William - You seem to be a highly educated individual. Blogs like these are meant for individuals from all backgrounds to voice their opinions. To stifle their opinion would be wrong, and I am glad to read that I was WRONG about you. The last couple of post from you AND Preston have been productive, even though they are going in two different directions. Healthy conversations like this will only help raise issues on both sides. Preston, you make good points (some, well…they make me smile)...William, you too make good points (especially the point that more people should be vocal about other issues and the statement you made about new legislation that tries to judge our own personal moral values (I too share that concern)). William, I’m a bit more older than you…won’t say how much :-), but I do enjoy my dinner discounts.

William - Just a couple responses before I put this one to bed. Even if it is genetic, that is not an excuse for society to support it. So, your second point, what harm does it do, would be the more important issue. I would answer you by pointing to other things that are illegal, or have been. When alcohol was illegal, yes, you had a bad element that was still able to get it bootleg, but, for the most part, most people weren't able to get it. And because it was illegal, most people didn't try. Now, it's legal, and just about everyone drinks alcohol of some kind. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, just an example.) Pot is illegal. Yes, there are those who do it. But not the majority. However; if it was legal, I believe a lot more people would do it more often. Homosexuality was illegal until recently. Your in your twenties, so to you, maybe it's always been legal. But for me, just recently. When it wasn't legal, you hardly ever heard about it. Now, seems to be all we talk about. If legislation is passed to make the marriage part legal, you will see a lot more people get involved in homosexuality. Actually, I think we'll see a lot more get involved anyway, since most of the sodomy laws have been rescinded. That worries me because of my kids, grandkids, etc. The chances of them getting involved with it are much greater now than it was when I was a kid. As a parent, you worry about your kids getting involved with drugs, and sex because those are destructive behaviors. Now, with homosexuality on the rise, sex is even more destructive. Society shouldn't encourage that behavior. Without the restrictions that we've had in the past, people will get out of control with this sex thing. It's one of the hardest things for humanity to self-control anyway. We don't need to make that even more difficult by allowing and encouraging destructive behavior. Reproduction is a societies product. The type of sex that we encourage today is not reproductive. Even straight sex is taught to be "safe". Europe is over run with Arabs right now, because they've practiced "safe" sex and birth control, not to mention abortion. America will do the same because of issues like this. So, the short response to what harm does it do? It will be the end of the American culture, a self-destruction of sorts.

Mardy and Preston, my credentials are that I have three biology related degrees, and I am finishing my Ph.D. (I am still relavitely young, less than 30) as we speak in a science related field. I unfortunately do not have much time to read outside of science. I would estimate that I read several 100 pages of scientific literature a week, which you would hope as someone involved in cancer research would do. I always hear the argument "if it is genetic, why can't anyone prove it." That is like saying "AIDS is a disease only gay people get" and then dismissing scientists who were saying they believed it was viral even though they couldn't prove it at that time (which they were later able to prove that hypothesis). It is too complicated methodologically to prove it is genetic at this time, however, homosexuality behaves like most other non-inherited genetic malfunctions (this is the most significant reason why we argue it is genetic). Not too many gay people even argue that it is natural. I do not believe it is natural, because it does not confer any reproductive advantage; rather it is something that arises through some aberrant mutation like we see in many diseases that do not originate in the germ-line. In the Apr 28th post I attacked your views not you. If I attacked you I would say everything you say is stupid, but I know that is not the case. I also have friends who are in politics now, even one who works for President Bush. Friends who are finishing law school at Stanford. I discuss these things with them as well to broaden my knowledge. But what it really comes down to are two things. 1st I believe it is genetic, 2nd what harm does it really do to humanity for two men or women to marry (considering all the other atrocities that are happening on earth such as genocide, famine, lack of health care, things that are way more in important than gay marriage). Yet, I don't see many people marching for better health care or genocide. Not that I do myself, but it would be nice to see the people who are the motivated individuals behind the anti-gay movement to be out demanding our elected officials to do something about those things I listed earlier.

William…you, sir, have made it personal. Refer to your post on Apr 28, 2008 12:23 PM. Although I have provided countless educational material (books and web links) referencing cultural war and homofascism, you continue your rant on how the terms are not used correctly; although individuals much smarter than you and I have been using those terms (within the boundaries of the subject matter) for years. You are setting yourself up as an authority without providing credentials, and therefore blootered the opinions of the writers (educated or not) in this blog to your own satisfaction; Everyone should have the right to express their opinion without individuals putting them down. I, on the other hand, provide respected and fair material for everyone to read that actually provides two-sides to every story so that individuals could make up their own minds, and not be persuaded by ideological morons. From your previous posts, one could surmise that you will not take serious the opinions from those that are not educated, and therefore, they should not have a voice and no one should listen to them. When you asked me of my educational background, I took offense to it…as education has nothing to do with holding opinions. It reminded me of the thought process of Aristotle…although a great man he was, he would not engage in critical thinking with the “un-educated”. If I unfairly portrayed you and took offense to statements that were misdirected, then I will be the first to apologize. On a side note, I will say I agree with some of what you just now posted…probably, one of your best posts on the subject.

William - It's not emotion. (another ploy to put down our oppinion) And your statement equating allowing homosexuality with human decency was indecent to me. I equate homosexuality with all other sexual perversions, because it is a perversion of what's natural. You talk of hateful speech, and leave it up to those who we're admonishing to determine whether it's hateful? C'mon. When a parent corrects his child, do you think the child is happy about the language used during the correction? To me it is hateful to allow someone to wallow in sin without letting them know it's wrong. To me, it's hateful to have the "key" to eternity and not share it with anyone. It matters not if anyone wants to hear. It is only my job to make sure that they do hear. As far as enforcing a theological morality, again, we're not the one's trying to change law. That would be what homosexuals are trying to do. We are simply defending our own.

