Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Rabbi Marries Gay Men and Lesbian Women

See what you think of this idea. From the Vancouverite:
JERUSALEM – An Israeli rabbi of the modern national religious stream has matched and married 11 observant Jewish gay men to observant Jewish lesbian women and, with surprising successes, plans twith colleagues to institutionalise the experimental venture through a well-known religious matchmaking organisation.

All the matches were arranged by Rabbi Areleh Harel of the West Bank settlement, Shilo near Nablus who told Haaretz daily that he has another 30 gays and 20 lesbians seeking matches.

“They don’t deny their sexual identity, but want to establish a home, whether to become parents or for social recognition. A family isn’t just sex and love. It’s an instrumental partnership, and not just a technical one,” Harel told the paper.

Secular homosexuals see gay marriage as the solution; religious homosexuals are often unwilling to violate the halakhic (religious law) prohibition on homosexual sex, and seek other solutions. Israeli rabbi match-marries religious gay-lesbian partnerships

The good thing here is that there is no pretense that anyone has "changed," or even that there was anything wrong with anyone in the first place. They are what they are, and this approach avoids ostracizing them, it avoids weaving a web of delusion (for instance, that they are "ex-gays" and no longer homosexual), and it does not ask people to pretend to be something they are not.

Granted, there will be some dissatisfaction, but given the constraints of the culture this compromise may best meet the needs of all involved. Do you think?
Gay-lesbian marriages have long been practiced among the ultra-Orthodox, but the current initiative results from a growing acknowledgment of homosexuality, prompted in part by four organisations for religious homosexuals.

“Most of the couples agree not to have relationships with members of their own sex, but if there are ‘lapses’ once every few years, they don’t see this as a betrayal,” Harel said. “Generally, it’s between them and their Creator.”

Each couple decides how its marriage should organised. Harel deals mainly with the moral and ethical issues of the relationship. But he is worried by the fate of children of failed experimental gay-lesbian marriages.

The married couples receive close support from a team of psychologists, marriage counselors and social workers. They also consult frequently for moral and legal advice with reputed rabbinic authorities of the modern orthodox establishment like Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein of the Har Etzion Yeshiva outside Jerusalem and Rabbi Menachem Burstein, who heads the Puah Institute which specialises in halakhic solutions to fertility problems.

I will point out one important thing about this arrangement. That is, this Jewish group is not demanding that everybody else should do what they're doing. They do not insist, for instance, that evangelical Christians follow these traditions, they do not seem to be judging the secular community or trying to get them to change their expectation of marrying someone they might be sexually compatible with. While they themselves do not accept same-sex marriages, they do not seem to be insisting that no one else should allow them. A religious community has every right to establish their own norms and practices, and no right to impose those norms and practices on others.


Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I don't know whether or not to say Mazel Tov. Probably not. But I like Rabbi Harel's effort to be a mentsch, even if I think he misses the mark.

Given the extreme views of the Ultra-Orthodox, this is certainly progress. On the bright side, it reflects an effort to be humane within the confines of their literal reading of Torah. This effort to grapple with text in light of human realities is one of the things I like about being a Jew, even though I disagree with Orthodox theology. [My older son had an extensive e-exchange with a high school friend who had become Ultra-Orthodox. When asked whether he would kill his daughter if she cursed him (as required by Leviticus 20:9), the friend replied that the only reason he would not is because civil law would forbid it. Chilling. I suspect that Rabbi Harel might find a way around that passage.)

This language from the news report was particularly striking to me:


“Most of the couples agree not to have relationships with members of their own sex, but if there are ‘lapses’ once every few years, they don’t see this as a betrayal,” Harel said. “Generally, it’s between them and their Creator.”


Rabbi Harel seems to recognize that people are sexual beings and that while celebacy may work for awhile, it cannot really be expected as a permanent part of life for most people. But sexual fidelity within marriage is, in my opinion (and, presumably, in the opinion of most "conservatives") a very important value, because it maximizes stability and trust and models those vital things for children. Rabbi Harel's arrangement assumes the likelihood of infidelity. In the abstract, I suppose that polyamorous relationships could work without being destructive of trust and stability over the long haul, but I am skeptical. Better to encourage marriages among gay couples who are actually physically attracted to one another. Maybe in another century among the Ultra-Orthodox. The Reform are esssentially there, and the Conservative Movement is not that far behind.

