An analogy regarding BEHAVIOR!

Why do some people "choose" to behave left-handed?

Is handedness a learned behavior, or innate?

If that behavior is innate, how come homosexual behavior is not?

I think one big objection conservatives have against gays is the fear that these will turn their children gay and their DNA won't be passed on. Conservative Log Cabin Republicans must be one rich frustrated bunch.

i have a hard time thinking of gay rights as a progressive issue when you have the log cabin republicans. when the gay community starts to gel into a cohesive unit agreeing on politcal issues..i will rethink my position.

To turn a personal choice issue into a political issue shows the fear that must be lingering inside the hearts of our leaders. When you are really afraid you can't think clearly. Your fear blocks out reality. What these guys fear doesn't really exist. Being tolerant of, and even accepting a gay lifestyle isn't going to radically change their lives. They say a gay lifestyle will harm society, when in reality an acceptance of gay lifestyles would greatly benefit this society. Just as the acceptance of Blacks and Mexicans and Asians into our culture would benefit us greatly. But as long as the guys at the top are afraid they will continue to try to deny Americans their basic civil rights. Politicians who use personal choice issues as political issues are hypocrites. Many are in the closet, and use the issue to keep their closet shut, and the others use the issue for political gain. They can make political capital by bashing gay people. No different than our racist politicians who easily deny Blacks their basic civil rights in exchange for political capital. The historic progressive struggle in America, and the world, will continue until these progressive ideas become the norm. America looks at itself as if we are the top of the world. This isn't always a bad idea. But what the majority of Americans don't know is that being the top of something has to mean you are also the bottom of something. It's this failure to look at ourselves honestly that prevents us from settling the race issues we have had since our founding. It's only been a few decades that Gay rights has been part of the discourse so I wouldn't expect much. That won't happen until more and more guys come out of the closet so that America can see that they are not a threat to anyone or anything. They are everywhere throughout our society yet they are invisible. Must be sad to live your life in a closet. Come on out guys, any way you want to be dressed, and you'll survive. This society is quite tolerant and very flexible. There is plenty of room for new ideas and new ways of doing things. Make your life fun again.
Hoa binh

Homosexuality is not a choice. But further, "women" and African Americans have never successfully purged the right wing, corrupt, empty, killing, hating population from their numbers, so neither will the log cabin republicans disappear right away. This, however, absolutely does not mean that we are somehow undeserving of equal rights any more than heterosexuals should become second-class on account of its harboring Bush.

namvet, it isn't quite safe out there. On August 18, 2006, seven young African American lesbians traveled to the West Village from their homes in Newark for a regular night out. When walking down the street, a male bystander assaulted them with sexist and homophobic comments, physically attacking them. The women tried to defend themselves, and a fight broke out. Thus began the women's nightmare for almost a year. Three of the women accepted plea offers. On June 14th, 2007 Venice Brown (19), Terrain Dandridge (20), Patreese Johnson (20), and Renata Hill (24) received sentences ranging from 3 ½ to 11 years in prison. Please read more details here:
www.fiercenyc.org

Since there is no marriage-as-an-institution reform coming, we will have gay marriage as well. We will have equality, and no it is not equal to brothers and sisters or humans and dogs being married; it is equality, and homophobic libertarian arguments do not suffice to bury it.

you know how the war on terror is a joke? a sick, evil joke. b/c the war on fags is more important. thus the firing of the cunning linguists in the military. it's more important to weed out homosexuals than to use them to prevent the bogeyman of terrorism.

thanks for the link & story, marikken.

Marikken, thanks for the reminder. Sadly it shows how deep the fear is in our society.
Hoa binh

NamVet - I always enjoy your thoughtful and reasoned comments, but I'd like to propose a slight change in your rationale on this one. You say the guys at the top are scared of gays...I think many may be smart enough to not fear gays, but they need the votes of those who do to perpetuate their world order. If the conservative agenda was revealed for what it really is, an exploitation of American poor and middle class to increase the wealth of the filthy rich, no Republican could ever get elected. So they pander to the underclass for the votes they'd never get otherwise. They are like those reptilian aliens in SF allegories who are able to look human when they are among us, but we're horribly repelled and only wake up to their evil intentions after seeing their true appearance. Federal money for stem cell research would improve the lot of Big Pharma, eg, but conservatives must belay some dollars for votes. Gay marriage is a no-brainer for them - they aren't afraid of it but it costs them nothing to buy the scared bigot vote by demonizing it.