Wow Mardy (or whatever your real name is), you are trying to make it personal. Re-read my post, I specifically said that an education is not a requisite for intelligence. The reason I brought it up was to see if you fit within the statistics of those who vote for what party. I do believe having parties in politics is bad, but it is what we have. I do not consider myself liberal or conservative. I share some ideology with both sides, therefore I look for a candidate that represents those ideals the most. The main thing I consider is social policies; for instance, I believe if we start strictly enforcing theological morality, we open the door for all kinds of new legislation that tries to judge our own personal moral values. Example, what adults are allowed to watch on TV, etc. Preston I am not quite sure how wishing equal rights for homosexuals is socialism, unless this is an off topic point. Which then I would agree. I believe all people have the right to debate, I only hope those involved have due diligence and take it upon themselves to become educated on the topic (not to simply discuss it through emotion only). I believe you two are allowing your religious emotions to outweigh human decency. I am not even really arguing your interpretations of the Bible (however some are). Let's say the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin. I still don't believe how you are approaching that is proper. You both say you are not being hateful, but I would guess that the people who matter in determining whether it is hurtful speech (homosexuals) would say it is. It is like me saying "you are fat", and saying that is not hateful. The only person who can truly decide whether the speech is hateful is the person (you) being called fat. As for debating, again, using words like you guys have used in previous posts like "culture war" and "homofascism", those are not useful words. They not only try and inflame the issue, they are also incorrect usages. I have several close family members who speak in the exact same tone as you two, and I still have a great deal of respect for them and their opinion, though I do tell them that I think that type of rhetoric is destroying common decency in the United States. I do agree with this statement by Mardy “The increasing support for Democratic candidates among professionals may be traced to the prevalence of social liberal values among this group. Since 1988-2000 the professionals backed the Democratic Party 52% to 40%. Other books written by Kurtz, Frank, Carrera, and Dharamsi also point to the fact that the three groups that make up the largest influx of professionals within the Democratic Party are medical, professors, and economists”, because I am one of those aforementioned individuals. The vast majority of medical professionals concur that homosexuality is genetic not choice. You, however, can argue that to engage in a homosexual act is a choice. Exactly the same as it is for a heterosexual to choice whether to engage in heterosexual sex. We have too many people from unfamiliar backgrounds trying to assert whether it is choice or genetic, especially in the church. You can find a scant amount of people in science who argue that is choice alone, but I would imagine in articles they try to publish in peer-reviewed journals are rejected due to their lack of scientific methodology.

William...do you know what Ostracism is? As a result of your posts, I believe you do...for you are promoting it. Shame on you! May be it is time to scratch your name on a potshard and deposit it in an urn. Hypothetical officials in this blog could then count the ostraka submitted, and hopefully we’ll receive six thousand votes, so that the ostracism can take place (a requirement during those dark days). Who knows, may be your name will appear on most of the potshards.

William - U.C. Irvine, Universities of Maryland and Oklahoma for my formal education. However; I do not consider education to be strictly classroom or formal. Those who only have a classroom education are missing the practical app. There is the "hands-on" education that can only come from doing, and that is exactly what those in the universities are lacking. You say that you never had a professor point you toward a certain ideology...? Hu? C'mon. Every class I took in school pointed towards the liberal ideology. Even classes that had nothing to do with those things always wound up in discussions concerning ideologies. I was always amazed at how many people kept their mouths shut, and just accepted what the professor was saying. I had one student tell me that he would take the professor's oppinion over anyone else's because the professor had read more than anyone else. Hu? Number one, I don't think the professor has necessarily read more than anyone else, and number two; does reading automaticly invoke certain knowledge? That seems to be the attitude amongst the educated. Now, as far your, "People are so afraid of what is different and what questions their own faith." comment... You just don't get it. We're not afraid of homosexuality. It's not something different that we fear. We're human too. Remember? We have all experienced passion, desire, lust. We all know what that is. The difference is that Christians understand it to be wrong. Not the desires or the lusts, but acting on the desires and lusts, or focusing on the desires and lusts. As far as staying out of other people's business... Really? You believe that? Because it is usually people like you who want to be in my business most of the time. It is usually the educated who feel like they need to control the masses. I mean it is your kind who push socialism. Not conservatives. And it's not conservatives who are suddenly against homosexuality, and making "new" legislation to prevent it. The fact is that homosexuality has been against the norm forever. We're not suddenly trying to put it down. It is your kind who are suddenly trying to lift it up. I believe it takes courage to stand up for what you believe in. Most of America lacks that courage. Homosexuals do not lack courage. They are promoting and pushing their agenda or desires as we speak. Most of America sits back quietly and lets them. I will not. I, like them, have and agenda or desires that I believe in as well. I will not allow them to push theirs without a rebuttal. I will stand for what I believe in. You can call me uneducated, bigoted, racist, mean, stupid, hateful, etc... None of that changes the fact that what you're pushing on us and our kids is wrong, and all we're doing is defending what we have.

William...I stated "well before the 80's". Do you actually read? I have not focused my attention on the subject matter of “which Party is leading in the make-up of Professionals". Therefore, I asked you an honest question as a result of your interesting post. You, on the other hand, have proven to be an idiot by even asking your question regarding the “level of education”. Although your question does not deserve an answer, I’ll provide one—yes (Berkeley, University of California…Ph.D. Epidemiology and Biostatistics…then again, I could have stated I was a freaking rocket scientist with NASA )…the level of my education is not important (the inquire actually provides an insight on the type of person you are). I engage in highly debated topics all over the web (mainly topics within social and physical environment). I was enlightened on some subject areas within this blog, and therefore decided to participate. Do you even know the definition of "Mardy"? I doubt it…as you most likely believed it was my name and not a web ID. Since you failed to back up your point of view (except with spewed rhetoric)...I'll provide the facts for you. Your statement is correct…but I would disagree in the level of assertion. While the professional class was once a stronghold of the Republican Party it has become increasingly split between the two parties, leaning in favor of the Democratic Party. The increasing support for Democratic candidates among professionals may be traced to the prevalence of social liberal values among this group. Since 1988-2000 the professionals backed the Democratic Party 52% to 40%. You can read more (but I doubt you will) on this subject in books like “Back to the Future” written by Judis, J. B. & Teixeira, R. (June 19, 2007). Other books written by Kurtz, Frank, Carrera, and Dharamsi also point to the fact that the three groups that make up the largest of influx of professionals within the Democratic Party are medical, professors, and economists. You, sir, are an idiot…and even hinting that un-educated individuals cannot participate in a stimulated conversation is absurd!

