Wednesday, July 02, 2008
David Benkof likes to portray himself as a courageous man who tells difficult truths about gay life. Originally, he agreed to defend his many outrageous anti-gay positions on an August 22, National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association (NLGJA) panel. I was also scheduled to appear and was prepared to challenge his irrational and inflammatory arguments.
Unfortunately, Mr. Benkof announced today that he is withdrawing from the event unless I "switch to a different panel." In an e-mail exchange, he told me that I should also pay for his plane ticket, even though I am paying my own way. (This was odd, as he boasted he was making a lot of money publishing in mainstream news publications)
To pull out at this late date and demand "travel welfare" highlights a deep character deficit and shows Benkof's fear of a direct challenge to his lightweight arguments.
In my view, Benkof is only capable of fooling the uninformed and gullible with sophistic arguments that show his utter lack of knowledge and cluelessness to historical precedent. Benkof understands in his heart that he is deficient in intellectual heft and academic discipline and thus must avoid face-to-face exchanges of ideas. His cowardice is understandable, considering the flimsy arguments that he would be forced to defend - but still disappointing. It seems Benkof would rather hide behind the Internet and lob rhetorical bombs, than sit in the hot seat and answer questions about how he misrepresents himself, misquotes people and distorts the truth.
If I had to lie and mislead people much as Benkof, I'd be shy about debating in public too.
73 Comments:
Like Bush, he can only take soft questions from a hand-picked audience. And asking Wayne to buy his plane ticket is the ultimate in chutzpah. What a whackadoodle.
Gary (NJ)
posted by , at
7/02/2008 11:45 AM
Mr. Besen will prove himself a capable debater of substance when he has a public, moderated debate with the prolific Dr. James R. White. And when he does, he'll end up looking as foolish as Barry Lynn, Dee Bradshaw, John Shelby Spong, and Michael Schutz. Hell, I'd pay for Mr. Besen's ticket to that debate.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 12:47 PM
Oh, will you pay for a ticket? And what would we be debating?
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/02/2008 1:37 PM
The words I used to describe the Bunkster-- moral and intellectual ineptitude.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 2:14 PM
Here are some possible topics for a Wayne Besen / James White debate:
"'Gay Marriage' is an oxymoron," Affirmative - James White, Negative - Wayne Besen
"Homosexuality is 'normal' and 'natural,'" Affirmative - Wayne Besen, Negative - James White
From the looks of his website, http://www.aomin.org/articles/bio.html, White's an accomplished debater and has written a book on the subject of homosexuality - "The Same Sex Controversy."
I would pay to see it, especially after Schutz's recent poor showing.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 2:36 PM
Benkof's whine reminds me of Throckmorton's similar complaint against Wayne about aone year ago, in which Throckmorton vowed to accuse Wayne of stifling his research unless Wayne provided him with information that was readily available on the web. At the time, Wayne rightly demanded thta Throckmorton "do his own research." Yes, these "ex-gay" types do indeed exhibit many revealing character flaws which highlight the absurdity of their positions. Talk about setting up a straw horse...demanding that Wayne pay for the opposition's plane ticket, something he knows would only happen when hell freezes over, and then using that as a "reason" to withdraw.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 2:38 PM
So "Adam", how are we going to arrange your deliveries of the funds to pay for Wayne's ticket to debate Mr. White? And, of course, we get the right to propose our own topics of debate (you just got 3), and also get to weigh in on the choice of moderator, as well as the structure of the debate such as initial response time, rebuttal time, direct questioning, etc., So please do advise, Adam, when we can arrange this plane ticket which you have so generously offered to fund, as well as when we can begin negotiations on the parameters of the debate.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 2:43 PM
Adam, Bishop John Shelby Spong is not and never has 'looked foolish'. Unlike you and yours, he is religiously literate and his inclusiveness of GLBT people makes him a *real* Christian. The exact opposite of snide, hateful hypocrites like you. And since you're reading this website I suspect Adam that you have more interest in Steve than Eve!
posted by , at
7/02/2008 3:08 PM
'Gay Marriage' is an oxymoron," - James White
Well, if such bumper sticker slogans pass for "debate", I like my chances, quite frankly.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/02/2008 3:32 PM
The problem with people like James White is that the gentleman will undoubtedly define the concept of "marriage" in his own way and then attempt to win the debate by noting how gays and lesbians don't fit that subjective definition. I can assure you that Mr. White wouldn't define marriage as "two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together". Mr. White would probably define it as "the union of two different partners (man/woman) to create a new whole" or something similar, essentially defining gays and lesbians out of it before the debate even begins.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 3:44 PM
Actually Chris, those details would, in the end, need to be worked out between Dr. White himself and Wayne. I don't know White personally or represent him in any way, but have listened and viewed his debates and read his books. If Wayne truly wants a debate, Dr. White's record demonstrates Wayne will get a debate (and get walloped).