Jim's point about Rabbi Harel not seeking to impose his approach on others is well taken. If people choose to put their theology ahead of all other factors, that should be their business; but they should not impose it on others.

March 17, 2011 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've actually proposed this idea to you nuts several times and got the usual "hateful bigot" accusations

no one has tried to impose anything on deviants, David

quite the opposite

they've imposed

that their view of sexuality be taught to the kids of people with different views

that business owners have to let them use any gender restroom they want to

that their relationships have to be granted certain privileges from our tax dollars

the list goes on but homosexual advocates are totalitarians that seek to impose their worldview on everyone else

it's the cause that gets them out of bed in the morning

March 17, 2011 7:36 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

I've actually proposed this idea to you nuts several times and got the usual "hateful bigot" accusations

Anon, I don't believe you. Please link to one of the "several" places where you proposed that ultra-Orthodox gay men and lesbians should be married to one another.


March 17, 2011 7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not the Orthdox slant, just that gays and lesbians could get married

March 17, 2011 8:10 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

You missed the entire point, Anon. They are doing this because their religion forbids marriage of someone of their own sex.

Secular gays and lesbians, and individuals belonging to many other denominations, don't need this kind of arrangement.


March 17, 2011 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, I got the point

I had suggested it as a way to reconcile with God's plan

there are other religious viewpoints than Orthodox Judaism

Messianic Jews, or Greek Orthodox Christians, among others, also seek God

as for secularists, problem number one is the absence of God from their lives

everything else is trivial

March 17, 2011 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In another sign he is ogling the White House, Donald Trump joined the birther community on Thursday in an interview with ABC's 'Good Morning America,' fully airing his doubts that President Obama was born -- or even raised -- in the United States.

He premised his skepticism by defending others who don't believe the president is a native-born citizen. "Anybody that even gives any hint of being a birther ... they label them an idiot," he said. "And let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy ... The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him."

He then challenged the interviewer, Ashleigh Banfield, to mine his past if he were to run and secure the Republican nomination.

"You may go back and interview people from my kindergarten," he said. "They'll remember me. Nobody comes forward. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange. The whole thing is very strange."

According to his biography, Obama attended Noelani Elementary School in Honolulu for kindergarten, then moved to Indonesia where he attended St. Francis Assisi Catholic School for three years.

March 17, 2011 9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Republicans voted Thursday to block NPR from receiving any federal grants. The measure passed the House 228 to 192.

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., introduced a resolution prohibiting NPR from receiving federal funds, either directly, or from member stations. Lamborn, who proposed a similar bill last year, insists his proposal isn't meant to cripple the organization, but simply save taxpayer money.

“This is not about the ideology of NPR executives or the quality of the content NPR produces,” he said. “The real issue is the proper role of government.”

NPR says 2 percent of its funding comes from competitive grants from federal agencies, like the Commerce and Education departments. But the bill would also bar member stations from using federal funds to pay for NPR content. Those member contributions make up about 40 percent of NPR’s revenue.

Critics said the bill would unfairly impact local stations while cutting access to national programming, without saving any taxpayer money. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., sarcastically accused the GOP of targeting popular radio programs such as Car Talk.

“I am glad my Republicans friends are finally getting to the bottom of this,” he said facetiously.

Conservative activists released a video earlier this month that showed NPR fundraising executive Ronald Schiller telling people posing as Muslim philanthropists that Tea Party supporters are "seriously racist, racist people." In the video, Schiller also said he thinks NPR does not need federal funding, contradicting assertions by other executives.

Despite Lamborn’s assertion that his effort was not motivated by politics, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said NPR’s programming had “veered far” from what Americans want with a history, in his view, of one-sided coverage.

“Why should taxpayer dollars be used to advocate for one ideology?” he said.

Republicans concerns over NPR reached a new high late last year when the organization fired commentator Juan Williams for comments he made on a Fox News show. On Tuesday the House voted to cut $50 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps support NPR, as well as PBS.

On Thursday the White House came out strongly against defunding NPR or the CPB, calling the measures unacceptable. The statement suggests the bill would draw a veto, though it stops short of an explicit veto threat.