Mardy, do you or Preston have college degrees, if so, where from? Just out of curiosity. Check the exit polls in November, you will see. We are well past the 80s. A republican then is completely different than what a republican is now. Many conservative friends don't believe that the conservatives running these days are genuine republicans, hince the word neocon. Like I said, watch in November.

William, I would like to see your facts on your exit poll statement. Since well before the 80's, more REP voters than DEM voters have been noted as having college degrees. Where are you getting your information. Thanks.

I am not saying that all people who believe the same way as you are not well educated. However, if you read all the exit polls following the primaries over the past several months, you will see a correlation between who votes for who. There is a stronger correlation with individuals who have completed college or more who vote democrat than there is with those who vote republican. I do believe having more formal education teaches one to think critically for themselves, rather than blindly following what your told. Never once did I have a professor try to point me in an ideological direction. I believe what I believe because it is more humane, therefore allowing individuals to live their life in a rational manner. People are so afraid of what is different and what questions their own faith. I think it is cowardice to not be confident enough in your own faith to allow other to practice their own beliefs. I agree that you can put a monkey in a classroom and they can earn a degree, however, that monkey does not have the appropriate skills to think critically. I do believe that is a problem with our educational system. I would personally like to see people stay out of other people business, if their business does not directly alter you daily lives. I have yet to hear one reasonable argument as to how a homosexual couple intervenes into your lives. You try to make an argument about taxes, excetera, but that is unreasonable. I hope you guys one day will choose to just live your lives and not someone elses.

William just displayed another example of how liberals deal with those who disagree with them. We are obviously not as educated as William. If we were, then we would have come to the same decision that he and his friends have come to. That is even more rediculous than the argument of an uneducated person. Plain and simply it is arrogance. Generally, those who are arrogant aren't educated at all. They can spout degrees and years of study - but you can set a monkey in a class room for years, and award it degrees, it's still a monkey and no more educated than before.

William, please read my post below. In addition, since you don't use the internet for resources (I would agree to a point that the WWW should not be used as the sole source) you could do the old fashion way of research and read related books to the following book on the subject: Hewitt, Andrew. (1996) Political Inversions: Homosexuality, Fascism, & the Modernist Imaginary Stanford University Press ISBN 0-8047-2641-8.

William, I am glad I could make you smile…although you probably didn’t mean it that way. First, thanks for clearing up you thought process on the race issue...I agree. Second, I only state facts and back them up with resources…when I state opinions, I would state so…and, I also provide an argumentative (devils advocate) view point for the other side as to allow the reader to make up their own minds (I don’t always agree with what I pen, but I believe it is absolutely wrong to slant an opinion without providing educational stimuli for those that have not formed an opinion). Third, Webster never had couch-potato in it for several years..but it does now; the word aint was added as well (unless they removed it LOL)—I hope you are not only leaning on Webster for your understanding of daily words. Those individuals that would relate fascist with Mussolini and the blackshirts are sickening; they take the real meaning and twist it to their perverted ways. Why do you think the word fascism is a slur? Homofascism is not a negative term at all. With that said, I will give you my "personal" opinion on the subject...I compare Homofacist with Homophobes. Both of these groups are hateful, they spread hate, and they show no sympathy for understanding (tolerance). Both groups are a disgrace. However, this is America, and they deserve their voice to be heard. To silence one group or the other would be unconstitutional, and equally disgraceful.

You crack me up Mardy. I do not use the internet for source material; anyone like you can post fictional/opinionated material online as if it were fact. I tend to use the dictionary to look up the meaning of words. There is nothing fascist about their means toward their goal. The word minority does not inherently equal race, another word you do not understand as well. Minority in most contexts means less than the majority, the majority in this case being heterosexuals. I never thought it would be possible to pervert a word like fascism, but you Mardy and many others have been successful. You bought into this idea whole heartedly. People far more intelligent than you purposely use this terminology to get other people thinking that gay people are like Mussolini and the blackshirts. Richard, just because Justice Scalia used the word does not make it right. I have watched Justice Scalia speak on TV several times, and he always uses terrible analogies. He is out of touch with reality. Unfortunately too many people by into the words of people in authoritarian positions, but do not spend anytime parsing their usage to determine their motivation. There will always be people against rational equal rights for humans, and those people should look around and see what they have in common. The majority will have less than average education.

William, here is a quick link that "magically" also links homosexuals, homofascist, and cultural war all together: http://www.antiwikipedia.com/Homofascism. When you do a Google, as always, just remember there are tons of links to those that also spread hate and smear individuals on both sides of the issue...you just have to weed out the ignorant. Some like to use the term fascist as a slur or as a reference point to ones enemy…that also shows ignorance to the true, pure meaning of what the word actually stands for.

William, yes, I do know what a fascist is. Obviously you do not. Fascism is not a negative term at all...as you suggest. The meaning is: authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race and promoting cults of unity, energy and purity. Do a Google on Homofascist...you might be enlightened...as it is a political movement with an agenda...nothing NEGATIVE at all. America IS going through a cultural war on many sides...your issue is just one of many. If you got offended by the statement "cultural war", then I suggest you educate yourself on the subject matter before you make future statements. And, did you just compare homosexuals with minorities? Are you suggesting homosexuals are equal to a race? Curious.

William: Unfortunately, the term "Culture War" is not the invention of Mardy. It has been used repeatedly by both sides of the "war". Here I quote at length the rebuttal by US Supreme Court Justice Scalia to the decision of the court which struck down an antigay amendment to the Colorado state constitution. This is from a report by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
===============
Justice Anton Scalia wrote a blistering dissent that went straight to the Gramscian roots of the decision. He attacked the majority "for inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take victory away from the traditional forces," and for "verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes." The court, Scalia wrote, "takes sides in the culture war"; it "sides with the knights," that is, the elites, "reflecting the views and values of the lawyer class." He concluded that: "Amendment 2 is designed to prevent the piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by the majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will."