The choice, and I speak as a gay man, is in how I respond to, handle, cope with, those feelings.

One can try to utterly deny that they are there, and ignore them, but this ends up being self-destructive, at least, and at worst, multi-level destructive if foolishy having married to "fix" it, because ultimately that innocent woman can not be FULLY given, by that man, what she deserves. (Um, I never married, but I've met many who were, are, and hide it. They rationalize the discrepancies in the situation. It's just a bad thing to do: marry a woman if you know deep inside that you are gay.)

One can decide to deal with it. Now, this can be anything from attempting to "change" it which is almost always unsuccessfull, unless the person is actually bisexual, to accepting it as a part of who they are (which I did).

One then has to decide how they are going to respond to those feelings, live their life, as all adults really must do.

Some of us adults (all sexual orientations, this is), are promiscuous, but not all are. Some are ok with "living with" a b-friend/g-friend outside of marriage (heterosexually, generally we are speaking), some are not.

We each define our own values that we then live by.

That, defining our values, and living by them, is where we ARE accountable.

But no, one can no better "choose" to be straight versus gay than a heterosexual could choose to suddenly be homosexual.

Why that premise is not understood is beyond me, but it's a simple point.

In reality, it is not a sexual "preference," but rather a sexual "orientation," and those two are very different things.

WCdevins, I agree with you and think that we both see the same problem. It still goes down to honesty. First with yourself and then with your world. It's what Americans seem to have a hard time doing. Any excuse or rationalization can be used to not face the truth. Now the problems really begin. This is where America is today. We are polarizing ourselves. Just like the government wants us to do. Divided, the American people can't do anything to restrict their government.
Hoa binh

Marriage is not a civil right. It is a legal contract allowed under parameters explained in the law.

The issue here is the attachment of all kinds of tax breaks, adoption rights, and social conventions tied to marriage.

What if two people who have a non-sexual relationship want all the legal rights tied to marriage? Then siblings and friends should be called married too.

The government should get out of the marriage business entirely and offer other legal means for people to live in whatever arrangement they desire as long as the refrain from abuse incest or other defined illegal activities.

The government has attached no special legal rights to baptism. Each group is free to call whatever they want baptism and do it or not as they see fit.

Gay marriages will just add to the divorce courts' docket, deciding who gets the sofa when the same sex love birds split up like half of all the heterosexual marriages.

Shakker wrote:

"Marriage is not a civil right. It is a legal contract allowed under parameters explained in the law."

Nonsense! Marriage is a civil right and the supreme court so ruled when they said prisoners could not be kept from marriage. If you tried denying any group of heterosexuals their right to marry, people would be up in arms about their civil rights being denied.

Using the tired argument about siblings only reveals a prejudiced attitude, and prejudice is always defines as irrational fear.

If heterosexuals have the right to divorce, so should we.

Why are you on a Progressive website? Shouldn't you be off reading Ann Coulter somewhere???

I think you all are being pretty harsh on Shakker. Why is marriage a civil right? My opinion is food, shelter and healthcare are civil rights, not marriage. It is a choice 2 people are making, be it a hetero or homo couple, to be together, signed on a piece of worthless paper.

Do not misread what I say, I fully support gay marriage. I live in Australia, so maybe not so effectual for your country's debate at the moment, but nonetheless, we are having the same debate here. My sister is lesbian, several of my parents closest friends are gay and lesbian (no smart-arses, not together, huh huh shucks) and I would love to see them married some day, just like friends (hetero couple) who were last year. But to say that marriage is civil right I think is going a bit far.

A lot of people probably should not be allowed, or perhaps encouraged, to marry. Say, for example, people previously convicted of spousal abuse or domestic violence of some sort. Or say people in prison for other violent crimes. Some would say, no they shouldn't be allowed to marry (again).

