Tuesday, December 28, 2010

MoCo Leading the State on Domestic Partnerships

We are lucky to live in one of the most progressive counties in the country. You might not have noticed this press release that Montgomery County put out over the holidays:
Beginning January 1, 2011, the Equal Benefits Law, also known as the Domestic Partner Benefits Law, becomes effective in Montgomery County. The law applies to County procurement contracts subject to Montgomery County Code Section 11B-33A, the Wage Requirements Law, also known as the Living Wage Law, and those subject to Code Section 11B-33C, the Prevailing Wage Law.

Under the Equal Benefits Law, County contractors or subcontractors who are employers must provide the same benefits to an employee with a domestic partner as those provided to an employee with a spouse. If a required benefit cannot reasonably be provided to a domestic partner, the contractor or subcontractor must pay the employee the cash equivalent. Montgomery County Domestic Partner Benefits Law Becomes Effective January 1

This shouldn't even have to be written into law, companies should recognize on their own that their gay and lesbian employees have families to take care of. In fact the law is surprisingly broad, covering not only marriages from other states, but local domestic arrangements that are the equivalent of marriage:
The law defines domestic partnership as a relationship between two individuals of the same sex that has been licensed as a civil union or marriage in a jurisdiction where such a civil union is permitted. Domestic partnership is also defined as an unlicensed relationship between two individuals of the same sex who share a close personal relationship and are responsible for each other’s welfare; have shared the same legal residence for at least 12 months; are at least 18 years old; have voluntarily consented to the relationship without fraud or duress; are not married to, or in a domestic partnership with any other person; are not related by blood or affinity in a way that would disqualify them from marriage under State law if the employee and partner were opposite sexes; are each legally competent to contract; share financial obligations; and legally register the domestic partnership if a domestic partnership registration system exists in the jurisdiction where the employee resides.

Companies can't fire people in order to get out of this, either.
A contractor or subcontractor must not discharge or otherwise retaliate against an employee for asserting any right under the Equal Benefits Law, or for filing a complaint of a violation. The law provides that an aggrieved employee as a third-party beneficiary may, by civil action, recover the cash equivalent of any benefit denied in violation of the law. The County may perform audits and investigate any complaint of a violation. In the instance of a demonstrated violation, the law provides for sanctions including withholding payment due the contractor and liquidated damages.

The law applies to any contract awarded on or after January 1, 2011, but does not apply to any renewal or extension of a contract that was originally awarded before January 1, 2011.

The Washington Blade had an article a couple of weeks ago, stating that some legislators were "cautiously optimistic" that a marriage equality bill could be passed in Maryland. They say they think they have the votes for it, the problem historically has been getting it to the floor for debate and voting. There are some details in that article regarding committee membership changes that may make it more likely.

Once again Montgomery County leads the state in the march toward reason. A couple who have established a household, share expenses, and who love one another should be respected regardless of the sameness or oppositeness of their gender. They want to take care of one another, and our society needs to make sure it is not impossible for them to do that.

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Once again Montgomery County leads the state in the march toward reason."

the definition of marriage that has sufficed since the Garden of Eden can hardly be deemed unreasonable

"A couple who have established a household, share expenses, and who love one another should be respected regardless of the sameness or oppositeness of their gender. They want to take care of one another, and our society needs to make sure it is not impossible for them to do that."

Life impossible without the preferences society gives to encourage marriage?

Sounds like an unreasonable argument.

December 28, 2010 10:05 AM  
Anonymous it's like an ice wave said...

Darwinists have long held that modern man "evolved" in Africa and spread from there. Now, researchers are finding more and more remains of homo sapiens throughout the world, making the Tower of Babel story in the Bible appear to mesh better with the evidence:

"Scientists will be forced to re-write the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains.

Until now, researchers believed that homo sapiens, the direct descendants of modern man, evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago and gradually migrated north, through the Middle East, to Europe and Asia.

Recently, discoveries of early human remains in China and Spain have cast doubt on the 'Out of Africa' theory.

The new discovery of pre-historic human remains by Israeli university explorers in a cave near Ben-Gurion airport will force scientists to re-think earlier theories.

