w sez being gay is a sin...does mass murder qualify as a sin also?

the reporter asked a simple question of the monkey the other day.
what are your feelings on homosexuality. first words out of his mouth are 'we're all sinners'. so being gay is a sin. since when?
is it one of the 10 commandments? or is it a new one, the 11th commandment? thou shalt not lust after or marry one of your own sex.
don't remember that one.

yeah, we are all sinners to a degree mr. monkey. some of us commit sins so awful they are practically unspeakable. like knowing a horrific attack is coming an not telling we the people. 'allowing' 3000 people to die horribly, allowing thousands of people, women and chilren too, to die horribly, and allowing untold thousands to die in iraq, for decades, supporting hussein, witnessing his mass murders and buying his oil. does any of that qualify as sinful mr. monkey?

I've been saying this for so long now.

What is about "thou shalt not kill" that this idiot does not understand?

...my god knows the difference.

I've got to tell you there is nothing about Bush and his policies that I find palatable but I didn't take that comment as negatively as most people did.

I think it's the first time that I've heard a conservative Republican admit that we're all the same. Sure he cast it in the worst light, but he basically said that Gays are no different than anybody else.

Someone please straighten me out here.

I found the comment to be a slam....I don't believe God gives a ratsass who I sleep with. I do not believe that being gay is a sin! Herr Bush is full of shit!

about where you put your genetalia. One would think that as long as you have an adults permission you can put it where you want to. And conversely you can put in your genetalia what you want to as long as permission is garnered from the owner of whatever is being inserted.

It just seemed less condemning than I've become accustomed to from right wing zealots. No question that it was wrong and I would have been outraged had a Democratic politician said it, but coming from a fascist it almost seemed timid.

I'm neither a psychiatrist nor a mind reader, but here's my personal observation of his response.

He's not good at unscripted press conferences.
He not very fast on his feet.
He just doesn't "think" well or rapidly.
When he heard the phrase "homosexual (or same sex, whatever it was) marriage" the very first word that popped into his head was "sin". Not good. Bad.
And so he prefaced his lamish answer with "we are ALL sinners", i.e. no one is without sin, and homosexuality is just one.

This is a standard mantra with fundamentalist Christians along with "hating the sin, but not the sinner". Except we know that this is not true. The sinner is usually hated even more vehemently and viciously that the act itself. They shoot abortion doctors, don't they? It's like saying "some of my best friends are black, but..." and then unloading your favorite denigrating stereotype.

As soon as the words left his mouth my jaw dropped. I had thought the gay bashing was something he'd distance himself from and let his prominent fundie friends do the dirty work. But he's just not that smart. Unlike most of us, he doesn't think fast enough to pre-edit what comes out of his mouth.

Just a layman's opinion.

I think you put it very well. From my own viewpoint he was pandering to his base and any interpretation of this as some kind of bold plea for tolerance strikes me as apologist as best.

My first reaction was the same as yours, jaw dropping to the floor. But after giving it some thought I came to a conclusion opposite of yours in that I think it was a Rovian answer.

I believe that he was trying to appear tolerant. That doesn't say much for him personally but it signals that his campaign sees a need to go after OUR base.

To me, it came across as an admission that they are in trouble.

He was TRYING to appear tolerant while pandering to his base.

It was hardly a bold plea for tolerance or a slap at the Vatican (which said exactly the same thing, only better) as some people have interpreted it.

...is worth less than any straight relationship at all and not worthy of the civil contract of marriage.

I can't imagine why I would be offended by that.

We'll be celebrating 12 years on 08/03.

I'm not sure that I agree that our relationships are worth less because they don't have the civil contract of marriage. I do believe that we should have the same rights and benefits, but I'm not hung up on marriage as being that vehicle. That's belonged to heterosexuals for ages now, I'd be very receptive to our own civil contract.

I looked at what I just wrote in the subject line and almost deleted this post. And then I thought a little longer.

On one level, wishing you a happy (almost) anniversary sounded cruel to me. I mean the "almost" as 2 days early, but it could also mean that you're not "really" a couple, not legally. And that is cruel.
We hetero couples take so much of our lives and the way they're organized and "blessed" by the state for granted.