Concerning "Bishop" Spong, he demonstrated his complete lack of scholarship in the areas of theology and history when he debated White. In sum, he looked absolutely foolish. He was nice, but showed he really has an unreasonable worldview. I do wonder what a "real" Christian is? Could you provide a definition? I would love to evaluate your standard and what it's based on.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 3:52 PM
Does it work the other way Chris? The problem with people like Wayne Besen is that the gentleman will undoubtedly define the concept of "marriage" in his own way and then attempt to win the debate by noting how gays and lesbians fit that subjective definition. I can assure you that Mr. Besen would define marriage as "two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together." Mr. Besen wouldn't probably define it as "the union of two different partners (man/woman) to create a new whole" or something similar, essentially not defining gays and lesbians out of it before the debate even begins.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 4:02 PM
That would be a stupid bumper sticker someone would have on their car. OK, then how about my other proposal: "Homosexuality is 'normal' and 'natural,'" (Affirmative - Wayne Besen, Negative - James White)?
posted by , at
7/02/2008 4:08 PM
Yes Adam, I'm sure you do wonder what a real Christian is, the tone of your posting, plus the fact that you put Bishop in quotation marks is enough of an indicator that you're just another sanctimonious, hypocrite who thinks anyone who challenges the 'orthodox' postion has a 'complete lack of scholarship blah blah blah'. When it comes to the "ex-gay" topic, if anyone would be 'walloped' in a debate, it would definately NOT be Wayne. And no, unlike you, I dont even pretend to be a Christian, so if you want a definintion of a 'real one' to 'evaluate', go look it up yourself in the OED. I dont jump through hoops for self-loathing closet cases like you. Next you'll be expecting us to buy you a plane ticket.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 4:54 PM
Adam, you didn't answer my question about the plane ticket, so I assume that you are going back on your offer to buy one for Wayne. As someone who thinks Christianity is mythical absurdity and the Bible a collection of fables, I will leave the question of what a "real" Christian is for you good folk to argue amongst yourselves. And of course, the definition of "marriage" can indeed be strategically pre-defined by either James White or Wayne Besen; that was my point, much as the terms "normal" and "natural" can. If you define natural as "occurring in nature," then there is, again, no debate about whether homosexuality is "natural."
posted by , at
7/02/2008 5:03 PM
If I were debating I would point out that the definition and meaning of marriage has changed over time.
In marriage, women were once no better than property. Marriage was once defined by two opposite sex people of the same race.
Since it is indisputable that marriage has changed over time there are two questions to be answered:
1) Have those changes been for the better? I certainly think they have.
2) Would enlarging the definition of marriage enhance or harm society. I would then demonstrate how it would better the lives of gay people and society as a whole. It is a debate I beleive I would win.
Finally, homosexuality is normal, in that is a fairly constant percent of the population. It is also natural, as it occurs in nature. I'm not sure what your issue with that statement is, exactly.
I never said that homosexuals were a majority. But their existence is a norm in every known society.
I never said
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/02/2008 5:11 PM
It's a shame the talkative and self-googling queen has backed out of the debate.
He's done marinaded himself in so much Paul Cameron bullshit, that he's fit to be grilled by Wayne, once and for all.
posted by S., at
7/02/2008 5:12 PM
I've seen gay marriage debates, and the homophobes always looked ridiculous.
Then again, that's because they showed up at our university where we actually study the past rather than rewrite it to support our own agendas.
In 2006 a representative from Focus on the Family tried to tell an educated audience of college students that "marriage has always been between one man and one woman", to which the audience reacted with boos and jeers, some yelling out "that's not true".
He then proceeded to lie about his organization, claiming it never publishes any material that says anything negative about gay people; which again got boos from the crowd, as a great many of the people in attendance had been studying the issue from both sides and had visited the website themselves.
posted by , at
7/02/2008 7:10 PM
The fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as gay marriage, but marriage equality. Whoever calls marriage, "straight" marriage?
posted by , at
7/03/2008 10:38 AM
Looking at the picture, Benkof looks like an unhappy person. He looks a little off.
Marc
posted by , at
7/03/2008 10:42 AM
To the Anonymous who posted at 7/02/2008 4:54 PM, recall that I asked for your definition of a "real" Christian after you used that very term. You obviously have something in mind. What is it? And the reason I put the term "bishop" in quotes when referring to John Shelby Spong is because he simply and obviously doesn't fit what the term bishop means in terms of its historic, orthodox, and New Testament Greek meaning and usage.
And Chris, I re-read my post and don't see how you could conclude that I'm some how backing away from my offer. If and when Dr. White work out a debate format, I'll forward Wayne money for a ticket. As for pre-defining terms and justifying terms and their usage, that would of course be a major part of any real, substantive debate. Unless you assume that all worldviews and all pre-suppositions are created equal.
As for homosexuality occurring in nature, it does. So, according to you, homosexuality is then natural. OK. Now, yes or no please, are rape and murder and cannibalism "natural"?
posted by , at
7/03/2008 11:54 AM
Honey, the argument isn't over natural. If you can't tell the difference between rape and murder and two adults who love each other, you are in no position to judge ANYTHING.
By the way, since marriage doesn't occur in nature, does that means it's unnatural?
posted by , at
7/03/2008 12:02 PM
You ask: "Now, yes or no please, are rape and murder and cannibalism "natural"?