Archeologists from Tel Aviv University say eight human-like teeth found in the Qesem cave near Rosh Ha’Ayin - 10 miles from Israel’s international airport - are 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, making them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered anywhere in the world.

The size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man.

Until now, the earliest examples found were in Africa, dating back only 200,000 years.

Other scientists have argued that human beings originated in Africa before moving to other regions 150,000 years ago.

Homo sapiens discovered in Ethiopia, from 160,000 years ago were believed to be the oldest 'modern' human beings.
Other remains previously found in Israeli caves are thought to have been more recent and 80,000 to 100,000 years old.

Pre-historic artifacts and human remains at the new site prove that the earliest existence of modern man was at least 400,000 years ago

The Qesem cave was discovered in 2000 and has been the focus of intense study ever since.
Along with the teeth, the researchers found evidence of a sophisticated early human society that used impressive prehistoric tools.

The Israeli scientists said the remains found in the cave suggested the systematic production of diverse types of blades, the habitual use of fire, evidence of hunting, cutting and sharing of meat, and mining raw materials from rocks below ground.

'A diversified assemblage of blades was manufactured and used,' the Tel Aviv scientists wrote, describing the tools they found in the cave.

The explorers said they were continuing to investigate the cave, expecting to make more discoveries that would shed light on human "evolution" in prehistoric times."

December 28, 2010 1:31 PM  
Anonymous hey hey it's evolution!! said...

When Monkees bassist Peter Tork heard that Susan Boyle had covered the hiss '60s pop hit 'Daydream Believer,' his first reaction was, "Good for her." Tork says that he has nothing but admiration for Boyle and her unusual story. "Can you imagine? You wait and you wait and you wait, and it's way past the time anyone else has ever got famous, and boy! Her first appearance was breathtaking. I was so impressed. What resonance. A great resonance. Yeah!" he says.

Obviously, there are some very nice royalties to be had when a song is featured on the best selling album of 2009. But Tork's enthusiasm isn't motivated by money.

Tork, born Peter Thorkelson, performs sporadically these days. Earlier this year, he was involved in a musical theater piece called 'Carny Knowledge: A Sideshow Extravaganza,' in Cambridge, Mass. The show was written and organized by Tork's brother, Nick, a Boston-based cartoonist and artist. The Tork brothers played in the Carny Band, a neo vaudevillian jug band. Tork's Shoe Suede Blues project keeps him active, too. Might the brothers hit the road? "I have not heard a word about that, but anything's possible."

December 28, 2010 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the definition of marriage that has sufficed since the Garden of Eden can hardly be deemed unreasonable"

Cain had to marry a woman who was either his sister or cousin because all people descended from Adam and Eve.

The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women."

Incest and polygamy are found in the OT books after Genesis as well.

In the USA today, both of these definitions of marriage are illegal.

The definition of marriage has changed many times since the Garden of Eden. Additional changes to that definition can hardly be deemed unreasonable.

December 28, 2010 8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

making something illegal doesn't change the definition

legal or not, male-male relationships have never met the definition of marriage

that we have made certain types of marriage illegal that were considered appropriate at another time doesn't change the definition of marriage

your analogy would only work if male-male relationships were considered marriage and we were thinking of banning them

to the contrary, they've never been considered marriage

hence, gay "marriage" is unreasonable

capiche?

December 28, 2010 9:28 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Incest and polygamy are found in the OT books”

Garden of Eden incest, and God approved polygamy.

Sociopathanon: “the definition of marriage that has sufficed since the Garden of Eden can hardly be deemed unreasonable”

Please, by all means, please, do go on.
---
JimK: “They want to take care of one another, and our society needs to make sure it is not impossible for them to do that."

Sociopathanon: “Life impossible without the preferences society gives to encourage marriage?”

Physical, material, practical, life affecting societal “preferences” versus the infinitely more important protection of a mental construct.

Because, as we all know, gays are already all “in your face” about it. So, if my Biblical little brain has to think about a secularly sanctioned institution in a different way, those gays would not only be ‘in my face about it,’ they’d be in my head, too!

(Understandably disturbing, given the location of your head. Technically you’d be an enabler of homosexual behavior.)