Is having a child a civic right? Most would say yes. But what about paedophiles? Is having a child a civic right for them?

Is using (as I have claimed to many people in my youthful ignorance, I'm only 24 and have had a very long history of substance abuse) drugs a civic right? I would say it is my personal choice and its my right to fuck up my body and mind if I so want to.

I bet alot of you are saying "But those aren't substantial arguments, nor are they related to the subject at hand." Well, very true, they aren't, but my point is (and whoa is it off track!) that bugger all in this life are civic rights. Really, the one and only right we have in this life, that isn't pre-determined by eons of societal acceptance, is the right to life. A life which we began as soon as we popped out of the tunnel of love. (Yes, another argument and large headache entirely!) And you know what, now that I think of it, even LIFE really wasn't a given right before not too long ago. Other than that, bugger all in life is a "Civic Right", other than those determined by society, which are changing and evolving in there own right all the time anyway.

In short, if hetero's can marry, so can homo's in my opinion, but it is not a given right to do so, FOR ANYONE!

Sorry, what a dog's breakfast that was!

Peace.

By the way, did I mention I actually support gay marriage? You wouldn't think so from the argument I made above, but I am fully in support of equality for all.

I just think people bandy about the term "civic rights" a bit much.

Power to the people, and rainbow flags for all and sundry!

The Bill of Rights lays out our civil rights. In it we are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Few today would argue that a person could be fully happy without finding someone to share their lives with. Companionship is vital to a fully healthy person. This country encourages monogamous unions of heterosexuals and provides benefits for those who pledge to love and honor each other in a committed union. Our constitution guarantees everyone equal treatment under the law. Thus marriage is a right under the Bill of Rights, and if the benefits of it are offered to heterosexuals, they must also be offered to homosexuals, making it a constitutional right based on equality clauses. It's that simple.

And I'll state again that this country's supreme court declared it a civil right when they upheld the rights of prisoners to marriage.

What people like Shakker do, is they announce they are opposed to government involvement in marriage at all, but only when the issue of gay marriage is being discussed. They don't state how they would provide the legal benefits of marriage, which everyone would expect (rights of survivorship, automatic inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, etc), without government involvement. And there would be none of that without government involvement.

They don't advocate taking these rights away from heterosexuals, they only make these statements when voicing their opposition to gay marriage. And thus they reveal their own prejudices.

Boy am I confused.

I don't understand aquietman.

I thought that what gwmRNpozSC said about people decieding who they are, and who they are accountable (as the first step in a process) is indeed of primary importance. Once a person is truely in touch with who they are and how they chose to live, that confidence and conviction is indeed a starting point.

Once a person truely knows who they are, they do not need society's approval. But, we all want to live and prosper within the legal framework of society.

Legal "marriage" or common-law association or whatever you want to call it, needs to be completely redefined legally by the government.
This will allow all religions, faiths and groups to give their own moral meaning to the legal definition.

aquietman, very astutely points out in his first statement that everyone is guaranteed the "right to life liberty and happiness" Yet the issue of gay marrige has forced everyone in the world to look at this statement and back track a bit and ask - what does this really mean? IF there is a great division regarding relationships on moral grounds - then perhaps - "pledges to love and honour each other in a committed union" have no place in the lawbooks?
The government has no dominion what takes place in our bedrooms when it comes to consenting adults. With today's youth, boys and girls can be friends without having sex, and can be roommates, just like boys and boys/girls,girls. Its up to the government to legally define when that relationship turns into something more than just a short term economic convienence and when it represents a longer term relationship in terms of taxes and other rights.

In some places, a man and a woman only have to have the same mailing address for two years and that consititues a marrige under the tax laws.

Does that rule apply to gay men and women? No it does not, but it should.

I would provide that anyone has the same rights as far as taxes, hospital visitation etc.

The government could provide a legal contract framework like they do for business partnerships, insurance contracts and so forth.

Marriage has meant many things - polygamy, child marriage arrangements etc. as well as 1 man 1 woman. Whatever group an adult wants to join and their marriage rules is none of my or the government's business unless others are hurt by it - abuse incest etc.