Mardy, did you just describe this as a "cultural war". Wow. You should choose your words more carefully. That is absolutely disgusting if you are comparing this to a war. Scary, scary, scary. Mardy, do you even know what a fascist is. Obviously not. You are completely trying to inflame the issue by trying to tie war and fascism to homosexuals who are trying obtain equal rights. As a happily engaged heterosexual male, I find your outlook on homosexuals to be absolutely appalling. I suggest that no one else respond to Mardy past this point. He is using this forum to issue propaganda against a part of our population. I wasn't alive during the civil rights movement, but I imagine the same type of rhetoric was used to try and prevent minorities from receiving equal rights. You can always find hate where there is difference.

Richard, Thanks for clarifying the difference. To answer your question about censured…I do not believe she deserves to be condemned (the strongest of censure), but maybe show some type of disapproval of some sorts by her colleagues. Well, I am a bit confused on whether or not she even stated that she received the threats. According to the Tulsa paper, she is quoted as saying, “Kern said Monday that she had not received death threats. On Tuesday, she said, "It's changed," but she did not elaborate.”. OSBI did find emails that had language in them that did warrant prosecution…however, nothing is actually being elaborated on this as to what it actually was; only to the fact that it was proven to show many emails contained vulgar and a few vaguely threatening violence. In any case, the subject of her lying about receiving death threats, I am not convinced that she did lie. Obviously, there was some type of information conveyed to her that the OSBI has deicide to follow-up on. I didn’t find anywhere where she actually withdrew her allegations of death threats (and I cannot find anything that she is quoted as saying she received death threats…only the quote I mentioned above). It was hard for me to determine if the transcript was missing any information…but I do find it interesting that the group against Kern added their “clarification” to the context. The spin, she referred to, appeared to be drawn from conclusion as to whether or not she has toned down her opposition. From all you have given me, Richard, I think I would agree with you on the 2nd motion, but the first and third I would disagree with you. I do think there was a spin, and I do believe some illegal wording was placed in her emails due to the fact that the DA is moving forward with the investigation. FYI: She is entitled to her opinion on the danger of homofascism and what the dangers are and how they have been successful in promoting their agenda and getting approval of indoctrinating children through approved literature in our public libraries; Just as the other side is authorized to “get pro-homosexuals” elected and move legislature through the house…as they have stated on the website you provided. This is a cultural war, and only in the past several years have individuals like Rep Kern stepped up their movement of protecting what they believe are family values. While homofascism has been on the move for the past 40-60 years. I want to thank you for providing me the research material!

Mardy: In re-reading our exchange, I want to be sure you understand that I said 'censured' and not 'censored', there is an enormous difference there. The governor has already made disenting comments regarding Rep. Kern, but it seems, given the overall circumstances, that the legislature, even if divided, should make some formal statement/action of disapproval.

Richard, wow. Now that is documentation...it is going to take some time for me to review all of this, and then I can honestly provide you an answer to your original question, and may be others will too. Great job.

Part One - Flashpoint KFOR-4 Mar 23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_qDVwr0Jew&feature=related

In addition to the tape at the luncheon there is a full video of the discussion presented on KFOR-4 Flashpoint on Mar. 23 which included Rep. Kern and Scott Jones, pastor of OKC Cathedral of Hope (in two parts). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zizvwv9sbw0&feature=related.

Mardy: Here is the URL regarding the OSBI investigation:
OSBI reading Kern e-mails [080312]
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080312_1_A13_hThey04584

Mardy: The OSBI found no death threats - NONE - not in voice mail nor email. As I said on Apr. 17, Kern withdrew that allegation at the end of the investigation by OSBI. I will hunt for the original source [URL], I may have already discarded it. Regarding the comments made at the Republican luncheon, I have previously cited www.americansfortruth.com. Do a search for 'Kern' and you will find another link to the full test. Granted, one's point of view will determine whether or not the commments were "out of context"; however, if you read the whole transcript and then the extracted comments, you should find that the extract was not edited and when read in its entirety, the transcript does not change the tone of the extract. The PFLAG audio should stand on its own. The comments by PFLAG immediatley following the visit were that Kern had not changed her previous position on laws against discrimination, only that she agreed that no one should lose employment based solely on being gay. The flood of emails that came from gay writers had only the headlines to perceive that Kern had actually condescended to meeting with PFLAG. I'll do my best to retrieve the origiinal sources, but I still stnad by my statements of Apr 17.

Darren - Sexual orientation is not a fact. And the logic you use to define homosexuality does not work in the real world. If we applied your logic (desire or attraction defines homosexuality, not the act) to other acts, then we would all be murderers (desire to kill those we hate) without having to acually commit murder. We would all be adulterers without having to actually commit adultery. We would all be thieves without having to steal anything. You can't prosecute someone for something they haven't done, whether they had the desire to do it or not. You are not homosexual if you have not had same sex relations. The terms homosexual and heterosexual are terms used to define types of sexual preferences. Not to make a case for your "orientation" theories. Sin is a willingness to act on desire, even when we know it's wrong; Putting ourselves before God and others. In that sense, homosexuality (preference or act) is wrong, because it's clearly defined as being a sin. Murder is a sin, not the desire, the act. It's about the condition of your heart, and what you're willing to do for God, or against Him.

Mardy: Luncheon speech transcript. Extract is in boldface.
http://americansfortruth.com/news/full-transcript-of-oklahoma-rep-sally-kerns-speech.html

Richard, what are the false statements? Could you please provide links to the statements? The Death Threats were real--backed up by the OSBI and the States investigation (according to AP). The threats were in emails, but not on voice mail…at least that was the last word I got. I watched news cast, and saw something to the fact that the PFLAG did contradict her in some statements (making misleading statements) and they (the news) provided audio of the message. I'm like you though; I cannot find any written statements. I cannot find anything that would lead me to believe she has lied, and for her to be censored because of her objection to the homofascism movement would be un-American. The only censorship should be by vote…vote her out of office…the most powerful censorship a free democratic society has.