‘Pathanon: “researchers are finding more and more remains of homo sapiens throughout the world, making the Tower of Babel story in the Bible appear to mesh better with the evidence:”

Copy and Paste: "Scientists will be forced to re-write the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains.

Oh yes, a four hundred thousand year old discovery is irrefutable proof of a six thousand year old Earth.
--
Now what's that you were saying about a story of babble in the Bible?
_________________________
-on a semi-nonconfrontational note: we never "left" the garden, dear, there is no "since." we’ve simply become oblivious to it.

sight is a choice.

December 29, 2010 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even as the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" this month marked a major victory in the gay rights struggle in the United States, a very different story is unfolding within the conservative movement, where anti-gay forces are growing more aggressive.

The latest flashpoint is a fight over the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, which regularly draws thousands of activists -- and would-be presidential candidates -- to Washington each February. At issue is the presence of the gay Republican group GOProud, which was (along with many other groups) a co-sponsor of last year's CPAC and will play a similar role this year.

In response to GOProud's role, the American Principles Project announced last month that it was opting out of CPAC, asserting that the gay group's "purposes are fundamentally incompatible with a movement that has long embraced the ideals of family and faith in a thriving civil society."

Several other groups have now joined the American Principles Project, and the conservative news website WorldNetDaily has been pumping up the boycott story every chance it gets. (WND's editor, Joseph Farah, clashed with Ann Coulter earlier this year over her participation in a different conference sponsored by GOProud.) On Monday, WND reported the latest developments in the growing boycott:

Two of the nation's premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.

"We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action

In an interview with Salon, GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia declined to respond directly to the groups boycotting the conference, saying only that "CPAC is an important event and I hope that all conservatives will join in participating. We're very proud of our record, and we'll put our conservative credentials up against anyone."

GOProud's role also caused a bit of a stir at the 2010 conference in February, when an anti-gay activist named Ryan Sorba got up during a CPAC youth panel and denounced the conference organizers for allowing GOProud to attend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldnn8KwTPUk&feature=player_embedded

Despite that incident, LaSalvia says that at the 2010 conference "we had an overwhelming amount of support. One person after another came up to our booth and thanked us for being there." Next year, with many anti-gay conservatives boycotting the conference, one would expect perhaps an even friendlier reception.

December 29, 2010 9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Please, by all means, please, do go on."

the only feasible explanation for why imp is giving us the gift of equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy is that it's the holiday season

so, imp, since you group these behaviors together, it's hard to see what your argument is

I see no reason why we can't continue to consider the marriage to be between men and women

“They want to take care of one another, and our society needs to make sure it is not impossible for them to do that."

there's no reason people can't take care of one another without governmental certification

indeed, there are many instances of it

researchers are finding more and more remains of homo sapiens throughout the world, making the Tower of Babel story in the Bible appear to mesh better with the evidence

"Please, by all means, please, do go on."

sure, no problem

much like scientists a half century ago were forced to concede that the universe came into being with a flash of light, just like the Bible said, when the Big Bang theory was proven, anthropologists are now discovering that modern man seemed to appear simultaneously on several continents, thus making evolutionary forces less likely as the former of man and the biblical account more plausible

"Oh yes, a four hundred thousand year old discovery is irrefutable proof of a six thousand year old Earth."

volumes have been written about the dating but, suffice to say that true believers have always held a diversity of views on the date of creation

you could always educate yourself and read a few

let me know if you need suggestions

"Now what's that you were saying about a story of babble in the Bible?"

not babble but Babel

in the story of the Tower of Babel, in the book of Genesis, man had become techologically advanced and God disbursed mankind throughout the Earth and confused languages to discourage technological development before spiritual development

"we never "left" the garden"

read the first few chapters of Genesis

"sight is a choice"

hate to always have to argue but you're wrong

sight is a gift

here's a couple of references

Proverbs 20:12:

"Ears that hear and eyes that see— the LORD has made them both"

John 12:40:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts,"

December 29, 2010 9:54 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon prematurely asserted:

“Darwinists have long held that modern man "evolved" in Africa and spread from there. Now, researchers are finding more and more remains of homo sapiens throughout the world, making the Tower of Babel story in the Bible appear to mesh better with the evidence:”

Based on an article which included:

“Scientists will be forced to re-write the history of the evolution of modern man after the discovery of 400,000-year-old human remains.”

