Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Wide Stance(s)

Like everybody, I have mixed feelings about the Larry Craig "wide stance" episode. On one hand, it seems crazy to charge a guy with a crime for propositioning a stranger. On the other hand, anonymous sex in an airport restroom is creepy. But the defense is kind of getting weird, it seems to me.
Seeking to have his guilty plea in a bathroom sex sting erased, the attorneys for Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho argue in a new court filing that the underlying act wasn't criminal because it didn't involve multiple victims.

An appeals brief filed Tuesday contends that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law "requires that the conduct at issue have a tendency to alarm or anger 'others"' - underscoring the plural nature of the term.

Craig's brief goes on to cite other convictions that were overturned because the multiple-victim test wasn't met. His lawyers apply the same logic to his case.

The Republican senator pleaded guilty in August after his arrest two months earlier at the Minneapolis airport. It was part of a broader undercover push targeting men soliciting sex in public restrooms. Sen. Craig: Hand Signals Protected Speech

That seems a little lame, the letter "s" on the end of the word doesn't really seem that important. But who knows, his lawyers might be able to make a case out of it.

Guy wants to pretend he's straight, whatever, I don't care about that. Guy wants to have sex in the mens room, uh, I think there ought to better places than the airport for that. Guy defends himself saying, hey, I was only coming on to one person ... no, not really the most impressive argument I can think of.

30 Comments:

Anonymous the red baron said...

I think it's a legitimate point except that it's not true. Having sex in a public restroom is offensive to anyone who might want to use it. So, multiple persons are affected.

Craig didn't do that, however, and didn't even verbally suggest doing it. I don't really understand why civil rights groups aren't rushing to his defense. An arrest like this is outrageous.

Of course, there is probably good reason to believe he was about to do these things but are we now going to start arresting people because of what we have good reason to believe they might do?

Doesn't sound like freedom to me.

January 09, 2008 10:51 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said " are we now going to start arresting people because of what we have good reason to believe they might do?".

We've been doing that for a long time. We arrest people for conspiracy to committ crimes, for soliciting murder and so on. Not that I'm equating this to murder. I'm not sure I'd consider this a crime myself, the real story is the outrageous hypocrisy of another self-loathing republican homophobe.

January 09, 2008 11:45 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

He didn't even conspire or solicit. We should expect a little bit more than this to arest someone. I don't buy his story about picking up paper on the floor but if this arrest stands who knows what flimsy excuse will be used to arrest someone. It was over the line.

I also haven't seen any evidence of big hypocrisy from him, at least before his arrest. If he's secretly attracted to guys, and he seems to be, it is isn't necessarily inconsistent to oppose a redefinition of marriage to include gays or to oppose the inclusion of gays as a class protected against discrimination or even to desire the benefits of a hetrosexual marriage.

January 09, 2008 12:15 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, you're deluded. Its the pinnacle of hypocrisy to try to prevent people from having gay sex when that is what you're doing yourself. And your hypocrisy is just as bad. You go on and on about how destructive it is to have gay sex and yet here you are defending someone seeking to have anonymous gay sex because he's a republican - obviously your morality is subjective, what's right and wrong isn't determined by one's actions, its determined by who's doing it.

January 09, 2008 12:55 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Its the pinnacle of hypocrisy to try to prevent people from having gay sex when that is what you're doing yourself."

As far as I know, he was trying to prevent people from having gay sex. If you have any evidence to the contrary, put it up.

BTW, I'm not defending what he did, or was about to do, and probably has done in the past. I'm just disturbed by the government's actions. If it makes you feel any better, I think it's horrendous that this guy is still in Congress.

January 09, 2008 1:36 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Oops, typo. I meant to say this.


"As far as I know, he wasn't trying to prevent people from having gay sex. If you have any evidence to the contrary, put it up.

BTW, I'm not defending what he did, or was about to do, and probably has done in the past. I'm just disturbed by the government's actions. If it makes you feel any better, I think it's horrendous that this guy is still in Congress."