March 17, 2011 9:42 PM  
Anonymous run Hillary run said...

the French and the British try to convince Obama to help, the fighters for liberty beg for assistance from the civilized world, even the Arab League voted to implore America to intervene...

meanwhile, Lazy Bones Obama fiddles while the Mideast burns

"Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after
2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

Clinton is said to be especially peeved with the president’s waffling over how to encourage the kinds of Arab uprisings that have recently toppled regimes in Egypt and Tunisia, and in particular his refusal to back a no-fly zone over Libya.

In the past week, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former top adviser Anne-
Marie Slaughter lashed out at Obama for the same reason.

The tension has even spilled over into her dealings with European diplomats, with whom she met early this week.

When French president Nicolas Sarkozy urged her to press the White House to
take more aggressive action in Libya, Clinton repeatedly replied only, “There are difficulties,” according to Foreign Policy magazine.

“Frankly we are just completely puzzled,” one of the diplomats told Foreign
Policy magazine. “We are wondering if this is a priority for the United States.”

Or as the insider described Obama’s foreign policy shop: “It’s amateur night.”

Clinton revealed her desire to leave yesterday in an interview with CNN’s
Wolf Blitzer, responding four times to his questions about whether she would
accept a post during a potential second Obama administration with a single word: “No.”

Her blunt string of four “no’s” followed a period of intense frustration for the secretary,
according to the insider, who told The Daily that Clinton has grown weary of fighting an uphill battle in the administration.

March 17, 2011 9:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

U.S. and allied forces began preparing to conduct military operations against Libya late Thursday after the United Nations Security Council authorized international action to prevent Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi from ending a month-old revolt with indiscriminate slaughter.

Despite widespread doubts that the outgunned rebels can still be saved, the council gave its blessing to attacks on the Libyan aircraft and ground forces now encircling the final rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

The council voted 10 to 0 for the resolution, which authorizes "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. "Today, the Security Council has responded to the Libyan people's cry for help," Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote.

She said the resolution became necessary because "Kadafi and those who stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental human rights" despite earlier U.N. sanctions. "Today's resolution is a powerful response … to the urgent needs on the ground."

Pentagon officials, noting that they and European allies have warships and aircraft positioned nearby, said military operations could begin quickly. While officials said that might take a week to mount a full no-fly zone, surgical strikes could begin before that.

At the same time, U.S. officials cautioned that the U.S. and allies intended to limit their involvement, allowing no "boots on the ground."

Kadafi lashed out in anticipation of the vote, warning that Libya would mount terror attacks across the Mediterranean for years to come if foreign powers took up arms against him.

March 17, 2011 9:53 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes: "as for secularists, problem number one is the absence of God from their lives.
everything else is trivial"

What is your view of people of faith (including a number of Christian denominations) who favor civil marriage equality and bless same sex unions? The world is not simply divided between religion on the one side of the sexual orientation issue and the secular on the other.

March 18, 2011 6:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.

Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.

Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

March 18, 2011 8:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.

Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.

Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.

Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.

March 18, 2011 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced into Congress, a new poll shows a majority of voters support ending the federal law defining marriage as one man and one woman, and denying federal benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

The poll, commissioned by the Human Rights Campaign, revealed that overall, 51 percent of voters polled oppose DOMA while 34 percent favor it.

Independent voters, who were instrumental in the Republican House takeover, oppose the law by a 52 percent to 34 percent margin. Additionally, when read statements for and against defending DOMA in court, 54 percent of voters oppose the House Republicans’ intervention, while only 32 percent support it.

Opponents may try to dismiss the poll, since it was commissioned by the largest organization fighting for LGBT rights, but the numbers [] show that the sample actually skewed right.

Of the 800 registered voters polled 38 percent were strong, weak, or independent-leaning Democrats with 41 percent identifying as strong, weak, or independent leaning Republicans. Conservatives outweighed liberals by 38 to 18 percent, and a full 74 percent of those polled identified as religious. Some 40 percent claimed the moniker of “born again,” and 33 percent said they attended church once or more a week - two markers that usually make for anti-marriage equality opinions.

One glaring flaw is the diversity of the sample - 75 percent of the respondents were white, but the majority of those polled were women at 53 percent.

While the numbers may seem surprising, in light of conservatives’ historically strong support for states’ rights on this issue perhaps they shouldn’t be. Potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates like Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer are already talking about leaving marriage to the states.