This is HIGHLY unlikely.

“Recently, discoveries of early human remains in China and Spain have cast doubt on the 'Out of Africa' theory.”

Oh really? Can you be more specific? Those aren’t showing up in “The Google.”

More pasting:

“Archeologists from Tel Aviv University say eight human-like teeth found in the Qesem cave near Rosh Ha’Ayin - 10 miles from Israel’s international airport - are 400,000 years old, from the Middle Pleistocene Age, making them the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered anywhere in the world.

The size and shape of the teeth are very similar to those of modern man.”

The key problem here is “human-LIKE” teeth, and then claiming they are “the earliest remains of homo sapiens yet discovered anywhere in the world.” The fact of the matter is that they don’t know if these teeth belong to homo sapiens or not. And if they are just “human-like,” (and not actually “human”) then a number of other possibilities open up.

December 29, 2010 10:29 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

From other versions of the same article, information that seems to have been strategically omitted:

“Sir Paul Mellars, a prehistory expert at Cambridge University, said the study is reputable, and the find is "important" because remains from that critical time period are scarce, but it is premature to say the remains are human.

"Based on the evidence they've sited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals.”

And later:

“Teeth are often unreliable indicators of origin, and analyses of skull remains would more definitively identify the species found in the Israeli cave, Mellars said.”

Putting aside for the moment that initial age calculations are sometimes incorrect, and are later refined to a much more accurate date, what do we learn if these teeth actually come from Homo neanderthalensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_neanderthalensis) or Homo heidelbergensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis). That the destruction of the Tower of Babel spread Neanderthals to the four corners of the earth? The theological implications are staggering. Did homo sapiens destroy God’s creation (homo neanderthalensis) and adopt their religious beliefs? What if the homo species that God created is no longer on earth, and we’re just the ones that happened to evolve on the same planet?

As an interesting side-note, here’s another creature with “human-like” teeth: It’s called a Pacu Fish (http://e-fishingnews.com/amazing/924) apparently they are quite tasty.

In another post:

“Two of the nation's premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.”

I bet CPAC is glad the FRC pulled out – they no longer have the uncomfortable job of trying to justify allowing a hate group to participate in their conference. It makes things easier all around.


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

December 29, 2010 10:30 AM  
Anonymous Damn heteros are everywhere said...

An Oklahoma City resident arrested on suspicion of murder told police he was playing a fantasy sex game with his wife when he accidentally shot her to death.

Arthur Sedille said he often got his kicks in the bedroom by holding a handgun against his 50-year-old wife's head. But the 23-year-old telecom worker said he didn't realize the gun was loaded when he grabbed the weapon from a bedside shelf and racked the slide back during sex on the night of Dec. 21, reports The Oklahoman.

The firearms aficionado -- whose interests include the AK-47 assault rifle, M-1 Carbine rifle, Jagermeister and Jesus Christ, according to his Facebook page -- claims that the handgun accidentally discharged, killing his wife, Rebecca. Sedille immediately phoned 911, CNN reports, but it was too late.

She was pronounced dead on arrival at a hospital. A state medical examiner's office spokeswoman told The Oklahoman that Rebecca Sedille died from a single gunshot wound to the head.

Arthur Sedille is being held at Oklahoma County Jail on suspicion of first-degree murder out of an abundance of caution.

Neighbors told KOCO-TV that the couple kept to themselves and had moved to the area about six months ago.

"You never know who lives beside you," said resident Josh Wright. "You never know what's gone on in the house beside you."

December 29, 2010 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the fact that homosexuality is not the only form of sexual deviance is not really much of an asset to the gay agenda, is it?

about as valuable as when imp said marriage should include homosexuality because it's similar to incest and polygamy

perhaps you guys should consider whether whatever points you believe you are scoring are pyrrhic, at best

"Putting aside for the moment that initial age calculations are sometimes incorrect,"

it's a point

carbon dating, the most reliable kind, only goes back about 50K years so anything before that is dubious

"what do we learn if these teeth actually come from Homo neanderthalensis"

they may well come from homo sapiens, as the researcher who wrote the paper believes

"That the destruction of the Tower of Babel spread Neanderthals to the four corners of the earth?"