There have been many interesting observations from both sides (Conservation--Liberal)reagarding the meaning and nature of homosexuality; and how it is (or is not) described and judged in the biblical texts. All well and good. However, I am still waiting for an assessment of the issue I presented in my comments on Apr. 17. The above article is about Rep Sally Kern and repeated attempts to remain blameless for her two-faced accounts of the events following the Mar. 7 (?) disclosure of what many are calling hate speech. What do you readers think should be the consequences of the questionable character exhibited by this woman; an elected state official, a self-avowed Christian and retired public school educator?

Richard, nice comment! Some food for thought.

Darren, I asked for related urls to your ideas...so I can read and study what you are conveying. For you to simply state I am wrong, or hogwash..or other negative venue, shows ignorance of ideological discussions on your part...not to mention being rude. I've provided to you, in previous conversations, dozens of related urls and actual scripture from the Bible (O.T. and N.T.) on the subject that contradicts your standing..and you continue to promote the “I” while explaining your stance and continuing the one-sided slant of verbiage. When you continue to promote the “I” in conversations, you discredit your position. Most people don’t care what YOU believe…you are not an authority. Those individuals only care about learning the subject matter. You want to persuade people to understand your view (or get them to take an honest look at it), then get off your high horse. With that said, do you have any references I can review? Again, thanks in advance.

"Darren, you say that homosexuality is an "orientation", and not an act."


I don't "say" it, it's a fact.

"I think they are one and the same."


Then you're wrong! They're NOT the same. A homosexual virgin is still gay. A gay person who is 98 years old and hasn't had sex in 50 years is still gay. Homosexuality is an orientation, NOT an action. It's not something you do, it's something you ARE.

"However, let's look at your view. If a homosexual has sex, then that homosexual is or is not committing a sin according to the description of the "act"?"


Not neccessarily. I've said before that what I'd describe as "catting around" is a sin, regardless of the sex of those involved. Sex within a committed, loving, respectful, monogomous relationship...ideally a marriage, is NOT a sin, whether gay or straight. I've said before we shouldn't just allow gays to marry, we should ENCOURAGE it. Saying "sex belongs in a marriage" then becomes a reasonable, fair standard for everyone.

"Homosexuality has always been described as "having sex with the same sex".



Hogwash. It's "always been described as that" by people who didn't know what they were talking about. Take a gay person. He lost his virginity somewhere along the way, had sex for the first time. Was he homosexual the day BEFORE that happened? Of course he was.
If I'm raped by a man, I've had sex with a man. Am I homosexual? Of course not. Neither are the men in jail who have sex with men simply because there are no women available. Homosexuality is defined as being sexually and romantically attracted to people of the same sex. THAT'S IT. If you don't ever have sex with a person of the same sex, you are STILL homosexual if you're attracted to them.

"I would, however, like to read more concerning your description, so if you wouldn't mind, could you share some url's regarding your interpretation?"


There's no "URLs" to be had here, it's the meaning of the word. Do you want URLs to express the meaning of "view"? Or "according"? Or "same"? It's what the word means. Again...a gay virgin is still gay.

"thanks in advance. The Bible addresses many issues regarding the "act" of sex. I only pointed out two "acts", but there are many that this world still performs that were an issue thousands of years ago."



The ONLY place in which same-sex sexual relations are mentioned is in two place in Leviticus. Unless you can honestly say you think ALL Leviticus should be followed...I hope you have lots of stones handy...this is meaningless. The New Testament doesn't mention it once. Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality, which is amazing since some treat it as such a horrible sin, you'd think the Lord would have brought it up once or twice!

"Please note that NO hurtful meaning was implied."



You know, I know that and I'm somewhat sympathatic but at the same time these lies are destroying lives and killing people and at some point I'm one hell of a lot more sympathetic to the true victims here than to those who are causing the damage with lies when the information isn't that hard to come by and taking a decent stand on this issue really isn't that difficult.

"I also agree with you when you mentioned that minds do change. I do hope you realize that just because people are against the "acts" that they are not expressing bigotry."


And I hope YOU realize that speaking out against the way some people express love for others harms them tremendously whether you intend to or not, and I doubt seriously they really care that much how "intentional" it is. Christians have to become aware of what the life of a typical gay person's like because of the lies WE are spreading. How much longer do we get to close our eyes, throw bricks out a 20th story window, and pretend we didn't mean to hit anyone while people continue to tell us that they're finding people dead at the bottom of our landing because someone hit them in the head with a brick from above. Saying "these actions are wrong" is throwing bricks out the window, and they're hitting people. Now you know. You cannot claim any longer that you don't mean to hurt people with these statements.

"And, just because people are against the "acts" doesn't mean that they don't love or wish the very best for that person."


Yeah, actually, it DOES. I don't believe any person to be so stupid as to honestly care for another and not notice the harm coming to them because of homophobia in our society. If you REALLY love them, pay attention to what's happening to them because of people going around condemning their private life, which really does harm NOBODY.

"I am speaking from very personal experience. Enjoy."

I hope the personal experience continues, because that's really where most people start figuring this one out. An awful lot of pretty darn bigoted people figure out that gays aren't that bad when they suddenly learn that a nephew that they always really liked is gay, or a favorite co-worker...or their son or daughter. Some figure it out then.

Some don't, though, and that's where the real bad stuff happens.

The whole 'dance' of "Love the sinner, but hate the sin" seems to beg the point from the outset. If the Biblical literalists are indeed correct that what the Bible describes is equivalent to what homosexuality means to the present day reader, then perhaps it is 'sin'. But the texts all seem to relate to the Holiness Code: abominations related to idol worship; or refer to acts of agression rather than relationships based on mutual respect and love.