Paul said the bottom line is that government shouldn’t get involved and that people shouldn’t need a license to get married. “My position is it’s a personal, spiritual matter.” He said it becomes the state’s concern when one government, such as another state, tries to impose its views on another.

Roemer doesn’t go that far, though, as ABC News reports:

”Each state has a right to determine how it defines a marriage. I’m a Methodist boy. Our church believes that a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I’m not trying to put anybody down. That’s what I believe with my heart and soul. Nothing has changed on that.”

While Paul may want the government completely out of the marriage mix, and Roemer may want the state involved to preserve man-woman only marriage, both seem to agree that religion will continue to play a role. The HRC poll, like any other, is by no means definitive, but it may reveal the beginnings of a move away from support for DOMA, even among the most conservative religious voters.

March 18, 2011 9:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

under pressure from his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, B.O.Bama flip-flopped yesterday and threw his support to a no-fly zone

"Libya's government has declared an immediate ceasefire after a UN Security Council resolution backed "all necessary measures" short of occupation to protect civilians in the country."

that was easy

March 18, 2011 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

unfortunately, there is one strong possibility for the Dems to nominate for President in 2012

fortunately, they're probably too stupid to do it

at least, however, someone in this administration knows how to act like a leader

go, Hillary:

"WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says now that the U.N. has approved possible military action, the world is waiting to see whether Moammar Gadhafi's forces begin to retreat from opposition-controlled areas in east Libya.

Clinton tells reporters in Washington that the U.S. isn't impressed by the Libyan government's claim of a cease-fire, saying "we would have to see action on the ground -- and that is not yet at all clear."

Clinton said Friday that the first goal of international action is to end the violence in Libya.

She said: "We have to see a very clear set of decisions" by Gadhafi's forces. She says that means forces must pull "a significant distance away from the east." That's where Gadhafi's forces are fighting rebels seeking his ouster."

March 18, 2011 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Anon alleged "B.O.Bama flip-flopped yesterday and threw his support to a no-fly zone"

No he didn't. Obama never had the Libyan no-fly zone off the table as an option, however, he wised sought international consensus for it way back in February, when the BBC reported:

"Mr Obama telephoned French President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to co-ordinate a response to the Libya crisis...

The president expressed his deep concern with the Libyan government's use of violence which violates international norms and every standard of human decency," said a statement.

"The leaders discussed the range of options... to hold the Libyan government accountable for its actions, as well as planning for humanitarian assistance."

US officials said the steps could include seeking stronger action by the UN Security Council - including possible sanctions such as travel bans and asset freezes - support for calls to suspend Libya from the UN Human Rights Council, and enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya.

When asked earlier whether the US was considering military action, White House spokesman Jay Carney said he could not rule out "bilateral options"."

Two weeks ago, The Daily Mail reported Obama said "the U.S. was considering enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya.

In his strongest remarks yet about the Libya crisis, the President indicated that he was keeping 'all options open' including enforcing a controversial no-fly zone with American military aircraft.

Speaking at a meeting with Mexican premier Felipe Calderon, he insisted that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi leave office, declaring he had lost his authority to lead..."

Because of President Obama's leadership, yesterday the United Nations Security Council approved a no-fly zone for Libya.

March 18, 2011 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're wrong, Bea

there has been a debate among Western diplomats and Obama, while displaying his cagey lack of leadership, has been cool to the idea of a no-fly zone while Britain and France begged him to change his mind

even the Arab League, supposedly so indignant over American power excesses, pushed for it

it was until yesterday, when Hillary went public with her displeasure over the Obama position, did he come to his senses

Hill' in 12!

March 18, 2011 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“I had suggested it as a way to reconcile with God's plan”

Would that be the same god who approves of incest and polygamy?


March 19, 2011 4:36 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Oh for heaven's sake Anon. Who do you think sent Hillary to the G8 and Middle East to drum up the international consensus he sought for the no-fly zone over Libya?

CSPAN reports Clinton Begins Travel Focusing on Middle East to meet with Egyptian and Tunisian transitional leaders

Monday, March 14, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has begun a week of international visits that are focused on the U.S. response to the political unrest in countries across North Africa and the Middle East.