well, no, because neanderthals were always assumed to be older

"The theological implications are staggering. Did homo sapiens destroy God’s creation (homo neanderthalensis) and adopt their religious beliefs? What if the homo species that God created is no longer on earth, and we’re just the ones that happened to evolve on the same planet?"

regardless of your mischievious intent, the mysteries surrounding the origin are indeed fascinating

the Bible actually mentions at least one other human species in the early chapters of Genesis that could reproduce with man (let me know if you want a reference)

could they have been neanderthals?

seems possible

December 29, 2010 12:14 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“so, imp, since you group these behaviors together...”

Congratulations, ‘Pathanon, your deflection is officially blinding.

December 29, 2010 1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, so the brilliant anon rather reasonably says:

"the definition of marriage that has sufficed since the Garden of Eden can hardly be deemed unreasonable"

not much to argue with there, eh?

well, one certain moron had some comments:

"Incest and polygamy are found in the OT books.

In the USA today, both of these definitions of marriage are illegal.

The definition of marriage has changed many times since the Garden of Eden. Additional changes to that definition can hardly be deemed unreasonable."

the analogy doesn't really work but at least the individual who commented didn't sound crazed

then, imp the chimp unoriginally added:

"Garden of Eden incest, and God approved polygamy."

you can almost see him drooling

sensibly, the brilliant anon remarked:

"imp, since you group these behaviors together, it's hard to see what your argument is"

and, imp the chimp, refusing to let the opportunity to embarass himself pass by, conjured up this masterpiece of illogic:

"Congratulations, ‘Pathanon, your deflection is officially blinding"

deflection? blinded?

again we see that sight is a gift

December 29, 2010 2:49 PM  
Anonymous what sweeter sound could there be? said...

Because a vision softly creeping

Left its seeds while I was sleeping

And the vision that was planted in my brain

Still remains

Within the sound of silence

December 29, 2010 9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This being the season of hope, Islamic extremists have been engaged in their annual tradition of blowing up Christian churches.

An attack by a Muslim sect on two churches in northern Nigeria killed six people on Christmas Eve. In the Philippines, al Qaeda-linked terrorists bombed a chapel during Christmas Mass, injuring 11.

The Pope's midnight mass homily the pope invariably pleads for peace, but on Friday evening a viewer could not have missed the meaning when Benedict XVI twice mentioned "garments rolled in blood," from Isaiah 9:5.

The image, as befits Isaiah, is poetic and disturbing. Benedict surely intended it so. He was referring to the sustained violence against Christian minorities by Islamic fundamentalists.

Hours before this, from a window above St. Peter's Square, Benedict took a pass on the holiday pabulum pf other world leaders this time of year by explicitly criticizing China. He said "the faithful church in China should not lose heart through the limitations imposed on their freedom of religion and conscience."

For some, the Vatican's efforts on behalf of Christian minorities is worthy and admirable, but only a footnote against the grand sweep of current geopolitics. This is a mistake. In these times, the pope's agenda is the civilized world's agenda. The pope's agenda is individual freedom.

To the extent that the goal of freedom still occupies a high place in the purposes of foreign policy, then the pope remains an important strategic ally.

The reality of the Church's interests aligned with the world's best interests emerges forcefully in George Weigel's magisterial biography of John Paul II. Mr. Weigel had access to the archives of former Communist intelligence services.

In 1984, after John Paul had completed pastoral pilgrimages to Communist Poland, a conference was convened by members of the KGB, Warsaw Pact and Cuban intelligence services. Its purpose: to discuss "joint measures for combating the subversive activities of the Vatican."

Secularists should recognize that the pope's fight is their fight.
The pope's "subversive activities" are relevant to our disagreements today over whether the West should engage or confront Iran, North Korea, China and Russia.

John Paul II understood the nature of the confrontation. That meant deploying his best weapon: a direct, public moral challenge.

Before John Paul, the Vatican's dominant diplomatic strategy was Ostpolitik, which tipped toward constant engagement with the status quo. Karol Wojtyla pushed Vatican policy toward a public, unapologetic claim for individual freedom.