Darren, you say that homosexuality is an "orientation", and not an act. I think they are one and the same. However, let's look at your view. If a homosexual has sex, then that homosexual is or is not committing a sin according to the description of the "act"? Homosexuality has always been described as "having sex with the same sex". I would, however, like to read more concerning your description, so if you wouldn't mind, could you share some url's regarding your interpretation?...thanks in advance. The Bible addresses many issues regarding the "act" of sex. I only pointed out two "acts", but there are many that this world still performs that were an issue thousands of years ago. Please note that NO hurtful meaning was implied. I also agree with you when you mentioned that minds do change. I do hope you realize that just because people are against the "acts" that they are not expressing bigotry. And, just because people are against the "acts" doesn't mean that they don't love or wish the very best for that person. I am speaking from very personal experience. Enjoy.

"I did enjoy reading your commentary. Please note, though, the bible does in fact describe homosexuality to a “T” (man not to lay with man as he would with a woman)"


That is NOT homosexuality. It's not described to a "T" or AT ALL. That is a description of a sex ACT. Homosexuality is an ORIENTATION, not an act. A gay virgin is still gay.

"it even describes man having sex with animals."


Which is not even REMOTELY connected, and it's horribly insulting that you even mention it here. It happens all the time, and tells gay people that the love they feel for another is not only invalid, but that you're not people, just animals. Whether sending that message intentionally or not, it's an insulting comparison.

"Probably the best website I have found that does not slant one way or the other, but provides great reading to understand both sides of the story is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm."


I don't agree entirely, but there is some interesting information there. I very strongly disagree with the basic notion that nobody's mind ever changes on this. LOTS of people who used to be either homophobic or didn't care become aware that someone they care about is gay, look more closely at the issues and realize how wrong bigotry is and how unjust the treatment of gays in our society, especially by our churches, is.

"FYI: I have read the greek and latin translations, and they also provide detailed descriptions of homosexuality (the authorized received text--Textus Receptus)."

No, they absolutely do NOT. They might describe sex ACTS, but you obviously still don't recognize that homosexuality is NOT an act. It's not something you do, it's something you are.

"The word homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible because it derives from our living language (always changing) and the Bible was written in dead languages (meaning of the root words never change). "


Making it completely wrong and foul to claim the Bible condemns homosexuality, when it does NOT. No, the word didn't exist, the very idea of homosexuality wasn't know. Therefor Paul COULDN'T have condemned it in Romans and elsewhere. He was talking NOT about homosexuality, but something else, but King James still misused the word, and many still misquote him. In reality homosexuality STILL is never mentioned in scripture. And you therefor CANNOT claim it's a sin.

Richard, here is an example: If you refer to contemporary English, Webster defines "let" as permit. In 1611, the time of the translation of the received text, it meant "prevent". As a result, individuals today, to no fault of their own, will attempt to put today's meaning of words for yesterday’s translations...and in some cases they misinterpret the true meaning of passages. As a result of the WWW, there are tons of resources available…have fun and Google the subject. To answer your question, yes, I have discussed this with those that participated in rabbinical studies…and they agree to the fact that the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek - a dead language now; and the Old Testament was written in two languages: Ancient Hebrew (dead language) and Aramaic (also a dead language). However, if you want to know the true meaning of the root words that were used to translate, you can refer to a book called Strong's Concordance. It is an exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the KJV back to the word in the original text. Enjoy.

Hello Richard, I was referring to the received text version...not the Hebrew language as a whole. Please visit http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/bible2/language.shtml as a reference to this statement "By the time of Christ the Savior Ancient Hebrew, in which the Law and the majority of the rest books of the Old Testament are written, was already a dead language." This is why it is very important to note that certain words of the Bible people like to use in todays language actually have a different meaning in the original root words...therefore, causing confusion...if only they would go back to the original definition of the word then there would be no confusion at all. Hope this helps.

Mardy - I enjoyed reading your post. But have you discussed your view of Hebrew as a dead language with those who have done their rabbinical studies in the state of Israel?

Going back to the underlying issue of the article, Rep. Kern has at least three times publicly given false information. The talk to the luncheon group of Republicans, when heard in its entirety, was not inconsistent with the clip that was posted on YouTube. For those who are not familiar, the complete text (which was approved by Rep. Kern) can be found through a link on the website of AFTAH - www.americansfortruth.com. Next she gave a false statement regarding death threats being sent via e-mail. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation combed through her email and voice mail. No death threats were found; lots of hate msgs but no death threats. At the conclusion of the investigation, Rep. Kern was compelled to withdraw her allegations. Now she claims that the representatives of PFLAG have "put a spin on her meeting with them". I have been unable to find a transcript of the meeting, but from all appearances, Sally Kern, an elected state official and self-proclaimed Christian, has again made accusations that in a court of law would be held as perjury. What more will it take to have her formally censured?? !!!

RE Paula's post Apr 12, 2008 7:21 PM...great post! I've recently found this page, and wow, posts from rufus, preston, and william...all good points! It is one thing to just write words and opinions, but seeing backup points and facts is refreshing.

Hello William, I did enjoy reading your commentary. Please note, though, the bible does in fact describe homosexuality to a “T” (man not to lay with man as he would with a woman)…it even describes man having sex with animals. Probably the best website I have found that does not slant one way or the other, but provides great reading to understand both sides of the story is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm. FYI: I have read the greek and latin translations, and they also provide detailed descriptions of homosexuality (the authorized received text--Textus Receptus). The word homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible because it derives from our living language (always changing) and the Bible was written in dead languages (meaning of the root words never change). BTW: Pres Bush did in fact mention the horrible innocent deaths of the Iraqis (3 times that I know of –Dec 05 speech, Feb 06 speech, and this past Winter (It think sometime in Nov)…but you are 100% correct in the statement that most people cannot differentiate between the Iraqis and insurgents. Enjoy.

here we go again. Learn English or provide your own interpreter. Oklahoma taxpayers should not pay for bilingual services.