No, because rape and murder do not occur naturally (within nature) but are the result of an abnormality, a result of abnormal psychology per se. That's why in our past it was such a huge question as to whether or not homosexuality was a "mental illness." It occurred naturally, but was it a result of normality or abnormality? I believe that it was Dr. Evelyn Hooker who led this field in the 1960s. Being "natural" is different from being good, but your question wasn't about "good." Next question.
posted by , at
7/03/2008 12:25 PM
Wayne, you're addressing the same point I raised on the comments section of another post. You're saying that homosexuality is normal and natural. This raises a few questions:
1) How do you know that? By what authority and by what objective standard do you make this claim?
2) Is your view falsifiable, and if so, how?
3) Is what is "natural" automatically and by necessity "moral"?
posted by , at
7/03/2008 12:30 PM
You debate guys always pull the same B.S. Someone articulates their position and you reply with countless, ongoing questions. We've read "Debating for Dummies" too, and we're not going to fall into your trap of being pulled into an endless abyss of questions. If you have a position, state it and explain it, but it's really just not worth it to expend all the necessary time and energy that it would take just to answer your constant drivel. This isn't philosophy class; you're not going to win the argument by demonstrating how familiar you are with philosophical terms. Reality is not what takes place within a college classroom; Wayne has already answered you. If you're obsessed with the presense of gay people in the world, might I humbly suggest that you need a real purpose to your life?
posted by , at
7/03/2008 2:39 PM
Nice try Chris. I'm very NOT impressed. So let's back your short bus up and try again. You made a very clear claim that an activity or behavior can be defined as "natural" if it occurs in nature. So your argument was:
If something occurs in nature, then it is natural.
Homosexuality occurs in nature.
Therefore, homosexuality is natural.
I can take any activity or behavior that occurs in nature and make it the antecedent of premise A and your conclusion will have to be that it's "natural."
So the only correct and logical answer to my question to you, based on your own standard, was "yes." So you failed and now look like a fool.
But that wasn't enough for you Chris. You then go on to deny your original definition of "natural" (occurring in nature) and claim that rape and murder (which do occur in nature) aren't "natural" because they are the result of an abnormality. Well, that of course - aside from your ever evolving definition of "natural" - begs the question: What's "normal," and based on what standard?
posted by , at
7/03/2008 4:44 PM
Might I suggest a song for you Chris? It's by Justin Timberlake, and it's titled "Cry Me A River."
What a big baby you've shown yourself to be, and simply not ready for real questions of substance from people who will actually evaluate your answers and demonstrate for all to see what a complete moron you are.
posted by , at
7/03/2008 4:49 PM
Adam:
You are the only one that looks like a fool.
Love is natural. Eating is natural. Homosexuality is natural. Heterosexuality is natural as they occur nature.
A car is not natural. A building is not natural. The Bible is not natural, as it is man made. Without a printing press and paper, there is no Bible. I'm not sure why you are so ignorant that you don't understand what the word means. Natural does not imply good, nor bad, just a state of organic being.
Right wing buffoons define natural as people or acts that they find desirable. Unnatural is what they personally find repellent. This is nothing but the worst form of selectivity and moral relativism dressed up as self-righteousness.
Adam, just because you name an authority as your source, does not make your selective interpretation of this source correct.
Give it a rest and stop trying to impress people by acting as a know-it-all blow hard. You are simply making a fool of yourself.
Please put down the remote control and try reading a book sometime and educating yourself. You'll look brighter if you do so.
Thanks
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/03/2008 4:57 PM
The post above is the exact reason Wayne would get absolutely pummeled in a public, moderated debate with James White. He can't even handle himself in the comments section of his own blog! I think Wayne would even cry during the cross-examination period of the debate.
"Please put down the remote control and try reading a book sometime and educating yourself. You'll look brighter if you do so."
Priceless evasion and food for the lemmings. What a wanna-be you are. Stick to the 30 sec. clips Wayne. You're clearly not cut out for the big time.
posted by , at
7/03/2008 5:10 PM
Adam:
You haven't made a single cogent or intelligible point on this blog, other than you seemingly have a man crush for James White.
That you think you have have shown intellectual prowess is a little bizarre and somewhat baffling.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/03/2008 6:45 PM
... [As Wayne continues to ignore David's questions and wonders what talking point he can use] ...
"That you think you have have shown intellectual prowess is a little bizarre and somewhat baffling."
... [as Chris is frantically checking out books on Elementary Logic from his local library, enjoying Justin Timberlake, and trying to get his foot out of mouth and head out of his ass] ...
posted by , at
7/03/2008 7:27 PM
Adam:
You are a legend in your own mind. I'm glad you got your money's worth from your Jr. college apologetics course. I'm really impressed, as I am sure everyone else is who reads this blog.
I'm sure everyone is sitting around wondering when the genius will post again and confound us with his overpowering logic.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/03/2008 8:50 PM
Since you're the one Wayne who continues to bring up education, what or how much would you care to wager that I have a higher level of education than you (and all from non-religious schools)?