Days after Benedict XVI chastised China last week, a Chinese newspaper run by the People's Daily replied: "The Vatican has to face the fact that all religious beliefs are free in China, as long as they do not run counter to the country's laws."

"Face the facts" sums up nicely the worldview of China, Iran and Russia. Get over it. John Paul said no. Benedict again says no.

It has been odd in recent years to see prominent atheists make so much effort to diminish Judeo-Christian belief. In the modern world, and certainly in the U.S. from the Pilgrims onward to the Bill of Rights, religious practice has been bound up in the idea—now the principle—of individual freedom. Secularist arguments alone for individual freedoms don't have sufficient strength and fiber to stand against their current opposition. Benedict's fight for freedom and that of recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo are the same. Wojtyla and Walesa proved that once already.

December 30, 2010 10:40 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

My father told me that many all-white public high schools in central Virginia declined to play against his school's basketball team because, get this, my father's school had played against an African-American high school's team.

So FRC and CWfA are pulling out of a conference that, OMG, allows homos to attend?

They wonder why anyone would call them a hate group.

I remember when I met Robert Knight (at the time a CWfA employee); he wouldn't shake my hand because I'm a homo, and he was concerned about "what he might catch."

Can anyone wonder why they're called hate groups?

December 30, 2010 2:27 PM  
Anonymous not Robert again said...

"So FRC and CWfA are pulling out of a conference that, OMG, allows homos to attend?"

no, it's because those homos will promoting the gay agenda

"I remember when I met Robert Knight (at the time a CWfA employee); he wouldn't shake my hand because I'm a homo, and he was concerned about "what he might catch.""

you are aware the certain diseases are more prevalent among homos than the general population, right?

December 30, 2010 2:44 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“Secularist arguments alone for individual freedoms don't have sufficient strength and fiber to stand against their current opposition.”

I would agree with that. The “live and let live” principle is in direct opposition to the ends-justify-the-means “this is a Christian nation” and “we should shut down all gay bars” platitudes. Both of which are in direct opposition to the First Amendment.
--
Friend: "Incest and polygamy are found in the OT books.”

Sociopathanon: “In the USA today, both of these definitions of marriage are illegal.”

That just means you take man’s word over God’s -- but only when convenient. It also means that you’ve dodged the issue 4 times now in this one thread alone.
--
“you are aware the certain diseases are more prevalent among homos than the general population, right?”

Irrelevant. If you want to be considered credible, your job is show how same-gender attraction, in and of itself, is responsible for those “diseases more prevalent among homos.” You may also want to include lesbians next time, just so readers don’t take your statement as your usual obsessive fixation on two guys doin’ it in the butt.

(F.T.R., I say that with the understanding that you consider honesty, credibility and integrity to be things of the devil, and that instead of addressing the issue, you will use it as fodder for attack)

December 30, 2010 11:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would agree with that."

glad to hear it

individual freedom is under attack in the 21st century world and secular humanism will not be able to save it

"The “live and let live” principle is in direct opposition to the ends-justify-the-means “this is a Christian nation” and “we should shut down all gay bars” platitudes. Both of which are in direct opposition to the First Amendment."

the First Amendment doesn't guarantee that most Americans won't be Christians nor does it recognize a right to open establishments to facilitate the formation of deviant sexual relationships

it does guarantee that the government will not force citizens to participate in religious observations

"That just means you take man’s word over God’s -- but only when convenient."

Really don't know why you say that. Is there some scripture that states that nations must make incest and polygamy legal?

"It also means that you’ve dodged the issue 4 times now in this one thread alone."

well, it's irrelevant to the issues discussed here but I haven't "dodged" a thing

polygamy is practiced in the OT

it's always seemed to me that it is condoned but that monogamy was considered preferable but neither view really works me up

it's possible that immediately after creation that incest was condoned but I don't think the case is conclusive

"Irrelevant. If you want to be considered credible, your job is show how same-gender attraction, in and of itself, is responsible for those “diseases more prevalent among homos.” You may also want to include lesbians next time, just so readers don’t take your statement as your usual obsessive fixation on two guys doin’ it in the butt."

actually, my remark was in response to Robert having taken offense that someone would decline to shake his hand because he might catch something

I was suggesting that Robert was wrong to label this a hate crime since certain diseases are more prevalent among male homosexuals than the general population