I've studied most all of the interpretations and I have never run across the kind of differences that you all are trying to say exists. Now, obviously, there are some recent translations that have changed a lot of meaning, not based on literal translation or exegesis, but rather on relating to today's scociety. Those translations are dangerous. When you change the word man, and interject person, or woman... Well, you know the deal. You certainly wouldn't make those changes if it was a scientific formula written in another language, because it would change the outcome of the formula.

William - more name calling and disrespect. Awesome! Yes, I know the definition of the two words. But you didn't respond to my argument. You use your belief that there must be a biological reason for homosexuality as knowledge, do you not? You most certainly used that belief to arrive at your conclusion that homosexuality must them be accepted, did you not? How is that different from what I am doing with my belief?

Not all versions say the same thing. So many different interpretations. Use a dictionary. Belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, Knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. Preston, since you are not capable of knowing the difference between the meaning of words, I have come to the conclusion that you are not worth my time anymore. Pick up a dictionary. I am able to separate belief from knowledge, you can't. Evident by your lack of diction. I hope you are not one of those nuts who will someday blow up an abortion clinic, though I wouldn't rule it out.

I love how everyone who disputes the scriptures always brings up different languages and translations as a basis for questioning accepted meaning. As if those other languages and translations are a mystery.

William - belief is knowledge. Case in Point: You believe that there is a biological reason for homosexuality. You treat that as knowledge in your decision making process. What's the difference in that, and what I believe? The fact that you have no foundational belief in God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. And if you did have a belief, would you treat it the same as your belief in a biological propensity towards homosexuality?

Darren, I think you took some of what I said out of context. I do think that the Bible might be attempting to describe homosexuality, but you are right that it has not been proven as fact. I have a friend who has read the Bible in three different languages including Greek and Latin, neither version, which are closer to the original, uses specific language explicitly describing homosexuality. I am not saying that homophobia is a Christian trait, but the fear of homosexuality is being propagated throughout the churches, where people are more vulnerable to misinformation. I know Bush never wanted to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but I don't think he really cared one way or the other. Not once have I heard him acknowledge the loss of life of the Iraqi citizens. Too many people in America only consider the loss of American soldiers. Most people can't differentiate between the Iraqis and insurgents. They lump them all in the same group of jihadists. There are so many stupid people in this world who don't try to read on various religions, but only their own. I think all religions try to explain something that we cannot fully understand, and instead of embracing the common themes such as love thy neighbor, they set out to destroy what is different. I have not intentionally tried to put down anyone’s personal beliefs, but to point out the difference between belief and knowledge.

“One day during his biology class, Kyle’s teacher stated that homosexual behavior was genetic. Kyle immediately raised his hand to disagree. The teacher, a self-professed bisexual who had testified in support of civil unions in Vermont, immediately ridiculed and humiliated him in front of the entire high school’s class. ‘What’s the matter, Kyle?’ she said mockingly. ‘Are you unsure of your sexuality? Did you know that the people who scream the loudest turn out to be gay themselves?’

A few weeks later, in the middle of a discussion on genealogy, the teacher again digressed into the subject of homosexual behavior. Kyle asked again what homosexuality had to do with the subject. The teacher again questioned his sexuality and implied that he might be covering up the fact that he was homosexual. Kyle stood up and denied the accusation, stating he had a girlfriend. The class snickered at him.

One classmate went as far to suggest that the girlfriend was a cover-up and that Kyle was a closet homosexual. Devastated and humiliated, Kyle’s grades dropped from a 3.70 GPA to 2.10 in the months following the incident.”

As Kyle was being taught that homosexuality is genetic, we are fed a steady diet of sensationalized studies which assert that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic

With all this talk about a “gay gene,” This brings me to my assertion at the beginning in the title of my piece. If the idea is put forth that homosexuality is genetic, that there is indeed a “gay gene,” which has clearly been debunked, then by the same logic there would have to be an ex-gay gene. What else would account for the thousands and thousands of people who have found freedom from homosexuality?

The quest for the “gay gene” is undoubtedly a key component in the gay rights activists’ quest for gay marriage, adoption, and “hate crimes” legislation which limits free speech of Christians and other faiths which view homosexuality as sin.

Darren, I would like to understand what you think the Bible is talking about win it refers to homosexuality as an abomination. What of "these shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" What is the story of Sodom about if not homosexuality? What is man on man and woman on woman, if not homosexuality? Just wondering what you think it means.

No such thing as a homophobe either, that's just a made up word flung out by political activists.

"Darren, I wasn't trying to say that all Christians believe homosexuality is a choice, but I do believe the majority do."


That's highly debatable, and irrelevent for several reasons. First off, ANYONE believing this is wrong. It's proven false. Secondly, their being Christian or not has NOTHING to do with it, since the Bible doesn't say a word about homosexuality. Homophobia is NOT a Christian trait, and bigots MUST stop using the Prince of Peace as an excuse to promote hate and discrimination.

"Conversely, I would bet that the majority of non-religious individuals believe that it is not a choice."


Again, one's faith or lack thereof is not remotely relevent to this. It's a scientific FACT that sexual orientation is not chosen, and a person can be a Christian, Muslim, athiest, or whatever and that won't change a bit. If a person wants to believe hateful lies, that's their choice, but it's NOT Christian.

"Though I think you can more easily compare level of education, in that, more educated individuals tend to believe you are born homosexual."


That's obvious. A person must have not only a lack of education, but an outright hostility towards being educated, to hold the belief that people simply choose to be gay, and this hostility to education is NOT Christian, either...those who make the claim that it is whether we're talking about stem cell research or evolution or sexual orientation are immoral and unChristian. Scientific study of the wonder of God's creation, learning more about it, ESPECIALLY when it helps us reduce human suffering, is a Christian thing to do.

"Some people read and some people listen. Some people think and some people accept without thinking. Preston fully believes he is having an intelligent discussion, but he is not."


I agree. However, just as there are those who have minds snapped and rusted shut when it comes to learning and scientific fact, there are those equally closed-minded as to the existance and divinity of God. And stereotypes are always going to prevent people from finding the truth, whether they're stereotypes about gay people OR people of faith.