January 09, 2008 1:37 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron, every political move he made was to oppress gays and he took the public stand that its wrong to be gay and promoted the idea that gays are evil. It is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to do that when you're gay yourself.

And you've done nothing but defend this guy. You rant on and on about how gay sex is destructive for society and here's a guy seeking out dangerous anonymous sex and all you can do is defend him. You're as big a hypocrite as he is.

January 09, 2008 1:44 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

"Red Baron, every political move he made was to oppress gays and he took the public stand that its wrong to be gay and promoted the idea that gays are evil."

Could we see some properly referenced quotes, Randi? I personally don't think you know what you're talking about.

January 09, 2008 2:45 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Actions speak louder than words Red Baron. He opposed equal marriage - he opposed gay relationships and sexual lives.

Here you are still defending this guy despite your insistence that gay sex is socially destructive. You're pathetic, once again, what's right and wrong doesn't depend on actions for you, its who's doing it - your morality is totally subjective.

January 09, 2008 3:00 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

All I'm saying is that you haven't given any examples of him being hypocritical. And you haven't.

He isn't hypocritical for opposing gay marriage. He didn't secretly try to marry any men.

January 09, 2008 3:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

The only reason to oppose gay marriage is because you oppose gays. Its hypocritical to oppose gay marriage (and by extension gay relationships and sexuality) when you are experiencing gay sexuality yourself - you are trying to oppress gay sexuality and relationships while allowing yourself to enjoy them. Its hypocritical to oppose anti-discrimination laws for gays and then try to avoid being fired for you job for being gay by hiding that fact.

Craig was a monstrous hypocrite just as you are. You hate and attack gays for having sex at every opportunity but when its a republican having dangerous anonymous sex you want to defend him in every way you can.

January 09, 2008 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Randi said he took the public stand that its wrong to be gay

RB replied I personally don't think you know what you're talking about.

Randi knows exactly what she's talking about, you are the one using side steps to wide-stance by your man, Senator Craig the hypocrite. Craig, with his long history of soliciting anonymous gay sex apparently doesn't think gays can hold positions in the military. He voted to enact "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1994.

http://tinyurl.com/3dy6qz

A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings … that the member has demonstrated that—(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior; (B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur; (C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation; (D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and (E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

http://tinyurl.com/2q5k3b

January 09, 2008 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he's secretly attracted to guys, and he seems to be, it is isn't necessarily inconsistent to oppose a redefinition of marriage to include gays or to oppose the inclusion of gays as a class protected against discrimination or even to desire the benefits of a hetrosexual marriage.

Wow, what an impressive display of homophobic logic!

January 09, 2008 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

I picked this up at Good As You, if you haven't seen it yet it's a howler:

If Larry Craig were Gay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHCrOtSzIBg

January 10, 2008 1:24 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

I wonder if we could stop bashing people for a moment and bash at this arrest instead.

I agree that Craig is really creepy, he has a rumor wake that trails back years, and his behavior after his arrest has screamed, "Look at me! I have something to hide!"

Craig and the Red Baron both have solid records to stand on when it comes to the question of full humanity and human rights for gay and lesbian people. We don't need to belabor the point.

But the arrest IS suspect. Arrests like this HAVE BEEN going on in police "stings" for years. So which matters more? Proving definitively that Craig and the Baron are People We Don't Like, or exposing the risks that we all run when our democracy becomes a police state?

What Craig in all his weirdness has done is provide an open window into a world where it is a punishable offense simply to be suspected. Craig was arrested because a police officer believed that Craig intended to solicit a sexual encounter. Right now, the CR-Whatever is trying to expand that police power to Montgomery County. They want the law to allow transgender people and gender non-conformists to be arrested simply because their presence in a bathroom or locker room makes someone else think they might have nefarious plans.

RB says that she doesn't think Craig should have been arrested on a suspicion. She says "An arrest like this is outrageous... are we now going to start arresting people because of what we have good reason to believe they might do? Doesn't sound like freedom to me."

Why do RB and her cohort think "Craig Arrests" should become the standard for Montgomery County?