What I am saying is that it is unfair for my mother as a widow to be treated differently in taxes and benefits because of a lack of a marriage. The tax situation should be based on ability to pay considering financial matters only.

Why should two people sharing an apartment get a tax break or health insurance coverage JUST because they marry, gay, straight, or nonsexual?

I am no fan of marriage for a large segment of the population because they are not serious and committed, however because I can't determine that: I would like it if people could enter into the kind of relationship they like. Maybe they only want a living will and hospital visitation with their partner, friend etc. without binding all of their financial arrangements together. In Wisconsin, marriage means you can't name other than your spouse as a beneficiary on any insurance policy without specific written consent of your spouse. Your retirement package is divided at the time of a divorce. etc. etc

My wife and I signed up to a specific set of rules nearly 25 years ago. We figured out how it works for us in our religious belief system. Even though I get tax breaks and other benefits I realize that other people in other living arrangements pay higher taxes unless they happen to be married to a person the government thinks is ok.

If gay marriage is allowed the marriage would still be with a government approved person. Just more people will be approved.

Invisible Man writes:
It is truly a shame that those who claim to be of Christian orign despise the very teaching of GOD and Jesus Christ. Rather you want to believe or not, it is a serious matter to try to legislate immorality.

Who is claiming to be of Christian origin?... And exactly why are you under the assumption that you are one to judge anyone?

You seemed to have taken a wrong turn.
You also know nothing of spirituality, "God", or love- so do the world a favor and read your book in silence. Your ingnorance, while amusing, is worthless here.

Dear What To Do!

Let GOD be found true, before it is too late for you and those who believe not. If you know so much about love, then why do you hate GOD'S law, because he is love? My ignorance seems to be a profound one that caught your attention, so if it stirs you to think about Gay Behaviour, then I have done my job. I do not hate them, but deplore their actions as humans beings, God's creation. It was in his image that he created them (male and female)and gave them instruction as to how to live and use their reproductive organs. Jesus taught us how to love and only JEHOVAH'S merciful quality, rooted in his justice, has tolerated these "vessels of wrath fit for destruction." It appears that your ignorance is moreso, than mine, but I know how to forgive, while making allowance for your lack of accurate knowledge. (1 Timothy 2:4) May you be directed towards righteousness and then your "peace will flow like a river." May God Bless! (John 5:28,29)

A big problem with discussing "gay marriage" is, once again, the terminology we use. In many religions, marriage is a sacrament, or a sacred right. But the secular government uses the same term for its sanctioning of what might more correctly be called civil unions. The word marriage provides a hot button for religious types; it might be argued that the state should not even be using the term.

Putting the terminology aside, if the government provides benefits to one group of people it cannot deny them to another. If heterosexual couples are given tax breaks, survivor benefits, power of attorney, community property, adoption options, etc, in other words, rights provided by law, those rights must be provided to homosexual couples who request them. PERIOD. Anything else is government-sponsored discrimination, and discrimination is the prima facie violation of a person's civil rights.

On the other hand, the government cannot tell religions how to run their churches, so if your priest or minister refuses to grant homosexual couples the sacrament of marriage, you need to find another church.

This is what separation of church and state provides for. The government cannot tell the church who it can marry, but neither can the church tell the government against whom it can discriminate. The arguments above for the Constitutional right of pursuit of happiness provide that basis. Some people are happy belonging to a church which denies same-sex unions, some are happy being in such a union. The government has no right to prevent either.

Once again, all of you high minded individuals have it all twisted, so much that you are willing to compromise truth for lies and play politics with people's children lives. I have no pity for those who want to push such an abomination on the mind's of our children. It is written in the scriptures that JEHOVAH will eventually rid all of those who oppose his law. Please read the following scriptures: ROMANS 1:24-31 IT READS - "Therefore GOD, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, even those who exchanged the truth of GOD for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. That is why GOD gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature, and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.
And just as they did not approve of holding GOD in accurate knowledge, GOD gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, backbiters, haters of GOD, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless. Although these know full well the righteous decree of GOD, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them."
It is truly a shame that those who claim to be of Christian orign despise the very teaching of GOD and Jesus Christ. Rather you want to believe or not, it is a serious matter to try to legislate immorality. All of the politicians that compromise and go along with the gay agenda will eventually receive the same punishment, that is, "deserving of death." GOD has never told a lie! The United States Supreme Court may sway, but JEHOVAH'S law and commands is what will forever stand!