Her international trip started with a G8 meeting of foreign ministers in Paris, where much of the discussion is concentrated on the political and economic issues surrounding the current uprising in Libya and elsewhere in the Arab world.

Following those talks, Sec. Clinton will travel to Egypt and Tunisia to speak with their transitional leaders.

“I intend to convey strong support of the Obama Administration and the American people that we wish to be a partner in the important work that lies ahead, as they embark on a transition to a genuine democracy,” said Sec. Clinton during a hearing on Capitol Hill last week.Throughout the trip, she will also meet with opposition leaders from Libya to hear what more the international community can do to support their efforts.

Though the Obama administration has condemned the Libyan government’s response to the anti-government protests, the President has stopped short of committing U.S. military forces to assist opposition forces. He has called on world leaders from the United Nations and Arab countries to agree on a no-fly zone to prevent Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s forces from carrying out air strikes on civilians. On Saturday, the Arab League voted to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.

Excerpts from the Text Of President Obama's Speech On Enforcement Of The Libya Resolution

"...the United States has worked with our allies and partners to shape a strong international response at the United Nations. Our focus has been clear: protecting innocent civilians within Libya, and holding the Qaddafi regime accountable....
...Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable. These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and the resolution will be enforced through military action...
...our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no fly zone...
...But I want to be clear: the change in the region will not and cannot be imposed by the United States or any foreign power; ultimately, it will be driven by the people of the Arab World. It is their right and their responsibility to determine their own destiny...."

March 19, 2011 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, it would be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

I think there are workbooks out there that can help you work on your reading comprehension skills

March 19, 2011 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yet another example of lunatic fringe gay advocates trying to impose their views on everyone else:

"Apple is under fire for approving a controversial iPhone app created by a religious organization that seeks to help gay individuals become heterosexual.

The application, "Exodus International," was created by a ministry of the same name that says its mission is to "mobilize the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality."

The app's description notes, "With over 35 years of ministry experience, Exodus is committed to encouraging, educating and equipping the Body of Christ to address the issue of homosexuality with grace and truth."

It received a "4" rating from Apple, which indicates the company considered the app to contain "no objectionable material."

Yet many disagree with Apple's assessment and are demanding that it be removed.

"No objectionable content? We beg to differ," wrote "Exodus' message is hateful and bigoted." has launched an online petition calling for Apple to remove the app that has garned over 21,000 "signatures.""

any reason you can't buy it if you want to and not buy it if you don't want to?

other than the cause of gay totalitarianism, no

March 19, 2011 1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

spam jam, Jim

March 19, 2011 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"For the first time in Washington Post-ABC News polls, a slim majority supports legal same-sex marriage, an increase of 16 percentage points over eight years of polls.

In 2009 and 2010, the public divided on whether it should be legal or illegal. Since last year, support is up six points to 53 percent, with significantly more saying it should be legal than illegal. There are notable changes in some key groups that have pushed support over a majority since last year. Yet wide divisions remain in many political and demographic groups.

One of the biggest shifts in opinion has occurred among men, who’ve been consistently against same-sex marriage. A majority of men now say it should be legal, matching the number of women who say so. Another big jump has been among college-educated whites, up 10 percentage points in a year to 65 percent overall.

Partisan divisions remain wide, with a majority of Republicans wanting gay marriage to be illegal and majorities of Democrats saying legal. Independents side with Democrats and moved up more sharply since last year, from 50 percent to 58 percent."

March 19, 2011 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the poll is disingenuous

asking if it should be "illegal" implies that there should be criminal penalties for it

few have ever believed that

we oppose government interference in this religious institution to redefine it

lunatic fringe homosexual advocates and their friends in the socialist government need to back off

March 19, 2011 4:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was hoping for interesting discussion on the topic at hand, where did Hilary and Libya come from? Oh well . . .

March 19, 2011 9:22 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon writes:

"lunatic fringe homosexual advocates and their friends in the socialist government need to back off"

OK, let's get back to the real world of real people. My wife and I just got home from a lovely dinner with our older son and his partner. They have been together nearly five years. They should have the same rights my wife and I have.

So are they and we "lunatic fringe homosexual advocates"? Apparently a majority of Americans do not think so. But even if they did, my wife and I are not going to back off. We love our children as much as you love yours.