January 10, 2008 10:03 AM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

No, I don't, Tish. I'm not sure what CRC's position is but I'm not in favor of arresting trans who use the wrong restroom. I simply think the owners of the restrooms should be free to set their own policies rather than have it dictated to them by our Big Brother county government.

You're right about the Craig arrest. Thanks for displaying some integrity.

January 10, 2008 10:17 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "I simply think the owners of the restrooms should be free to set their own policies rather than have it dictated to them by our Big Brother county government".

That makes no more sense than letting owners of businesses set their own policies as to which race they refuse to hire.

January 10, 2008 11:58 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Tish, as to whether or not Craig should have been arrested I'm conflicted. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting others so the question becomes does having sex in a public bathroom hurt others. It would seem to be a fairly minor crime if it is one, but on the other hand I think its probably fair to require that people not have sex in public places and that being the case maybe its fair to arrest someone for conspiring to commit such a "crime" just as we arrest people for conspiracy to commit other crimes.

In any event, as I said earlier, the real story here is the outrageous hypocrisy of another self-loathing gay republican homophobe.

January 10, 2008 12:11 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I might add that if this had been a gay rights advocate arrested under the same circumstances there's no way the hypocrite Red Baron would be protesting the arrest - he'd be ranting on and on about destructive promiscous gay sex and how gays are evil and the gay rights advocate should be put away for life.

January 10, 2008 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hmmmmm...interesting...

January 10, 2008 2:24 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

Randi, you are pretty sure that Craig was trying to have sex in the airport bathroom. Craig did not proposition or expose himself to the arresting officer, but you seem to be as sure as the arresting officer that Craig intended to solicit sex. Why then do you claim to be conflicted about the arrest? If Craig were an out gay man with a history of rights activism, would you not be condemning this arrest?

I am trying to get this discussion away from the question of whether Craig is a hypocrite or a creep or a jerk (his behavior after the arrest answers any questions about that, doesn't it?) and to the question of the arrest itself. The arresting officer's report doesn't include any language or action that specifically indicated a desire for a sexual assignation; Craig's arrest was based on the assumptions of the arresting officer.

Should anyone be arrested for an assumption? Isn't the fact that it has been happening to other Gay men for years enough to make us say "enough already?" Now that a "sting" has netted a senator, we might actually have a chance to deal with this problem of guilt by assumption. Arguing about whether the Senator is a nice guy is not helping. If the Red Baron were to admit that Craig is a hypocritical closeted gay man, would that make "Craig arrests" go away?

I strongly disagree with you that the real story is another hypocrite. The real story is that ignorance and bias combined with over-zealous police practices can hurt anyone, even a creep beloved of neocons. The fact that someone like Ol' Red is willing to condemn this arrest is an opening you seem determined to shut.

Our friend Theresa thinks that women who look like they might be physically male under their clothes should be assumed to be in public bathrooms for lewd reasons. She and her gal-pal Dr. Ruth are advocating for a legal foundation on which to make "Craig arrests" of transgender people. They believe that their fear that a transgender person might make them uncomfortable should trump the right of the transgender person to use a restroom in peace. They are doing what you are doing - insisting that the "real story" is the purported creepiness of the assumed offender. That way they can avoid asking anyone to think about the inherent unfairness of prejudgment and bias.

January 10, 2008 4:34 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Tish said "Randi, you are pretty sure that Craig was trying to have sex in the airport bathroom. Craig did not proposition or expose himself to the arresting officer, but you seem to be as sure as the arresting officer that Craig intended to solicit sex. Why then do you claim to be conflicted about the arrest?".

Tish, Craig was reportedly tapping his toe in the next stall and repeatedly rubbing his hand under the divider. That would be very strange behavior for someone merely using the bathroom and I think its more likely than not he was trying to solicit sex - I accept the judgement of the cop on this one.