Hey Invisible Man - do us all a favor and stay invisible.

Invisible Man, please take your religious teachings to the nearest church mate, they are not wanted here, nor your ignorant, bible-based (falsely, I may add) opinions. So please do everyone a favour, preach to the people who want to be preached to, not those trying to engage in civilised discussions WITHOUT the influence of church-pedalled bigotry.

This is not to say people here are not interested or faithful in/to whatever god that may be, just that your anti-factual diatribes do not help in the matter, nor is this a religious site. If you do want to blog religion, there is plenty of bible-blogs. Why not try "Godhatesfags.com", sounds like its up your alley mate.

And as WCdevins stated previously, please stay invisible (and hopefully inaudible).

But, back to aquietman;

You state (more so, quote) the US constitution as saying people have the right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

Hmmm, so the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed is it?

For a start, I think you generalise greatly when you say; "Few today would argue that a person could be fully happy without finding someone to share their lives with. Companionship is vital to a fully healthy person." That is a blatantly false misrepresentation of people in general. It is society which says "marriage, 3 kids and a suburban house" is the norm, is the thing to strive for in this life. There are many many people, my mother for one, who are absolutely happy to live by themselves, and do not want a "lifetime companion" as they just prefer their own company. I don't think its a stretch of the imagination to think there is maybe more than 1 person on this earth with feeling like that. For example, Ralph Nader. He lives by himself in a rather small apartment in Conneticut, and has previously said he did not want children or a spouse as he did not want to be the absent father or husband. Now, this is obviously not simply because he wants to be alone, but is more than happy, and rather glaringly content serving the life he was given solitarily helping his fellow man. Marriage was not included in his "pursuit of happiness".

Therefore, each persons own "pursuit of happiness" is different to the next, in turn (in my opinion of course) nullifying the whole damn statement to begin with.

My own pursuit of happiness during my early teenage years right through till my early 20's basically consisted of taking a lot of ecstasy, dancing all night and getting as spiritually close as possible to some person I met 5 minutes prior. I no longer kick it the scene I used to, however, I do smoke pot and I still occasionally like to have a little heroin (maybe twice a year) to really let my hair down and party. I do so intravenously. I do not drink alcohol, nor do I use any of the drugs I used as a young adult (speed, coke, ecstasy, GHB etc etc). That is part of my pursuit of happiness. By your reasoning, that is guaranteed to me as a civil right. Yeah, well we know how well that will go down.

As I have said before, this is an extremely skewed argument, as they are two completely different things (or "pursuits of happiness" if you will), but I am just highlighting the vagueness of the above-mentioned part of the constitution, and its ability to be misconstrued and interpreted in any which way the situation at hand calls for.

Peace.

Sir Miles Q,

Where are you traveling to? Down a road of destruction or on a path of correction? You have the choice, to speak your so-called peace. And I have a right to shake the dust off my feet. Pearls before swine, for you it seems, but these nuggets of gold, will by someone take hold. So keep in mind, that your haughty attitude is what is wrong, with the most of you. This is why everlasting life, will pass you by. So enjoy your time, while you're here, because you are having your measure in full, my dear! Never berate the righteous truth, because you may not get a chance to return to your youth.

Honourable Invisible Man,

Huh, I missed that? Seeing as you have gotten completely off topic, I will join you on your brief tangent.

Answer: the path of correction, but trust me, that does not include diluting my self-worth and intelligence by submitting to a blatant and long lasting lie, that lie being that "god/jesus" is the only way to everlasting inner harmony. As with the rest of us, when your time is up, your time is up chief.

I was merely using my own personal experiences to provide a brief, however skewed, analogy of the subject.

I only hope your beliefs and lifestyle bring you even a tenth of the happiness and supreme contentment I felt and still feel. Open your mind, you are being lied to.