Not that I care one bit, mind you. I could have identified the flaws and lack of depth in your reasoning before leaving high school. Being truly educated and having many degrees are not at all analogous. For instance, you have a college degree. But your evasiveness, intellectual cowardness, and fallacious reasoning could be great examples in a freshman year course on how NOT to debate. To be fair, the same could be said of most of the so-called "right-wing hacks" you often rightly take to task.
Again, stick to the sound bites on talk shows Wayne. When you try to go more in depth, you'll end up in the same camp as Barry Lynn.
posted by , at
7/03/2008 9:41 PM
Theo, whoever you are, whoever is paying you to come here to agitate, which we all see through by the way....what is your defense in the matter of marriage being a union of one man and one woman? Explain if you can! What is the primary reason for two people of the opposite sex to require marriage as opposed to two of the opposite sex. Elucidate, please do!
posted by , at
7/03/2008 11:46 PM
Adam:
With all due respect, you have spent an enormous amount of time bleating and bloviating on my website - while I don't know who you even are. (nor do I care to, as I'm hardly impressed)
Clearly, my arguments have had enough impact to bring you here at this unGodly hour. When I'm endlessly and obsessively trolling your website, Adam, maybe then you can say you've impressed me. Until then, you're no more than a mosquito on a buffalo's beard.
Finally, I find it amusing that you keep badgering me to answer some buffoon's questions. If you haven't figured it out, I'll engage whomever I want on my own terms, not because I feel compelled to entertain you.
I happen to be working this evening. You might not understand this, as it is clear by the amount of time on your hands that you could clearly use a job.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/04/2008 1:08 AM
Everybody thinks their side always wins in these debates. I saw this all the time in atheist/theist debates.
No matter how well Besen does the 'James R White' groupies will think that he got destroyed in a debate.
Btw, I thought it was wrong for Christians to worship false idols - it sure sounds like Adam has a major case of idolizing one James R White.
posted by , at
7/04/2008 7:53 PM
Adam, whoever you are, "ex-gay" perhaps.....in your definition of marriage, are you of the opinion that the "institution" is primarily designed for procreation? If you are, then I have a recommendation to put to you and people of your ilk that you should all pursue vigorously if any credence can be given to your belief.
posted by , at
7/05/2008 8:17 AM
Robert, whoever you are (I guess I missed your memo that said you have to add that phrase every time someone is addressed), there is a significant difference between marriage - the religious commitment between a man and one or more women - as it has been known in every historical society for at least 6,000 years, and the modern concept of state-granted civil marriage.
Self-styled and so-called "conservative" "defenders of marriage" justify their support for state involvement, mostly in the form of tax breaks and social security benefits, in much the same way that the loony left-liberals justify everything - it's all for the kids man!
So we have more issues where both "conservatives" and leftists are completely mistaken. If the "conservatives" (who sometimes appear to post here) were really interested in restoring marriage and the family to their proper places as the twin bulwarks of civilized society, they would leap at the opportunity to remove the state, at ALL levels, from the entire process of marriage.
Marriage is a sacred trinity of a man and a woman before their Creator. There's no room and there's no reason for a fourth party - much less one (e.g., the state) that corrupts and destroys the tripartite relationship.
Marriage survived for 6,000 years without government. In less than 1 percent of that time, government has nearly managed to destroy it in this country. There is nothing to fear from removing government from the equation. And doing so would only strengthen true Christian marriage (which is perhaps what leftists now fear).
What about the other, non-sacramental commitments that may be announced by homosexuals. So what! People believe in all sorts of weird and wrong and insane things. If two men think and announce that they're married, big deal. With or without a government document, they cannot and will not ever be truly married - exactly as they weren't before government became involved in the process. And it is only through the illegitimate power of government to counterfeit a redefinition of the concept that these irrational, ahistoric, anti-traditionalist, and rebellious souls have a hope of creating these charades in the first place!
posted by , at
7/05/2008 5:27 PM
Theo, you haven't answered my question. What is the primary purpose of marriage, above all others? I'm waiting for your response.
posted by , at
7/06/2008 8:43 AM
Robert, whoever you are, the main meaning of marriage is to display the covenant-keeping love between Jesus Christ and His bride, the Church. Marriage was designed by God most deeply and most importantly to be a parable or a drama of the way Jesus Christ loves His Church and the way the Church loves and follows Christ.
The ultimate meaning of marriage is not in marriage itself. It is not in the husband and not in the wife and not in the offspring. The ultimate meaning of marriage centers on Christ and the Church. Marriage is a magnificent thing, then, because it is modeled on something magnificent and points to something magnificent. And the love that binds the man and woman in marriage is a magnificent love because it portrays something magnificent - the Messiah loving the Church and the Church submitting to the Messiah.
Within that context, yes, marriage is the proper place for procreation to take place and for making followers of Jesus Christ to take place. It's not at all the main meaning of marriage though. But it's an important one. Again, the deepest meaning of marriage is displaying the covenant love between Jesus Christ and the Church.