The reason why I'm conflicted over it, is I'm uneasy with criminalizing any attempt to solicit sex and only think that it MAY be valid to do so on the presumption that it was a prelude to sex in the bathroom and that that MAY be inapropriate - I could go either way on that. I accept that Craig was attempting to solicit sex but I also feel this does not necessarily mean that he intended to carry out the act in a public restroom rather than subsequently making an arrangement to have the sex elsewhere - hence my conflict. I am not conflicted over whether or not he intended to solicit sex, that seems pretty clear to me to have been his intent. I am conflicted over whether sex even in a public bathroom should be criminalized although I tentatively accept this as something that should be on the condition that it causes (slight) "harm" to others. Certainly not a major offense under any circumstances in my book.

Tish said "If Craig were an out gay man with a history of rights activism, would you not be condemning this arrest?".

Absolutely not. Just as with Craig I would wonder if this was much of a crime and would ignore the case due to me being unsure of it having any significance. The only reason I have any interest in this is Craig's anti-gay attacks while being gay himself - other than that I have little to say about such arrests because I'm not sure they are a crime, or much of one if they are but I can accept the premise that sex in public bathrooms might be reasonably against the law.

Tish said "Should anyone be arrested for an assumption?".

People are arrested on assumptions all the time, the law can never be perfect and in some cases this will be apropriate and in other cases it won't, that's the price we pay for being imperfect humans in an imperfect world - there are no black and white answers all the time. I'm not going to knock myself out wondering if every judgement call the law must make is done perfectly.

If you wish to make the case that toe tapping and hand wiping in the adjacent stall aren't covert signals to solicit sex by all means please do so. As for me I'm not going to get tied up in knots over whether they were or not - seems like a reasonable assumption to me and I'm prepared to leave it at that.

Tish said "The fact that someone like Ol' Red is willing to condemn this arrest is an opening you seem determined to shut.".

I assure you that if this was a gay rights advocate there's no way Red Baron would be complaining about this arrest - he'd be ranting about how despicable and evil the gays are and that this proves it.

Tish said "Our friend Theresa thinks that women who look like they might be physically male under their clothes should be assumed to be in public bathrooms for lewd reasons. She and her gal-pal Dr. Ruth are advocating for a legal foundation on which to make "Craig arrests" of transgender people. They believe that their fear that a transgender person might make them uncomfortable should trump the right of the transgender person to use a restroom in peace. They are doing what you are doing - insisting that the "real story" is the purported creepiness of the assumed offender.".

These situations are in no way comparable. If a transwoman such as myself went into a ladies bathroom and started tapping her toe in the occupied stall next to her and repeatedly wiping her hand under the partition I'd say that Theresa and Ruth would possibly have a valid complaint just as is the case with Craig. Transwomen aren't doing this and thus they have no complaint. Now if Craig had been arrested merely for being in the bathroom then you'd have an analogy - as it is you don't.

One thing that highlights the absurdity of Craigs protestation of innocence is his laughable claim that he "has a wide stance".
You have to have a very wide stance to get your toe into the next stall not to mention the question of just how wide can your stance be if you're legitmately using the toilet and your pants are around you ankles. And then to tap repeatedly in the stall next to you...come on Tish.

If you want to argue that Craig was soliciting sex but that there was no proof he was intending to consumate it in public I'm open to that argument. If you want to argue that its no crime to solicit and have sex in a public bathroom I'm willing to consider that. If you want to claim that the officer made the whole thing up I can consider that. If you want to claim that Craig's toe tapping and hand wiping weren't attempts to solicit sex, that I find much harder to believe and I'm not going to knock myself out wondering whether or not to believe it regardless if its a hypocritical republican or a gay rights advocate who's being arrested for it.

January 10, 2008 5:25 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Tish,

I disagree with you that gender segregation is the equivalent of unjustified arrest. It's not unreasonable for a business owner to require people to use the restroom assigned to their gender. Why? Cuz Ol' Red said, that's why!

Anyway, back to a matter on which we seem to agree. What I don't understand is why, if the officer was so sure what Craig was going to do something, didn't he just let the exchange develop until Craig incriminated himself? What was the panic to arrest him so quickly? Aren't these policemen trained how to properly gain evidence before making an arrest? I remember listening to a recording of the officer's interogation of Craig back at the station and it seemed like harassment to me. All things considered, I think the officer's conduct should be under investigation. If Craig hadn't pleaded, hoping to avoid publicity, it's hard to believe this arrest would have held up in court. And threatening a trial of someone on insufficient evidence in order to pressure them to plead to avoid publicity is an improper tactic in a free society.