March 19, 2011 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there's the lunatic fringe and, then, there are those who exploit the lunatic fringe

"They should have the same rights my wife and I have."

lunatics are generally too disturbed to be cognizant of the difference between natural rights and legal rights

David knows the difference very well

David, his wife, his kids, his uncles, his newspaper boy, his neighbors on both sides, all have the same natural rights

March 19, 2011 11:41 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...


How do you define "natural rights"?

Is there a "natural right" to the legal rights and responsibilities afforded by Civil Marriage under American law?

March 20, 2011 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I had suggested it as a way to reconcile with God's plan"

Does "God's plan" also condone divorce, spousal abuse, illicit relationships, wife-swapping, incest? Quite a God you have there, "Anonymous"

March 20, 2011 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How do you define "natural rights"?"

from John Locke:

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man

"Is there a "natural right" to the legal rights and responsibilities afforded by Civil Marriage under American law?"

natural and legal rights are different

March 20, 2011 10:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Does "God's plan" also condone divorce, spousal abuse, illicit relationships, wife-swapping, incest? Quite a God you have there, "Anonymous""

No, none of those are part of God's plan but I don't remember anyone advocating having the government certify and give preferences to any of those things like lunatic fringe gay advocates advocate for homosexuality.

btw, there is only one God

March 20, 2011 11:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the poll is disingenuous

asking if it should be "illegal" implies that there should be criminal penalties for it

few have ever believed that"

Apparently 42% of those polled in this latest WaPo/ABC poll believe exactly that because they said "Yes" in answer to that question.

It's NOM's Brian Brown's who is being "disingenuous" about the wording of that question. As the WaPo reported with their latest poll that shows a majority of Americans now support gay marriage:

"Post-ABC News polls have used the same “legal or illegal” wording in every poll about same-sex marriage since 2003. Other surveys by the Pew Research Center, the Associated Press and CNN show similar trends."

"the shift has been driven by several political and demographic groups whose support for such unions jumped sharply. Men, who previously were less supportive of same-sex marriage than women, now back it at the same rate. Support among college-educated whites, political independents and people who do not consider themselves religious also rose substantially.

Republicans, conservatives and white evangelical Christians remain the groups most opposed to legalizing gay marriage.

The survey also shows a shift in how intensely people feel on this issue. In the past, the number of Americans who felt strongly that gay marriage should be banned far outnumbered those who were passionate in their belief that it should be legal. That has balanced out, with 35 percent strongly against legal gay marriage and 36 percent strongly in favor."

What's also disingenuous is NOM's attempt to pretend the tide of public opinion, which becomes more tolerant of our gay brothers and sisters year after year, isn't changing. Every poll taken shows the shift in public opinion is progressing away from the NOM view.

"btw, there is only one God"

Per your religion. Believe as you choose to believe, as every American is equally free to do.

March 21, 2011 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the bounds of nature" are full of examples of same-sex couplings.

"Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say."

"Giraffes do it, goats do it, birds and bonobos and dolphins do it. Humans beings--a lot of them anyway--like to do it too, but of all the planet's species, they're the only ones who are oppressed when they try.,9171,990813,00.html

"homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them."

"Evidence Of Same-Sex Mating In Nature"

March 21, 2011 8:40 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

Anon defines "natural rights" by reference to John Locke, which he/she reports is "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man."

So, Anon, what is your point regarding your view that natural law and legal rights are not the same thing?

March 21, 2011 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What's also disingenuous is NOM's attempt to pretend the tide of public opinion, which becomes more tolerant of our gay brothers and sisters year after year, isn't changing."

preserving the definition of marriage isn't intolerant in any way

"Believe as you choose to believe, as every American is equally free to do."

Thanks, I will.

Still, there is one God.

""the bounds of nature" are full of examples of same-sex couplings.

"Nature has spoken: Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say.""

actually, cannibalism occurs in nature too

what's the point?

"So, Anon, what is your point regarding your view that natural law and legal rights are not the same thing?"

my point is that conflation is a deceitful practice

March 21, 2011 9:45 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon wrote:

“my point is that conflation is a deceitful practice”

Great point Anon. I agree with you 100%.

And it is precisely why Ruth and her friends at the CRG should stop conflating job and housing protection for gender identity with heterosexual men sneaking into restrooms and raping girls and women.

Glad we can finally agree on something.

Have a nice day,


March 22, 2011 9:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home