Now, can I expect come answers from you Robert, whoever you are?
posted by , at
7/06/2008 1:32 PM
What is clear, is that Benkof could not cut it in the gay community. He is fat, ugly and homely. He was no great catch. Bitter and angry, he is taking his personal failures out on the gay community.
I've met losers like him before. The sad part is, he is disguising his personal bitterness in the guise of religion. This has little to do with religion, and much to do with an angry, unstable person with an ax to grind and a score to settle.
Jacob
posted by , at
7/06/2008 1:33 PM
Theo:
You can't be serious. Marriage means many things to many people. Your view is quite narrow and does not represent the view of the vast majority of people.
I hope that the right wing fringe tries to impose this fundamentalist view of marriage on the rest of society so we can witness the ferocious backlash.
Basically, people want to define the purpose of their own marriages, without uppity, self-righteous busybodies sticking their noses where they don't belong.
Theo, people like you need to learn how to mind your own business. If you are so threatened by the marriages of others, you obviously aren't a very secure person and don't have much faith in your own belief system.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/06/2008 2:02 PM
WOW Wayne, whoever you are, you really are an intellectual lightweight (one who clearly doesn't possess basic reading comprehension skills)!
"Marriage means many things to many people." So what? Robert asked me what marriage means based on the standards and authority I recognize and can justify. You haven't even identified your standards and authority yet, even though you were asked by a few people now I believe.
"Your view is quite narrow and does not represent the view of the vast majority of people." So what? Relevancy? That has nothing to do with whether my view can be justified.
"I hope that the right wing fringe tries to impose this fundamentalist view of marriage on the rest of society so we can witness the ferocious backlash."
If you read the comments (which are on your own blog), and read my comments in particular (which you are reacting too), you would have read my comment above where I clearly stated I don't want the state involved in marriage at all, at any level of government. If you and another man want to walk around and announce that you're married, I'll simply have pity on you in the same way I would for the man who walks around claiming he's a poached egg. Cleary you both suffer from enormous delusions.
"Basically, people want to define the purpose of their own marriages..." Great. I have no problem with that. Just don't use the coercive power of the state to force others to recognize it. I don't want "conservatives" doing that and I don't want leftists doing that.
"If you are so threatened by the marriages of others..." Reading comprehension Wayne! I distinctly said otherwise. In fact, what I and some others on this comment box want to know appears to have little to do with politics, and more to do with your underlying presuppositions. That you refuse to answer those questions, but return to areas that no one is even raising, reveals that you are probably just a talking point hack who lacks any real depth and substance.
posted by , at
7/06/2008 7:55 PM
Theo, people define what marriage is. Your god and Jesus are imaginary characters and of no relevance to the nature of marriage.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
7/07/2008 12:23 AM
Theo, I for one am not threatened by anybody else's marriage because I can't yet marry in my own state. I do agree with you on one point though. The state and federal government has no business dictating who can and cannot marry.
However, I would like to know what the primary reason for marrying is, tax breaks and other rights and privileges aside. Personally, for me it is about love first and foremost. I could care less about the financial benefits. So what is your reason to marry?
posted by , at
7/07/2008 6:28 AM
Robert, whoever you are, did you read my above post?
posted by , at
7/07/2008 9:07 AM
Theo asks:
"You haven't even identified your standards and authority yet"
Theo, I'm not a pet, I don't need an "authority." I have a brain and I use it - that is my authority. Some would say that this brain was God-given and thus expected to be used frequently.
My "standard" is that if I love someone and commit to them for life, it is a marriage. I could not care less what you think of this, as it would be none of your business. Why is minding your own business such a hard cncept to understand?
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/07/2008 10:26 AM
Theo, interesting to see you said that procreation is not the primary reason for marriage, unlike what the majority of right wingers and religious zealots believe. Love is secondary in their distorted view of relationships.
Heterosexuals were pairing off and having children long before marriage was invented or organized religion. Absent the religious component of marriage with which civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do, I see no reason why two same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry the person they love first and foremost, but in this society, its not going to happen without state or federal intervention to remedy it,the same remedy that allows heterosexuals to marry by consent of their government. If gay couples shouldn't make demands of their government to marry, then who else should they be asking? What other options are there for them? The day will never come when government, state or federal, gets out of the business of marriage rights or recognition thereof. Not going to happen. You shouldn't have to be religious or a believer to marry either.
To those who espouse marriage between men and women only with the sole purpose of procreation, they should then forbid heterosexual couples who cannot produce or refuse to have children if that is their primary reason for marriage. They can't have it both ways. Put up or shut up!
posted by , at
7/07/2008 12:54 PM
Actually Wayne, I believe Theo was only paraphrasing just one of the few questions I've posed to you after seeing you on TV.
You've said often that homosexuality is "normal" and that homosexuality "natural." I've simply and repeatedly asked how you know that homosexuality is "normal" and "natural." You must have some sort of authoritative backing or objective standard that you base your claim of "normal" and "natural" on.
I simply and respectfully am wondering what that authority and/or objective standard is for the claims of "normal" and "natural." I don't know how I can express my questions to you, based on your own claims, more clearly and more respectfully.