Peace.

Hey Miles have you ever wondered why we were all told so many lies in the first place? When I was kid I used to ask why White Americans were filled with such anger, when they were the missionaries, or so-called "Vicars of Christ". After researching I found out that Satan was actually, "the father of the lie" and he could transform himself into "an angel of light" so as to appear righteous, but actually he was a wolf that appeared in sheeps covering. And he could take on the form of a ventriloquist speaking through a lifeless dummy. In the Schools of Theology and Seminaries all across the world, it is the "father of the lie" who controls what the clergy class teaches. He uses many mouthpeiecs of deception. Those voices that we all have been looking up to (the intellectually wise) have us all in the mess that the world is in today. From the Clergy to Professors, the Politicains, the Rocket Scientists, Medical Scientists (druglords), Military Geniuses, you name it, have all been misled. It is they, that continue to perpetrate lies all throughout Christendom and the world alike. That is why they have no peace and are always at war, because they disrespect and do not recognize the truth of our Sovereign Lord. Jehovah will soon replace this system with a heavenly government, one that humans, who love peace and righteousness, can respect and submit too! And it will stand forever! (Daniel 2:44) All of the problems that we all face will be corrected and Paradise will be restored. There is nothing man can do presently to bring about the best livable conditions for all of mankind. Not until "satan" and his "demons" are locked up for the thousand years will there be true peace on earth. As long as men have guns, bombs, viral germs and bad hearts the majority of us will continue to suffer. Only GOD ALMIGHTY can bring about the lasting change that the earth needs. If you think this is a tangent, relatively and generally speaking, I have peace, and this is mine. No one can take it! JEHOVAH IS GOD, he is supreme! And his Kingdom is near! Jesus said, "if you knew the truth, it would set you free!"

So, from what I gather, Invisible Man is the sole righteous being on earth. I am truly indebted to all the research he has done in seeking the truth. Now, armed with the knowledge he has given us, I can see that he is just another manifestation of satan in the guise of the angel of light! I can see the truth now - those who spout Christian teachings are all under satan's spell! Get thee behind me, satan! Return to the nether reaches which have spawned thee for 1000 years! Oh yeah, and quit spammin' my website with your crap.

I must admit that I am just as imperfect as you and the next person, but I realize that we do not have a right to direct our own steps. When we try to live without God, men fail miserably! Point blank! Just read all of the articles and posts contained in your current files and annual archives and you will see discontent and malcontent. People want a lasting change for the better! We keep puting our trust in Nobles and earthly men to only be letdown time and time again. Man has tried every form of government imaginable from Oliargchy to Democracy. Have they solved our problems? Do you think Hillary can? Do you think Obama can? Do you think Nader can?
When I looked at the recent Democratic Presidential forum, I saw people with the same old redderick, even the cynical old man who said "none of the others had any morals." He sat in the halls of politics for decades and gave support to the same powers and laws that be. You see the hypocrisy of it all, is what most fail to notice, because most stand for nothing and compromise what they do know is right and just. You see, if I allow you to censor me, then what will the others think about you? When you blog or post your frame of reference, do you do it to engage in intellectual stimulation? Do you think about how you can benefit others and teach something that could possibly improve their lives? Well, I do and hope that those who are reading gain insight as to why we all are at war with one another. The exchange of ideas is encouraging, it only improves my thinking processes. So, keep speaking to me, and I will tell you no lies and hope that you listen with care! God is doing the judging, not I. May He bless you, mr. wcdevins!

Invisible Man - Finally, a fairly rational and cogent comment from you. If you keep the prosletyzing out of it, you actually can make a good argument. I agree that our politicians are hypocrites, and I certainly don't put my trust in them. And I don't believe government is the answer, either - those seeking power will always rise to the top (or sink to the bottom, depending on how you look at it.) But I also don't believe calling on the Almighty to change things will help, either. I think there is plenty of evidence around the world, throughout history, that organized religion and fundamentalist readings of holy books are the root of a vast number of our problems. If you believe that your god gave you free will, why would you shackle yourself to a book edited by ancient politicians and governments to help enslave their subjects? Wouldn't your god prefer you to discover the mysteries of his vast and wonderful universe on your own, through exercise of free will and an open mind?