I agree with you guys also that Craig's not a role model but, on the other hand, he didn't really hurt anybody. He's just kind of pathetic. But, really, so is the radical fringe groups' incessant search for hypocrites. Hypocrisy is sad but really doesn't prove anything. And, if you're like most people, you can probably reflect on your own life and think of times when you were hypocritical. It's a common human failing.

January 10, 2008 5:49 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "I agree with you guys also that Craig's not a role model but, on the other hand, he didn't really hurt anybody."

Holy Crap! Mark this day on the calendar! Red Baron used the valid standard of morality to judge someone - "he didn't really hurt anybody."! See Red Baron, that's where you get your morality from, not the bible which repeatedly insists on punishing those who've hurt no one - like gays.". Now let's see you apply the same standard to everyone, not just those you like. Repeat carefully after me:

Gays having a loving committed relationship hurts no one and this should not be punished.

Gays marrying the one person they love most hurts no one and should be supported by society.

Note that it is also hypocritical of you to claim that the bible (which condemns gay sex) is the source of your morality and then to absolve Craig of wrong-doing. Since when have you ever excused non anti-gay gays sexuality on the basis that they "never really harmed anyone"?!

Please note Red Baron that while Criag hurt no one with his attempts to solicit (possibly public) sex, he hurt many people by his efforts in denying gay people the right to marry, not be fired for something other than job performance, to have housing, and to be protected from bullies and violence.

Tish, can you imagine Red Baron ever excusing a gay rights adocates sexuality on the basis that "it didn't hurt anyone"?

January 10, 2008 6:02 PM  
Anonymous the red baron said...

Randi

I'm not and never have suggested "punishing" gays for "having a loving committed relationship". But like Craig, if they're into something pathetic like that, they should keep it to themselves. Remember, that's who they're hurting- themselves, and each other.

And yet, while I don't want to see this gay stuff illegalized, it doesn't mean that we endorse this self-destructive behavior by teaching gay apologetics in public school and changing the definition of marriage to encourage these people.

BTW, I knew what you would say when I wrote that "he didn't hurt anybody" line and yet I still cracked up when I saw your response.

January 10, 2008 6:29 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 10, 2008 6:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "I'm not and never have suggested "punishing" gays for "having a loving committed relationship"."

What a lying hypocrite! You've said repeatedly that the bible teaches what's good and right and according to your bible and your Christianity gays should be eternally tortured precisely for having a loving and committed relationship.

Red Baron said "while I don't want to see this gay stuff illegalized, it doesn't mean that we endorse this self-destructive behavior.".

LOL, you hypocrite you! When an anti-gay republican solicits reckless anonymous gay sex you defend him saying "he wasn't really hurting anyone" but when it comes to gays who aren't attacking other gays, loving committed relationships are "self-destructive behavior". You're a joke Red Baron. A sad pathetic, evil joke.

January 10, 2008 6:44 PM  
Anonymous the baron said...

"You've said repeatedly that the bible teaches what's good and right and according to your bible and your Christianity gays should be eternally tortured precisely for having a loving and committed relationship."

It's true that homosexuality is against God's will and will punish the unrepentant who haven't believed in Christ, I've never suggested that a secular police force take any action.

You seem to have a warped idea of what hell is. Hell is a place where the restraint and protection of God doesn't exist. Those who reject him eventually get the favor returned. The "torture" will be that God won't be stopping you from torturing each other.

"LOL, you hypocrite you! When an anti-gay republican solicits reckless anonymous gay sex you defend him saying "he wasn't really hurting anyone" but when it comes to gays who aren't attacking other gays, loving committed relationships are "self-destructive behavior". You're a joke Red Baron. A sad pathetic, evil joke."

Neither Craig nor any other gay is hurting anyone other than themselves and their partners, who bring it on themselves, as long as they keep things private. When they start hurting others is when they take part in leading others into this trap. Closeted gays are, at least, not participating in the whole "misery-loves-company" game.