I also wanted to know if your view that homosexuality was "normal" and "natural" was falsifiable and whether, in your view, if a behavior/activity that is "natural" automatically and by necessity "moral"?
posted by , at
7/07/2008 4:56 PM
Robert, whoever you are, you really, REALLY need to grow up intellectually. Not everyone who disagrees with you on one issue or several issues is a "right winger" (whatever you even mean by that) or a "religious zealot" (ditto).
For instance, Andrew Sullivan and I have very real differences on many issues in the areas of both politics and theology. Doesn't mean he's evil or I'm evil. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy or I'm a bad guy. Doesn't mean we don't agree on many issues. But I can assure you that Andrew Sullivan would never think to call me (a Christian libertarian) a "right winger" or a "religious zealot." Why? Because Andrew Sullivan is a thoughtful, intellectually mature human being who you and some others could really learn from. You Robert often appear as intolerant, hostile, and small-minded (!!!) as the people you often rightly excoriate.
You and others continually bring up "love" with reference to marriage. And there's no question, as I've pointed out, that love is central within a proper context and within a consistent and rational worldview. Now, setting aside the fact that (1) homosexual relationships can never constitute a marriage and (2) that homosexual relationships are sinful, harmful, and rebellious, I would point out to you Robert that love is central, but love is not sufficient to define "marriage."
If it were sufficient, then there would be no reason to "deny" the "right" to "marry" to other unions where love is also central (e.g., that of a child and their parents, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to groups rather than couples). Love is integral to marriage, but it's not sufficient to define it for this and many other reasons I've already addressed.
You write: "I see no reason why two same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry the person they love first and foremost, but in this society, its not going to happen without state or federal intervention to remedy it, the same remedy that allows heterosexuals to marry by consent of their government."
First off, let's have a reality check for fairness sake. Homosexuals already have exactly the same "right" to marry as any heterosexual. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person's "sexual preference" or "sexual orientation."
However, the freedom of homosexuals to marry is subject to the same restrictions as any heterosexual as well. That is, one person is not allowed to marry just any willing and living human being. All people - homosexuals and heterosexuals - are barred from marrying children under a certain age, certain close blood relative, and person's who are already married. And, of course, people of the same sex. Now, simply because you and others desire to have homosexual "marriages" recognized by the state doesn't mean you have some sort of "right" to that recognition, any more than the desires of another group of Americans gives them a "right" to pedophilic "marriages," incestuous "marriages," or polygamous "marriages."
That said, I still don't think that government should be involved at all. Marriage licenses were, are, and will remain completely unnecessary. But, if our society deems they are necessary, then the citizens will have to vote on how to define what constitutes and what does not constitute a marriage.
posted by , at
7/07/2008 6:14 PM
"any more than the desires of another group of Americans gives them a "right" to pedophilic "marriages," incestuous "marriages," or polygamous "marriages"."
Theo,
Your opinion is worth shit, until you stop parroting the comparison of gay people to pedophiles, incest and polygamists.
Those 3 are their own categories, and in my opinion, belongs more to heterosexuals than homosexuals.
For example - heterosexual Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year old cousin.
posted by S., at
7/08/2008 8:14 AM
Theo, who are you to laud it over others on here? What exactly are you doing here anyway? Trying to agitate by shoving your so-called christian values down our throats? The way you denigrate and condescend are hardly what I would describe as "christian". You and your fellow cultist believers will never succeed. What are you an "ex-gay" or a paid troller of gay blogsites?
posted by , at
7/08/2008 12:02 PM
Robert, whoever you are, I'm not trying to agitate anything, and I've never tried to shove my values down anyone's throat. Just asking questions and evaluating the answers. If your answers demonstrate you're a fool who has no idea what he's talking about, then that's your problem. Don't post if you don't want your views critically evaluated.
Reading you and Wayne and others around here does demonstrate at least two things - (1) you all more often than not have no idea what you're blathering about, and, (2) you're very, very angry individuals. I find it both amusing and depressing actually.
Now then, quit your whining Robert, whoever you are. Is this not a marketplace of ideas? Or is this simply of place for cheerleading and butt-patting?
Concerning Christianity, you clearly don't understand it theologically or historically. But since YOU brought it up - AGAIN, YOU BROUGHT IT UP - Christianity is about a baby born of a virgin. It's about One who was innocent and yet crucified as a criminal. It's about the Prince of Peace who came to divide brother from brother. It's about a Savior who came into this fallen world because it was, and is, under the rule of a cruel and malevolent prince, who tempted Him, who slew Him when He would not submit, and who watched in helpless horror as He rose from the dead in power and victory.
The common portrait of a wimpy, mealy-mouthed hippie wonderer has absolutely no basis in Scripture, history, or tradition. The Jesus of Scripture, history, and tradition is massively self-confident, brutally sarcastic, and possessed enough strength of character to empty a Temple of powerful men with the force of His rage. He was chauvinistic and He was intolerant. He was narrow-minded and He was dogmatic.
Now Robert, whoever you are, if you don't like the portrait that Scripture, history, and tradition paints, then fine. Just be intellectually honest and don't call your portrait Christianity.
posted by , at
7/08/2008 5:19 PM
Hey Wayne,
I see that Benkof has name two of his "lies" after you and only one after me. I feel so slighted.