So...I'm glad I reconsidered. Take it in the spirit I know you won't misunderstand now.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!
I celebrate your happiness.
:toast:
be well

It would be great if I could buy Hallmark cards specific to the occasion or buy gifts that indicated our years together. I hope that within my lifetime, our relationship will be recognized by society and the government. I'm not holding my breath though.

That said, I think that we're fighting a losing battle by insisting on marriage rights. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I hope that the leaders of the Gay and Lesbian movements can get their arms around a civil law that could be called anything but marriage.

The full text is "love the sinner, hate the sin," and is used to justify all sorts of hatred and oppression toward gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/intersexed persons. Bush, by using the "we're all sinners" formulation signals to the base that whatever he says after that, he's not really serious, and that no change from the status quo should be expected. Certainly, though Bush pretends to put everyone on the same level with the "we're all sinners" language, the unequal treatment under the law of heterosexual and homosexual relationships will continue.

so that they knew they were equal but lesser. He was making sure everyone knew that gays who remain gay (like there is a choice) are sinners, and therefore are lesser until they repent. The religions might make a distinction but gov't shouldn't.

...but some animals are more equal than others.

And those that do, do not look to Shrub to define sin for them. As I understand it its up to god to determine what sin is and the spin on that matter is no one is supposed to know what god knows so its probably a good idea to NOT BE SO FREAKING JUDGEMENTAL GEORGE!

Of course, these idiots dont read THOSE parts of their bibble.

from some fundimentalists eyes would be enough to save a couple of rain forests.

is certaily questionable.

post the whole question and answer.

It's obvious he thinks homosexuality is a sin or it he wouldn't have fallen back on the old "we're all sinners" copout.

especially coming from bush. it was obviously a slap at the fundies and pope for their anti gay rhetoric.

Saying that we need to put into law a measure to prevent gays from marrying and claiming we are all sinners in the same breath is a plea for tolerance and a slap at the Vatican?

You must be joking. While I am not surprised that is your interpretation of his remarks, I can certainly do without his fucked up version of tolerance.

find me one reference that says it's about anything other than a lesson on tolerence.

now to who else would that lesson me aimed other than the pope and the homophobes,

as to extending "marriade" to gays, list the dem candidates who are calling for it?

waiting?


his reference to that quote bowled me over and scared me to death but not for the reason some here are expressing fear.

it scared me because it tells me that bush thinks he can afford to piss off the pope and the fundies.

but it was a call for tolerance. When a religious fanatic like Bush tells his faithful that we are all sinners(read: the same) then I don't see how you can say that he's not calling for tolerance.

I can do without the standard Christian "tolerance" that tells them in one breath to treat us with respect while they piss on our civil rights.

What the fuck do I have to do in this country to be treated equally?


Was serving my country in the military and paying taxes not enough?


I get the same kind of Christian "tolerance" from my brother who wouldn't even introduce me to my own niece and nephew because while he "respects" me, he doesn't want his children exposed to my sinful lifestyle.

i'm just talking about his quote and what it means, literally and figurativly.

...that I disagree with that interpretation. It's not like I have a lot of reason to trust Bush where my civil rights are concerned. I think message 21 sums up my viewpoint on this.

Your mileage may vary.

Seems to me to be a hell of a step up from "God Hates Fags."

I wouldn't expect these fuckers to sign legislation to give us the same civil rights. Would you???

We made gains yesterday in that press conference in my opinion, it's a hell of a step up to just be considered a sinner rather than a mental case.

Halfway mealy mouthed responses don't really send me.

Especially when in the same breath that he is saying he wants to treat me with respect he states that he wants to codify discrimination against gay people where marriage is concerned.

I neither want nor need that kind of bold respect for my diversity.

The fact that you think he could've meant ANYTHING insofar as tolerance is laughable, his saying "we are all sinners" was a fundie knee-jerk response to the word "homosexual"; my 12 yr old even rolled her eyes when he said it. To say he was extending an olive branch of any sort is giving him WAAAAAY too much credit. He's nowhere near that clever.

edited for ghastly grammar :P

n/t

I don't believe in sin, but I'm sure that my Gods will be having fun with him when his number comes up.

