I'm sure they know the number.

• April 13, 2007

  4:01 PM

  JW writes:

  "JW: You clearly want to define your own God rather than understand the One that exists, and until that changes, I guess we'll disagree. A God that you are fully able to understand, comprehend, and explain is no God at all - YOU would be God, in that case."

  
  LOL. Well, if I have to worship him, and if he gets to tell me what my morals should be...yes, Id like to understand where hes comming from.

  And one last time...Any God who thinks its moral to cast people into a pit of fire for all time, no matter what the reason...is a psycho. He sure as hell isnt "Just".

• April 13, 2007

  4:05 PM

  Dave writes:

  history buff: You're right, you have to be careful with language. Here's the actual language of Amendment 2, in contrast to what you wrote: "Neither the state of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination." I voted for it because I happen to agree with the dissenting opinion: "The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment."

• April 13, 2007

  4:19 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Just by singling out "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships", it was an act of unfair discrimination. It would essentially have been discrimination enforced by law...which is why it is not in effect today.

  Just say the word, Dave. Discrimination. It's an entirely accurate description. Similar laws were passed regarding various minorities over a hundred years ago.

• April 13, 2007

  4:25 PM

  Dave writes:

  666: Maybe you should check your facts: the authors of the New Testament were either eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, or were close associates of eyewitnesses, and it was originally written in the Greek language between 50 and 100 A.D. Although we dont have the original autographs, there are presently some 5,000 Greek manuscripts in existence, with as many as 25,000 more copies. The earliest manuscripts can be dated back as far as 120 A.D. Scholars who have studied them have been able to classify them into groups and in most cases determine what the original documents actually said. They have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants", but of these 150,000 variants, most hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words. Only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is affected by them. Today there are many paraphrases and translations, some of which take liberties in certain areas, but the mainstream translations are faithful to the original manuscripts.
  In the end, though, it does take faith to believe that this is truly God's Word. For me, it's easier to believe this than your "conspiracy theories" which have no factual basis, just speculation.

• April 13, 2007

  4:31 PM

  Dirk Gently writes:

  Dave:

  I agree that you have the right to voice your disapproval of what people do, and you have every right to characterize their behavior as sin. Although I may try to dissuade you from moving from this to suggest that this behavior hurts all of society, you are free to believe this also.

  However, there is a difference between disapproval and hatemongering, and there is a difference between advocating for "more moral" behavior in the public arena and overtly blocking homosexuals' access to basic civil rights/privileges. I don't think your actions are hatemongering as such--you appear not to be doing that (although you may very well hate homosexuals). However I do think that denying access to the legal benefits of marriage, say, is tantamount to oppression.

  Regarding Amendment 2, let's move away from the legalese for a moment. What homosexuals wanted prior to Amendment 2 was for the right to sue for wrongful treatment/dismissal based on their sexual orientation. In other words, to bring a discrimination lawsuit. Amendment 2 was designed specifically to prevent them from doing so. You may very well think they live "immoral" lives, but do you think they should be fired from their jobs for being homosexual if they are otherwise qualified and competent? I think the vast majority of people would say no. Until Romer v. Evans, they couldn't sue an employer for a clear case of discrimination under Amendment 2's provisions. And at the time, they were therefore the only category whereby someone could sue for discrimination. Hell, if you can make a good case for it, you could have sued on the basis of being a white, middle class, heterosexual male. But not if you were gay.

  So you may think that this conveys "special privileges" to homosexuals. But I'll bet you no homosexuals would characterize being hated for their sexual orientation as a special privilege. I'll bet you they WISH that they didn't feel they needed to have the ability to sue under these circumstances, in fact. But alas this is the way of the world at present.

• April 13, 2007

  4:51 PM

  history buff writes:

  Dave,

  We have a state statute that says no state employee may act arbitrarily or capriciously with respect to a citizen of the state of colorado. As pointed out in the opinion, Amendment 2 would have allowed all state employees to disregard the statute with respect to homosexuals.

  The opinion also pointed out that Amendment 2 was unprecedented in American law. It would disable a class of citizens of basic rights based on an irrational status. Here in America we don't just strip people of their rights because they are hated by a majority. The Bill of rights and civil war amendments guarentee that all citizens will be respected, not just the ones who fit your religious beliefs.

  The opinion also pointed out that other groups that are not a protected class are allowed to petition the government for protection. Amendment 2 would take a way an essential right that homosexuals share with all citizens to participate in the political process.

  Amendment 2 was an embarrassment to our state. What would be next? Make all homosexuals wear pink arm bands so they can be indentified and singled out for abuse?

  You have a right to your opinion, but the laws must be settled. Your religious belief does not take precedent over our constitution in regard to basic constitutional rights.

• April 13, 2007

  5:45 PM

  Dona Dunsmore writes:

  So Dave, majority rules? I wonder if you will feel that way when you no longer are in the majority. All of a sudden you will understand the sting of the tyranny of the majority.

• April 14, 2007

  12:04 PM

  Enough Already! writes:

  Will we quit all the pissing and moaning already? Gays have no place in society! Let's move on!

• April 16, 2007

  9:17 AM

  Liberty King writes:

  Still amazes me that in 2007 some people can still be so close minded that they are outwardly discriminating because of their petty fears. Shame on you Cro-Magnons.

  On the bright side, it is nice to see that the leg. is finally doing something to improve society and not drain away our liberties.

• April 16, 2007

  9:39 AM

  jay writes:

  You can't call the discriminators Cro-Magnons because under their belief system evolution is a myth...therefore admitting that there was a clear progression among hominids is blasphemy.

• April 16, 2007

  10:42 AM

  JW writes:

  Homo love-Immoral

  Dropping the Dalai Lama in a lake of fire forever-Moral

• April 16, 2007

  10:54 AM

  Liberty KING writes:

  JW,

  just when I thought you couldn't get anymore off base....good job...way to outcast yourself into the realm of pure moron. You and History buff should have fun together holding hands there

• April 16, 2007

  11:46 AM

  JW writes:

  Ok Mr. Superior intelect, why don't you morally justify dropping the Dalai Lama in a lake of fire for all eternity. Tell me how that is a moral thing to do.

• April 16, 2007

  12:28 PM

  am 760 writes:

  Dave, get a life, so others may live theirs.
  God save me from your followers and the GOP.

• April 16, 2007

  9:55 PM

  Anonymous writes:

  Geez:
  Trot out the kids once again to float the gay (or any liberal) agenda once again.

  From the libbie handbook:
  In order to induce normally rationally thinking folks, couch your bill in terms of benefits for children and they will forget their common senses and react emotionally.

  Pleeeeze. Take this bill and all of the other bait and switch bills and burn em all.

• April 17, 2007

  9:05 AM

  jay writes:

  Only the truly delusional call discrmination "rational" or "unemotional".

  Stop rationalizing your hate and get on with your life...and stay out of the lives of others.