But then I noticed that his rants are getting so strange and weird that no one is even commenting there anymore. I wonder if Benkof knows that he's shouting to himself in an empty room.
Timothy
posted by , at
7/08/2008 7:56 PM
Theo, you're an idiot! Tell us why you're posting here? No sane straight male would come to a gay blogsite, so I can deduce that you're not straight, let alone obsess over gay issues. What is it that you hate so much about yourself? Why do you need to reveal your religious beliefs, what is the point? Yours is a chosen lifestyle, ours is not! We don't need to know what you believe in, irrelevant. Yes, religion is a choice! Proof enough you're more than an idiot! Nobody gives a flying f--k about what you believe in either! Run along now, go help James Dobson take care of the broken hetero marriages, the adulterers, married philanderers, hetero rapists, the hetero politicians who solicit the services of prostitutes while espousing the sanctity of marriage and the family as well as the many foster children who need stable, loving homes instead of wasting your valuable time using scriptural interpretation to justify discrimination against us. I suggest you refer to www.fallwell.com and start getting your own house in order and those of your ilk.
posted by , at
7/09/2008 8:22 AM
Theo, FYI, am not a christian and neither are you! I don't believe in that imaginary being you believe in nor do I believe that jesus christ was born of a virgin, one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard. I suppose you believe the world is 6,000 years old too? Seems to me, you're the biggest fool of all and an idiot. You can brow-beat us all your like, we see through it and you! Why do you need to bleat about religion on a gay blogsite? We're NOT interested in your religious cultist beliefs and superstitions, they are irrelevant as you are. What on earth would you do if there were no religious cults, invent yet another? What is it you fear to cling to such nonsense? Obviously something very wrong went awry in your pathetic life. Run along now...go help James Dobson et al and put together all the broken marriages; find stable, loving homes for foster children, orphans; go preach to the adulterers, rapists, the politicians who solicit prostitutes while espousing family values and the sanctity of marriage. Your work is more than cut out for you. You can start by visiting www.fallwell.com then go apply it to your own kind instead of wasting your valuable time with that useless religious drivel coming out of your mouth.
posted by , at
7/09/2008 10:14 AM
Let's see here Robert, whoever you are. In one of your posts above there's ad hominem argumentation, some conspiratorial nonsense, a little projection, a revealed lack of elementary reading comprehension and memory, a baseless assertion, and a logically fallacious use of tu quoque. Didn't we talk about that whole intellectual maturity thing Robert, whoever you are?
As for your second post, I know you're not a Christian, but I fail to see how you can claim I'm not one, unless you reveal the definition and standard you use when applying the title "Christian" to someone.
You write: "I don't believe in that imaginary being you believe in..." Do you consider yourself an atheist then?
You write: "...nor do I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard." From a strictly naturalistic worldview it is preposterous. Hence, a worldview that allows for supernatural events and the term "miracle." Do you consider yourself a philosophical naturalist?
You write: "Why do you need to bleat about religion on a gay blogsite?" I of course didn't address "religion" until you brought it up Robert, whoever you are. And what's wrong with bringing up religion on a "gay blogsite" anyway? Are you claiming that homosexuals can't be religious?
Once again Robert, whoever you are, reading your comments does demonstrate at least two things - (1) you more often than not have no idea what you're blathering about, and, (2) you're a very, very angry individual.
posted by , at
7/09/2008 11:50 AM
Theo, yes, I am indeed an atheist. As for you claim that you didn't bring up religion, let me refresh your memory, in your own words while reviewing your previous postings.
"Marriage is a sacred trinity of a man and a woman before their Creator. There's no room and there's no reason for a fourth party - much less one (e.g., the state) that corrupts and destroys the tripartite relationship.
Marriage survived for 6,000 years without government. In less than 1 percent of that time, government has nearly managed to destroy it in this country. There is nothing to fear from removing government from the equation. And doing so would only strengthen true Christian marriage (which is perhaps what leftists now fear)."
If you claim to be a christian, why do you condescend others with whom you disagree? Hardly an act of christian charity. You're nothing more than a first class hypocrite!
posted by , at
7/10/2008 8:31 AM
Robert, whoever you are, your atheism explains a lot - namely, your foolish, irrational, and inconsistent worldview. Then again, as Chesterton once said,
"I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification."
As for my post that you cited, what was I answering in that post? In intellectually honestly (I realize your problems with intellectual maturity) you may want to read what I was responding to.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I patronize, talk down to, and humiliate prideful and foolish people when their public proclamations need a public smack-down for all to see. The same way Jesus did, the same way St. Paul did, the same way Elijah did, etc. It's not that I'm being "unchristian"; it's that you have a very warped view of Christianity. I completely understand why I tend to put off prissy atheists like you Robert, whoever you are, but I can't say I regret it much, if at all.
posted by , at
7/10/2008 10:34 AM
Benkof is human garbage. He is scum. He is shit on a stick. And, he's fat.
Jack V.