As is killing labor unionists, socialists, and communists.

Much thanks and thanks much!

I'm thinking that you don't really care about whether or not the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but here it is:

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

The 20th chapter of Leviticus has all those sex prohibitions: adultry, bestiality, sleeping with your sister etc.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=LEV+20&language=english&version=NIV

....of those who have committed adultery? I mean, if we're all equally sinners, shouldn't we all be treated equally? Where's the change to the constitution saying that marriage is only between 1 "faithful, monogomous" man and 1 "faithful, monogamous" woman?

I'm tired of those who selectively use Bible quotes to further their bigotry.

BTW, I've heard that this specific passage was mis-translated from the original Greek? Anyone have any info or links supporting this?

The original poster seemed to indicate that the Bible didn't say that homosexuality was wrong. I corrected him. As for the passage being mistranslated from the original Greek, that would be difficult to do given that Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew.

The bottom line is this: if you support liberal and progressive notions of morality, you need to give up on the Bible. Don't talk about how the Bible "doesn't say this" or the Bible was "mistranslated here" or anything else. There are simply far too many passages that would completely offend even the most mildly liberal person to make it seem as if it somehow supports our modern notion of what is right and what is wrong. Suffice to say that the Bible is a book written 2000 years ago--with portions of it going back 3500 years--and as such it is a product of the thinking at that time. Don't expect it to be progressive, its not.

Most folks are familiar with Acts 9, which is Peter's vision of a huge sheet coming down from Heaven and being commanded to "Kill and eat." Peter protests that as an observant Jew, he doesn't eat animals that are ritually unclean according to the Mosaic code. The voice tells Peter to call nothing unclean that has been pronounced clen. In one fell swoop, the author of Acts (who is also the author of the third gospel, so let's call him Luke), invalidates the lengthy Levitical and Deuteronomical codes about dietary restrictions.

By the same token in Acts chapter 8, Philip encounters the Ethiopian eunuch, returning home after attending the Jewish festivals in Jerusalem. According to Deuteronomy 23, no one whose testicles have been crushed is allowed into the Inner Temple. But Philip winds up baptizing the eunuch, and presumably giving him full admission into the new Christian faith. Is it such a stretch to lend the same credence to issues of sex and sexuality implied by Acts 8 as is routinely granted to Acts 9 in reference to dietary laws?

Now, whether or not you concede that Acts 8 means what I have just put forward, it must be admitted that this is a possible reading. And since this reading of Acts 8 is possible, then the absolute prohibition against the participation of sexual minorities in the life of the congregation is similarly called into question. We are then reduced to a discussion over interpretation and emphasis, and who is qualified to say that one interpretation is the "right" one?

However, in reviewing the teachings of Jesus and the expansive nature of the early followers of The Way, it follows (for me) that we are called to be in community with as wide a cross section of humanity as is possible. If our prejudices limit that inclusion, the fault lies not with God or the scripture, but in ourselves.

Is it such a stretch to lend the same credence to issues of sex and sexuality implied by Acts 8 as is routinely granted to Acts 9 in reference to dietary laws?

Yes it is. In order for this interpretation to be true, you would have to ignore Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-27.

Like I said in my other post, if you support liberal and progressive notions of morality you need to forget about the Bible. Sure, I suppose you could pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, but in doing that you'd probably have to chuck 95% of the text. That being the case, what's the point?

I suspect what's happening here is that many people here were raised in religious traditions that viewed the Bible as the word of God. As such, they would like to believe that the Bible supports their newer, more modern view of morality. My advice is simply this: get over your fixation with the Bible. The Bible is a book written a long time ago with some very peculiar (and many downright twisted) notions of morality.

First, there is no "Corinthians." It's First or Second Corinthians. Second, the two verses you cite from Romans is totally shorn from its context. It's like excerpting a movie review that says "This movie was a colossal waste of celluloid" to read "This movie was . . . colossal." I strongly urge you to read the first two chapters of Romans in their entirety. Paul isn't saying what you've been told he's saying.