Robert had taken to the term "homos" so I followed his lead but lesbians don't have any heightened risk of communicable disease, to my knowledge

it's actually kind of pathetic how any time the FACT of the dangers of male homosexuality are mentioned, your Pavlovian response is to say "lesbian"

since they're so safe, maybe you should try asking one on a date

who knows what might happen

December 31, 2010 1:59 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“the only feasible explanation for why imp is giving us the gift of equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy is that it's the holiday season

so, imp, since you group these behaviors together, it's hard to see what your argument is”


As intentionally confrontational as that was on my part, you knew that your portrayal of it was not my intent.

Twisting my meaning like that sounds more becoming of a “godless heathen” than a morally superior Christian.

You play your positions as morally superior, but when challenged you go on the attack.

Why attack? Why not just address the question?
--
I know you see things completely differently.

I realize there are perfectly viable positions/arguments in regard to the creation story, incest, polygamy, remarriage/adultery, etc., issues. And I don’t expect you to share your most intimate thoughts about why you think the Bible is the way it is, but I do expect an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the questions that have been raised.
--
Me: "we never "left" the garden"

anon: “read the first few chapters of Genesis”

I get it. What I’m saying is that it’s our perception of our intimate unity with God that’s changed, not our unity with Him / the Garden itself.

All of God’s creation is the garden, and as always, shining and spectacular in all of its glory.

From a “fallen” perspective, it would very well seem to be that we were “driven” out of the Garden.

Until we are able to overcome the ramifications of our new found knowledge that good and evil are things that can be experienced separately, we will not see the surrounding Garden that we are apart of.

Fortunately…
--
Me: "sight is a choice"

Anon: “sight is a gift”
-
To help clarify:

Matthew 7:7-12: Ask, Seek, Knock

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?

10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
--
It’s not the Bible I take issue with, it’s the abuse of it. AKA cherry-picking.
--
“John 12:40:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts,"


Ask and you shall receive. Like the Bible says, if you ask for that veil to be lifted, it will be.

But you have to want to see. Maybe that’s what I meant by “choice.”

December 31, 2010 4:25 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

“the only feasible explanation for why imp is giving us the gift of equating homosexuality with incest and polygamy is that it's the holiday season

so, imp, since you group these behaviors together, it's hard to see what your argument is”


As intentionally confrontational as that was on my part, you knew that your portrayal of it was not my intent.

Twisting my meaning like that sounds more becoming of a “godless heathen” than a morally superior Christian.

You play your positions as morally superior, but when challenged you go on the attack.

Why attack? Why not just address the question?
--
I know you see things completely differently.

I realize there are perfectly viable positions/arguments in regard to the creation story, incest, polygamy, remarriage/adultery, etc., issues. And I don’t expect you to share your most intimate thoughts about why you think the Bible is the way it is, but I do expect an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the questions that have been raised.
--
Me: "we never "left" the garden"

anon: “read the first few chapters of Genesis”

I get it. What I’m saying is that it’s our perception of our intimate unity with God that’s changed, not our unity with Him / the Garden itself.

All of God’s creation is the garden, and as always, shining and spectacular in all of its glory.

From a “fallen” perspective, it would very well seem to be that we were “driven” out of the Garden.

Until we are able to overcome the ramifications of our new found knowledge that good and evil are things that can be experienced separately, we will not see the surrounding Garden that we are apart of.

Fortunately…
--
Me: "sight is a choice"

Anon: “sight is a gift”
-
To help clarify:

Matthew 7:7-12: Ask, Seek, Knock

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.

8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?

10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?

11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
--
It’s not the Bible I take issue with, it’s the abuse of it. AKA cherry-picking.
--
“John 12:40:

“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts,"


Ask and you shall receive. Like the Bible says, if you ask for that veil to be lifted, it will be.

But you have to want to see. Maybe that’s what I meant by “choice.”

December 31, 2010 4:28 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Me: "The “live and let live” principle is in direct opposition to the ends-justify-the-means “this is a Christian nation” and “we should shut down all gay bars” platitudes. Both of which are in direct opposition to the First Amendment."

Anon: “the First Amendment doesn't guarantee that most Americans won't be Christians”

Never said it did.