Portland
posted by , at
7/10/2008 9:33 PM
I never heard of Benkof, but when I first saw his face pic I questioned his level of comfort in his own skin. Or maybe that's just me. Either way, F*** ALL of the gays who are against marriage. That's right - I said it. Guess what?! IT IS ALL NOT ABOUT YOU! The millisecond the first same sex couple began raising their child is the moment it is ALSO about children's rights. Remember? Children's rights are only as good as their parent's rights? Or was it still just ALL ABOUT YOU?
But this freakin' "debate" makes me cringe.
If church and state were TRULY separate instead of this
Disney-esque fantasy we cling to, there would be NO DEBATE about 2 human beings civil right to civil marriage. We'd simply marry the person we love, because anyone spouting ANY objection to same sex marriage OUTSIDE OF RELIGIOUS CONCERNS would be dismissed as the fool he or she is.
We are ALL idiots for not only allowing this blatant discrimination (which harms our families & children), we allow states to VOTE on a minority's FAMILY RIGHTS.
CRIMINAL!
STOP THIS INSANITY NOW.
Jon Stewart's phrase comes to mind:
"having to make the case". Queers will surely experience depression and psychological harm over the longterm (from subtle to disabling) if they LIVE A LIFETIME having to MAKE THE CASE that their families deserve what other families deem essential - FAMILY RIGHTS. Had enough yet? I have.
[equality tax protest 2009]
posted by John Bisceglia, at
1/04/2009 1:43 AM
花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊,租車公司,花蓮旅行社,花蓮旅遊景點,花蓮旅遊行程,花蓮旅遊地圖,花蓮租車資訊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊網,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車,花東旅遊景點,租車,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊行程,花東旅遊地圖,花蓮租車公司,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮包車,花蓮賞鯨,花蓮旅遊,花蓮旅遊,花東旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車 ,花蓮 租車,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮旅遊網,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車公司,租車花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮旅行社,花東旅遊,花蓮包車,租車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車服務,花蓮租車公司,花蓮包車,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,租車服務,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮包車,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車公司,花蓮一日遊,花蓮租車網,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車網,花蓮租車,花蓮一日遊,租車花蓮,花蓮租車,花蓮旅遊租車,花蓮租車,花蓮租車旅遊,花蓮租車
posted by , at
3/08/2009 9:27 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
3/31/2009 11:45 AM
WoW shares many wow gold of its features with previously launched games. Essentially, you battle with wow gold cheap monsters and traverse the countryside, by yourself or as abuy warhammer goldteam, find challenging tasks, and go on to higher aoc gold levels as you gain skill and experience. In the course of your journey, you will be gaining new powers that are increased as your skill rating goes up. All the same, in terms of its features and quality, that is a ture stroy for this.WoW is far ahead of all other games of the genre the cheapest wow gold game undoubtedly is in a league of its own and buy cheap wow gold playing it is another experience altogether.
Even though WoW is a Cheap Wow Gold rather complicated game, the controls and interface are done in warhammer gold such a way that you don't feel the complexity. A good feature of the game is that it wow power leveling does not put off people with lengthy manuals. The instructions game4power.com cannot be simpler and the pop up tips can help you start playing the game immediately. If on the other hand, you need a detailed manual, the instructions are there for you to World Of Warcraft Gold access. Buy wow gold in this site,good for you.
<>buy wow gold<>buy gold wowcheapest wow gold .
posted by , at
4/17/2009 1:23 AM
There is a cool range of nike air force 1 available including the latest Classic Cardy Style in Black, mens prada shoes, Oatmeal or Cream. These ugg store are almost impossible to get anywhere in the UK and sold out on the cheap Tiffany website within weeks. They are incredibly popular ugg store and its easy to see why. ugg discount is a really versatile boot UGG Bailey Button boots. The three chunky wooden ugg boots Boots Salep the side mean that you can wear them either buttoned up or down and they look great with buy ugg boots.he ultimate in luxury designer clothing has to still be the online shopping Australia boots. These timeless classics are available in nike shoes, Black and Sand these converse shoes really are the last word in comfort footwear. These ugg discount are made entirely from sheepskin with a light Eva sole there is nothing quite Tiffany earring like the feeling of slipping your feet into a brand new pair of ugg boots! But not only do they feel great cheap ugg they look great ugg discount too and can be worn tall or ugg down to expose the sheepskin fur.If you're looking for wholesale supplier for a special lady,discount af1 shoes sale recommend UGG Suburb Crochet from the prada shoesCollection-they have the qualities of great fashion ugg boots online and practicality combined-along with exquisite comfort. If you want to purchase the Tiffany jewelry, please visit ugg classic our online buy ugg boots shop. Welcome to select and buy ugg store!was shocked. But here was a statement ugg shoes that could be checked against future events retail supplies.
posted by Unknown, at
12/28/2009 3:32 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
1/09/2010 11:52 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
6/25/2010 6:09 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/11/2011 12:07 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/06/2013 11:07 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
5/23/2014 9:41 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
5/23/2014 9:42 AM
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at
4/01/2015 10:30 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
5/25/2015 12:46 AM
<< Home