January 10, 2008 6:58 PM  
Anonymous The Baron said...

I messed up a little on that last one. Here's another try:


"You've said repeatedly that the bible teaches what's good and right and according to your bible and your Christianity gays should be eternally tortured precisely for having a loving and committed relationship."

While it's true that homosexuality is against God's will and he will punish the unrepentant who haven't believed in Christ, I've never suggested that a secular police force take any action.

You seem to have a warped idea of what hell is. Hell is a place where the restraint and protection of God doesn't exist. Those who reject him eventually get the favor returned. The "torture" will be that God won't be stopping you from torturing each other.

"LOL, you hypocrite you! When an anti-gay republican solicits reckless anonymous gay sex you defend him saying "he wasn't really hurting anyone" but when it comes to gays who aren't attacking other gays, loving committed relationships are "self-destructive behavior". You're a joke Red Baron. A sad pathetic, evil joke."

Neither Craig nor any other gay is hurting anyone other than themselves and their partners, who bring it on themselves, as long as they keep things private. When they start hurting others is when they take part in leading others into this trap. Closeted gays are, at least, not participating in the whole "misery-loves-company" game.

January 10, 2008 7:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Red Baron said "While it's true that homosexuality is against God's will and he will punish the unrepentant who haven't believed in Christ, I've never suggested that a secular police force take any action.".

Now you're changing the subject. What you said was "I'm not and never have suggested "punishing" gays for "having a loving committed relationship".".

Its clear you lied about this. You promote the bible as the source of knowledge of right and wrong and the bible suggests precisely the eternal torture of gays for having a loving and committed relationship. You believe gays should be eternally punished for having a loving and committed relationship - that is an evil desire and you lied by denying that you have that desire.

Red Baron said "You seem to have a warped idea of what hell is. Hell is a place where the restraint and protection of God doesn't exist. Those who reject him eventually get the favor returned. The "torture" will be that God won't be stopping you from torturing each other.".

Once again you are either pitifully ignorant of what your bible contains, or more likely you are lying through your teeth.

In Luke 16 Jesus gives a frightening picture of hell.

22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)


The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."

Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."

In Mark 9:46, Jesus Christ says about hell: "Where THEIR WORM dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Isaih 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


Revelation 14:10 says, " . . . and he shall be tormented with fire and BRIMSTONE

2 Thessalonians Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 1:7-9


There are over 162 references in the New Testament alone which warns of hell. And over 70 of these references were uttered by Jesus.

The references are clear, explicit and undeniable, Hell is a place of fire and eternal torment. In NONE of those passages is the lie that hell is simply a place where the "restraint and protection of god doesn't exist". If that's what you consider hell, you're in hell now and always have been, you've never had the "restraint and protections" of "god", "god" doesn't exist, never has, and never will.

Nowhere in the bible is the lie that "the torture will be that god won't stop you from torturing each other". LGBTS are good people and most certainly do not torture each other and never will. Jesus explicitely acknowledges that it will be he who tosses people into the lake of eternal fire, that it is he who will be responsible for the eternal torture of innocent people. Once again you can't accept the ugliness of your bible so you have to lie about it and deny what it really says. Well you can't hide, its there in black and white.

Red Baron said "Neither Craig nor any other gay is hurting anyone other than themselves and their partners, who bring it on themselves, as long as they keep things private.".

I see that now that you've been caught in your hypocrisy you're trying to weasel your way out of it. First you said Craig hadn't hurt anyone with his anonymous public sexual encounters (because he's anti-gay) and now you're backtracking and saying he's hurting himself.

There is no comparison between Craig's reckless anonymous sexual encounters and most gays who are in loving committed relationships and for you to equate the two is the height of dishonesty and injustice. Gays don't owe it to anyone to hide in the closet, they hurt no one and have no reason to hide. To suggest that they do is to participate in evil. Relationships like I have with my boyfriend are a boon to us and to society. Your attempts to hide such relationships are an attack on all that is good and right.

January 11, 2008 2:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home