In any event, to "forget" about the Bible as support for any liberal or progressive notions is simply fatuous, and betrays a poor understanding of large sections of books such as Jeremiah, Micah, Isaiah, the gospels, the epistles of John as well as, yes, Romans.

I merely made the point that the interpretations and emphases from the texts that I choose hang together better and more coherently than the cribbing you've done from isolated verses of Leviticus and Romans. If an examination of the text, all of the text, yields a different interpretation or draws a different conclusion than what is popularly put forth by the fundamentalists, then discarding such a useful text is to cede a valuable resource simply because you have been persuaded that it doesn't work for you.

Sorry about the Corinthians typo, obviously I meant I Corinthians 6:9-10. BTW, I think you are seriously nitpicking with that.

As far as my advice to forget the Bible, I think you are twisting my words. I never said that you couldn't use the Bible as support for any liberal or progressive notions. What I specifically said was this:

Sure, I suppose you could pick and choose the parts of the Bible that you like, but in doing that you'd probably have to chuck 95% of the text. That being the case, what's the point?

By suggesting that there are many progressive notions to be found in 5 books of the 66 books in the bible, you merely prove my point. Most of the bible contains rather scary notions of morality. I need not give a person such as yourself one of the numerous examples of the downright twisted ideas expressed in the pages of the entire text. Taken as a whole, it is impossible to say that the Bible advocates the progressive notion of tolerance that is the hallmark of liberal thinking. Rather, the Bible expresses a rather consistent thought: there is one and only one true God and anyone who doesn't believe in him will either be slaughtered by the children of Isreal (Old Testement theme) or sent to hell (New Testement theme). Sure you can pick out a passage here or there that sounds all warm and fuzzy, but when read from start to finish the Bible is a classic example of ancient intolerance.

Then it's OK.

I'm sure W can have one of his "spiritual advisers" highlight the appropriate biblical text for him to quote/mangle.

so he can screw the other sinners with impunity.

Whether people think gays are sinners or not, there is NO PLACE for a President to stand up and say anything about sin and a citizen in the United States of America. We are a country based on the Constitution and Civil Law. That Constitution protects the rights of every single citizen, with NO religious teachings mixed in. That's the biggest outrage of his comments, in my opinion.

Are gays sinners? Well, right now they are, at least in part due to the fact that they aren't allowed to be married. Living outside the bounds of marriage is considered sin by the religions I'm aware of.

Are they sinners because procreation isn't available in that context? I'm not sure. The Catholic Church teaches procreation is a part of sex, that there is more involved in a loving sexual relationship than pure lust. Are gay couples open to having children as a result of their sexual act? I presume many if not most would be delighted if children came from their lovemaking. It's not possible, but that doesn't mean the couple involved wouldn't be willing if it were! That's the criteria according to the Church.

Regardless, should the President get up there and make a pronouncement of who is a sinner and who isn't? HELL NO!!!! The Church teaches artificial birth control is a sin. Should George Bush answer a question about women on the pill with 'we're all sinners'? This is outrageous and I wish people would see how dangerous having a President make these kinds of statements really is.

I doubt it, but that's been the mantra of the right for as long as I can remember. His statement is hardly an endorsement but it does call for tolerance.

Perhaps he didn't pull a Michael Weiner, but the implication is that homosexuality is a sin, therefore wrong.

We both saw it and came away with our own conclusions. I respect yours and hope you do the same for mine.

...to yours on this particular issue.

That is the purpose of discussion in a public forum. It is not necessarily meant to convince you but is a balance to the people who are reading this discussion.

That's all he's elected to do. He doesn't need to drag the Bible into everything in order to say all people's civil rights must be protected and respected. That's a pretty simple thing to say. But no, we've got a President who has to base his opinions on the Bible instead of the Constitution. That's dangerous and that is WRONG.

He's admitting to his own orientation.

that is not involving a man and a woman having missionary position intercourse for the purposes of procreation ONLY! You are free to murder whomever you want.
These hypocrits never think about the fact that if they are having sex without the intention of having children, they are violating their own foolish laws.