Do you honesty believe your saviour, the prince of peace, would smite or harangue against homosexuals when he befriended and protected the whores, lepers, and other outcasts of his time? Is there a single story, even in your modern English translation of an 800-year-old text, of Jesus wielding a sword, threatening harm to anyone, or banishing anyone because of their position in society, who they love, even their religion? His vitriol is reserved for the money-lenders in the temple who represent the mingling of church and state. Does he call on his father to smite his enemies, or does he worry his death will spark his father's wrath, and so he implores his father to forgive his own killers? Do you truly believe, after a chronicle of nothing but tolerance, forgiveness, and self-sacrifice, that he would ask you to condemn any human being for any reason, other than rendering to Caesar that which is god's? Do you truly believe god is judging us based on the modern interpretation of texts edited years ago by powerful men seeking to control their people, in other words, governments? Don't you think he'd more likely judge us (if that's what he does - I'd like to think he forgives us our trespasses) on whether we followed in the true footsteps of his son? Open your mind, shed your fear, use your free will a little more. I'll bet your god would be proud of you.

Free will is certainly a choice that all of us have, but without constraint and rational usage, many end up doing things that are contrary to God and to nature. The rule of law stems from the "Book of Law." I am sure, that you, as an educated man, know where to find it. Specifically, in that book, God gave instructions to the Jews about who they should lie down with and what the punishment was for violating those laws. Now, you might say, I am going off on a tangent again. But, actually this whole exchange is coming back full circle to the topic of discussion. When I quoted the Christian Greek scripture at Romans, apparently it struck a nerve with those who have never read it or choose to ignore it. I know that Christians are no longer under the law, but are now under grace, that is, God's undeserved kindness. Yes, Jesus did practice tolerance and forgiveness, but he never compromised God's law. He was a perfect man just as Adam was made perfect. Adam lost his opportunty to live and was sentenced to death. It is purely merciful, that God even sent his son as a ransom in exchange for Adam and his offspring. If it was not for Jesus, none would have the chance to gain everlasting life. Jesus gave the people a choice as well, he said, "this is the way" you should walk. He told them to "go and sin no more." The gift of life accompanied with an Instruction manual and a Master Teacher, who set the finest example of human behaviour, is the greatest example for any of us to follow. As for his obedience, Jesus is still under subjection to GOD and will obey him, even when the day of reckoning and vengeance comes. JEHOVAH is giving us all a chance to learn the truth. The Good News of his Kingdom is being preached throughout every tribe and nation. He is judging us based on how we receive the message of his Witnesses. Will you take heed or reject it, it is that simple. Read the Minor Prophets, they all spoke about Jehovah's day of anger. You see, mercy has its limits and if people have not learned after 6000 plus years on earth, you would wonder when he is going to fulfill his promise. He destroyed by the flood, then extended mercy, and let us try to get it right again. The sign of the times is indicative of the writing on the wall. You do have a choice to make, that is the warning. Choose to obey while their exist hope and "probably you will be concealed" and given divine protection on his day of anger. Use your free will carefully people, God is not one to be mocked! Get your bibles out and read daily! It cannot do anything but improve your lives. You may despise me, but his truth can't be eliminated and those who twist and compromise it by teaching things contrary to it, will pay dearly for their stupidity. Choose life and live, listen, pay attention, take heed, seek JEHOVAH, he is GOD and Jesus literally means that "Jehovah is salvation." Peace!

Ah, you're back to prosletyzing again. Put your bible aside for a day and read about the infinity of the cosmos, the inverse infinity of the world of sub-atomic particles, and the unimaginable eons past which brought us here, not the meager 6000 years the small-minded interpreters of your holy book have decreed. Don't tie yourself solely to studying a single ancient text and trying to force every chapter of it into a relevance for today. I realize your way is easier, not having to think for yourself, but you seem bright enough to shake off the shackles of fundamentalist prejudice while maintaining a strong faith.

I ask again, if Jesus appeared on earth tomorrow, do you truly believe his primary concern would be who is in love with whom?