I was talking about supremacist Christians who would rewrite our First Amendment for the sake of national recognition of the superiority of their brand of Christianity, aka “this is a Christian nation,” aka theocracy.
--
“nor does it recognize a right to open establishments to facilitate the formation of deviant sexual relationships”

Spew all the pejoratives you like, if you’re against peaceful assembly, you’re against the First Amendment.
--
“Is there some scripture that states that nations must make incest and polygamy legal?”

It means the sincerity of your incest/polygamy slippery slope arguments against same-sex marriage are for shit.

(sorry Jim)
--
“it does guarantee that the government will not force citizens to participate in religious observations

It has been odd in recent years to see prominent atheists make so much effort to diminish Judeo-Christian belief.”


I realize you said “prominent” atheists, but do you equate atheism with heathenism?
--
Me: "It also means that you’ve dodged the issue 4 times now in this one thread alone."

‘Pathanon: “I haven't "dodged" a thing

Having dodged the issue 4 times notwithstanding, I appreciate your honest response this time.
--
“Robert had taken to the term "homos" so I followed his lead but lesbians don't have any heightened risk of communicable disease, to my knowledge”

When you use any form of the word ‘homosexual’ -- knowingly or not -- you include lesbians. And to that extent, it is unfair of you to say that “certain diseases are more prevalent among homos.”

Yes, I know, typing out “HIV+ gay men who have unsafe anal sex” is inconvenient, and not that I wouldn’t continue to hound your insulting use of it, but it would do wonders to my being able to take you more seriously.

If that matters to you.

December 31, 2010 6:16 AM  
Anonymous superfly said...

not really but you did raise a few interesting avenues of discussion that might benefit others so perhaps I'll address them if I have time later this afternoon

you might want to consider how less confused you'd be if you realized that the Constitution wasn't designed to protect government from religion but the other way around

think about it

when you've had enough sleep the night before

also, here's a New Year's Eve question:

homos are attracted to guys
lesbians are attracted to girls

why couldn't a relationship between an effeminate homo and a butch lesbian work?

it would be a win-win

ask one out tonight, imp

pretend it's Sadie Hawkins Day!

December 31, 2010 12:52 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Me: “but it would do wonders to my being able to take you more seriously.

If that matters to you.”


‘Pathanon: “not really”

Thank you for your honesty.
--
“you might want to consider how less confused you'd be if you realized that the Constitution wasn't designed to protect government from religion but the other way around”

I already realize that. But if the goal of the free exercise of your religion is to turn this nation into a conservative-Christian theocracy, then you’ve already made it clear that you’re against the entirety of the First Amendment. And to that extent, the government must protect itself against you for the sake of it’s ability to protect the rest of us FROM YOU.
--
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
--
It’s the same garbage argument used when it comes to LGBT equality:

Boo, hoo, hoo, those evil gay Americans won’t let us practice our religion of persecuting them.

Boo, hoo, hoo, evil democracy wont let us practice our religion of totalitarianism.

*sniff*
--
“why couldn't a relationship between an effeminate homo and a butch lesbian work?

it would be a win-win … ask one out tonight, imp … pretend it's Sadie Hawkins Day!”


Very funny.

I get your point. The problem is, correct me if I’m wrong, that your assumption is that same-gender attraction is a simple matter of suppressed heterosexuality. If you believe that, so be it, but that’s where the argument lies.

Would it make a difference to you if it could be proven to your satisfaction that I was made this way?

The answer to that question is an important part of the equation.

January 01, 2011 2:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could also be that heterosexuality is a matter of suppressed homosexuality...as I have long suspected about "Anonymous" (he of a thousand clever nick-names)

January 02, 2011 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heterosexuality is probably not suppressed homosexuality, fun as it is to say.

But more realistic, it is entirely possible that human sexuality is like white light, composed of all the colors, that people have an innate ability to enjoy physical pleasure and interpersonal interactions of all sorts, but limit themselves, like shining white light through a colored filter. And maybe the light is not white really, maybe not a blend of equal components, but another mixture of hues.

January 02, 2011 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

in other words, a matter of choice

oops!

saying that must make me a hateful bigot

January 03, 2011 10:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home