"There are rules that govern proper debate and he has decided (unknowingly) to circumvent those basic rules, like red herrings. Religion should have no part in determining the rights of man."


That's the wrong way to look at it. You don't have to believe to follow the law, but God's laws ARE the original source of how to treat others, including not discriminating against others, not lying about them, not causing them suffering as people like Rep. Kern are causing suffering for gay people in a very sinful way. And I know you don't agree with that, but it's where people of faith come into this, and people HAVE to see that not everyone who believes that is a fundementalist or a homophobe.

"People don't kill because the Bible says so, but because it is common sense."


NO, you're absolutely wrong. BOTH are part of this. People absolutely DO follow these laws because they're God's teachings, lots of people. Not all people, naturally, but many many people, probably most people don't do things like that because of a religious faith or another.

"You can be a good person without Jesus."


I absolutely agree, but a better purpose of life comes from living for Christ. Either way, I'm part of a fairly "liberal" (I hate the term, but it's the way most understand things) part of the church that believes in "universalism," in other words, Christ died to save you whether you believe in Him or not. Put simply, I don't believe God created this hell to torture the vast majority of the people God created and loves individually just because they're confused about God or picked the wrong "team."

"I have seen so many religious leaders fall in the last year."


All people are short of perfection, that isn't a reflection on God. I'm frankly sick of people trying so desperately to place the human failings of a few into such over-importance as if it reflects on ALL believers.

"Our own president believes that God elected him president,"


Yeah, well, our president has a lot of bad and wrong ideas.

"therefore he must also believe that God wanted him to go to war with Iraq and slaughter hundreds of thousands."


Wow, that's an incredibly ugly and daft way of describing our attempts to free the people of Iraq and Afghanistan from the horrific trap into which they'd fallen with the Taliban and Osama. How it's been conducted could definately have been done better, but we are NOT there to "slaughter" but to give people a freedom they did not have before, and to make the whole world safer. It's every bit as intentionally misleading and foolish to call this "The US going in and slaughtering hundreds of thousands" as it is to call homosexuality a "chosen lifestyle."

"Our nation is a melting pot of religion, therefore one religion should not rule over the others,"


I agree, but very few disagree.

"love and common sense should."

Unfortunately, one assumes that you think YOUR view of "common sense" is the best one. In many cases, you'd probably be right. In some, you'd be quite wrong. That's the wonderful thing about freedom, we all have the right to be wrong about some things and so long as we're not harming others, that's fine. It's when we have situations like the discrimination against gays, which IS harming people, that the "right" to hold the clownish beliefs of Rep. Kern has crossed the line.

Darren is spouting the gay activists rhetoric. No gay gene has ever been found, it doesn't exist. Behavior is learned, remember pavlov??? In fact, the scientific community isn't even interested in looking for it anymore, it's not there.

"Consider the obvious problem of survival for individuals who allegedly possess a gay gene: individuals who have partners of the same sex are biologically unable to reproduce (without resorting to artificial means)."


It's no more "artificial" for people to have children using science than it is for people who are sterile to use insemination, or for cessarian sections to be used for people who cannot have children the "ordinary" way.

"Therefore, if an alleged “gay gene” did exist, the homosexual population eventually would disappear altogether."


Again, that's just idiotic. This assumes that a person cannot have a gene and it's traits unless their parents do. Does every left-handed person have left-handed parents? Of course not.

"We now know that it is not scientifically accurate to refer to a “gay gene” as the causative agent in homosexuality."


Lie. You know nothing of the sort. You're trying to push PROVEN lies, for the most immoral and hateful of reasons...don't pretend to know anything about science while you've got your mind stuck in the 19th century, you're just making a fool of yourself all the further.

"The available evidence clearly establishes that no such gene has been identified."


Lie. The vast majority of scientic research in this topic points ONLY to a genetic cause.
And science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOUR "conclusion," that gay people just choose to be gay and can choose not to be, is a ridiculous load of malarky.

"Additionally, evidence exists which documents that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. "

Lie. NO evidence of this exists at all, only sham claims that have been solidly refuted. There is no such thing as a former homosexual, and the hate groups claiming to have "cured" homosexuals have ZERO legitimate research, ZERO studies published in peer-reviewed journals, ZERO long-term followups. This is a total sham. Sexual orientation can NOT be changed. A gay person will be gay their entire life, which is fine because there's nothing wrong with being gay.

"Future decisions regarding policies about, and/or treatment of, homosexuals should reflect this knowledge."

It's not knowledge, it's dispicable bigoted lies. Lawmakers' decisions should be based on LEGITIMATE science, and the most American of standards, that ALL people were created equal.

Darren - absolutely nothing has been proven. When you lie, everything else you say is irrelevant.

By the way William, the use of homophobe in your sentence is inacurate. Rufus is not afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality. There is not fear on our part. Only a love for humanity and a belief that what homosexuals are involved in is wrong. If you love someone, you want to help them, not watch them continue down destructive paths.

"If there was a gay gene, how did it survive thousands of years without reproduction?"

Because being homosexual does not require homosexual parents, just as there are left-handed people whose parents aren't left-handed.

"Why are there bisexuals that flow back and forth? "


They don't "flow back and forth." They're bisexual. Again, it has been proven beyond all doubt that sexual orientation is NOT chosen, and can NOT be changed, yet you continue to push proven lies, for the sole purpose of making your bigotry and fear seem rational, when they're not.

"Behaviors are learned."

Sexual orientation isn't a behavior, and is NOT "learned" or chosen. You didn't choose to be attracted romantically and sexually to the opposite sex, it's how God created you.

Government has to take information available, and make decisions based on that information. So, in this case we have scientifice evidence of the destructiveness of homosexual behavior. We have medical evidence of the destructiveness of homosexual behavior. We have a majority of Religious viewpoints against homosexual behavior. We have standing legislation against homosexual behavior. And then, we have a feeling or belief on the part of science that homosexuality may well be caused by a birth propensity, or some sort of reaction later in life. If I'm government, which I am, the decision is very obvious.