She forgot the version where a guy who rapes his slave has to marry her to his son, other than that I think she got them all

Any reason to watch this? No? Great.

There's something deeply pathetic about a need to caricature one's opponents so coarsely in order to maintain enthusiasm.

There's something deeply pathetic about a need to caricature one's opponents so coarsely in order to maintain enthusiasm - crid

Perhaps, one could also argue it pathetic that one needs to caricatute one's opponent in order for that opponent to see what the hell it is they are defending.

But as your opposition to gay marrige is not based on a farciful mythology you dont really have a dog in this particular fight

She forgot the version where a guy who rapes his slave has to marry her to his son

In the ancient near east there was no better way to compensate a female victim of this crime. Victims of rape had no marriage prospects and therefore no way to survive. This punishment supported the victim (and for a slave to marry the owner's son was an improvement in status) and penalized the attacker twice over (he had to pay the "bride price" to support the woman in the case of divorce or abandonment and he was deprived of the use of his son for a future arranged marriage.)

More information here.

I can't see the video at work (don't know why; some videos work and some don't), and I've never heard of Betty Bowers. Who's she?

> you dont really have a dog in
> this particular fight

I've spoken to you before about your bad habit of telling other people what the consequences of their beliefs ought to be. You should work hard to break that habit, Luj.

Meanwhile, depicting your opponents with in such literally cartoonish colors gives the impression that you haven't really considered what they have to say anyway.

It's satire guys! Lighten up.

I thought it was great Amy. I've been a Betty Bowers fan for years.

This was an amusing video. However, it misses the point. The legal definition of marriage should have nothing to do with what one religion or another agrees with. Allow gay marriage, allow polygamy. Just force all parties to be over the age of 18 and in the case of polygamy, require ALL partners to marry...not just the man and his new bride (typically). That would ensure no fraud.

-Julie

> It's satire guys! Lighten up.

Bah humbug. The satire sux: The freeze on this page tells us everything we need to know. I'm embarrassed for Amy

So then are you saying you do oppose gay marrige on religious grouds?

And I see it as lampooning the fact that the "moral" defenders havent really condidered what they are saying.

You logic on the question of GM has a perverse twist but at leat it has some kind of reason behind it.

Those that opose it simpy because their ever so special copy of Grimm's Fairytales says so arent even bothering to think.

Suppose I were to push for the state to outlaw invitro for all single parents, not on any reasonable basis as to the welfare of the children, but because Thor told me that single parents are immoral and should be allowed to procreate?

Had a previous Betty Bowers clip forwarded to me by a liberal... heavy-handed and coarse.

Libs lampooning overweeing Christian certainty and condescension?
Can you say P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N?

Or as the Talmud says:
"One who finds fault - finds their own faults."

Oh, and Luljp:
There are many perfectly valid secular arguments against upending society's definition of marriage to suit a group that is 1/2 of a percent of the population - when almost all the rights they claim can be provided through other legal means, as they are for unmarried heteros.

The argument is especially easy to make in the face of, uhhh, mounting evidence from Holland, Scandinavia, and Canada that most gays don't take advantage of these rights when they're offered them - because they are overwhelmingly "committed" to a lifestyle of compulsive promiscuity.

There are many perfectly valid secular arguments against upending society's definition of marriage to suit a group that is 1/2 of a percent of the population - when almost all the rights they claim can be provided through other legal means, as they are for unmarried heteros.

My question is why are we looking for valid arguments against providing grown adults additional freedoms and choices? That is counter to the whole personal franchise thing, right?

-Julie

"...because they are overwhelmingly "committed" to a lifestyle of compulsive promiscuity."

Are you sure you're not talking about married and single heteros? I think that's a normal part of married life, isn't it? In which case, gays should enjoy the same rights.

Ben while there may indeed be valid secular arguments against gay marrige, it is the religious ones that are used.

And while most legal protections can be gained thru hours of work with an attorny some cant, it costs faqr more, and unless you happen to be carrying your exztra breifcase full of legal documents your shit out of luck when your partner gets addmitted to the hospital.

And ever consider the reason gay men have more sex is because both partners are men??

The only reason straight men have less sex is because women say no more often

Also since there are "many" valid secular aguments against gay marrige how a bout you mane a "few"

A few as in three to five

Loojster: Tame your imagination.

> So then are you saying you do
> oppose gay marrige on religious
> grouds?

No. Why on Earth would you think anything of the kind? Can you cite some passage that gave you that idea?

I'm saying you guys are being childish and tellingly unperceptive in your depiction of your contenders. The person seen in the freeze at the top of this page isn't the person you disagree with, it's who you want to disagree with. The real people, and their arguments, are in no way constrained by your small-mindedness.

There are many perfectly valid secular arguments against upending society's definition of marriage to suit a group that is 1/2 of a percent of the population

Actually, at one point it was believed that 10% of the population was gay, however current statistics range between 1.8-4%, which translates to 5.5-12.2 million gay peoplein this country. That is sizably larger than .5 percent.

-Julie

It was funny, but I agree with Crid. Railing against the religious does nothing to actually advance the cause of gay marriage.

That said, I know nothing of Ms. Bowers. If she is purely an entertainer, then she's done her job. It was pretty entertaining. If she aspires to something more influential, this piece comes up short.

Voodoo dolls don't work.

Voodoo dolls don't work.

Dang it, I thought mine just had a technical problem! ;-)

-Julie

"The argument is especially easy to make in the face of, uhhh, mounting evidence from Holland, Scandinavia, and Canada that most gays don't take advantage of these rights when they're offered them - because they are overwhelmingly "committed" to a lifestyle of compulsive promiscuity."

Well then BEN-DAVID, let's outlaw membership in and practice of small, marginal religions, since so few people take advantage of the opportunity. Why give social sanction to deviant lifestyles of any sort?

Because it's the right thing to do, obviously; it's a matter of simple human rights. Repeat that continuously until you understand it.

> it's a matter of simple
> human rights.

It's a simplistic –nay, infantile– appraisal of human rights, which is not the same thing.

> Repeat that continuously

Yeah... Prepare to be reprogrammed, you submissive carbon-units!

I watched the video out of curiosity. It's very creative. It refers to the Old Testament Bible up to 3:15 minutes, and only one minute to the New Testament Bible, yet Christians are indicted in this unfair portrayal.

Why no reference to Jews and Muslims for the first 3 minutes? Did they get a pass?

They ignored some important passages that discuss Christian marriage that superceded the Old Testament passages. (That means I don't discard the Old Testament. Jesus didn't forsake the Old Testament either.)

"Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to [Eph 5:25, 28; 1 Pet 3:7] love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she [1 Pet 3:2, 5] respects her husband."

"[Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8] Deacons must be [1 Tim 3:2] husbands of only one wife, and [1 Tim 3:4] good managers of their children and their own households."

This takes out the sting of that video.

Crid the video was about the religious arguments against gay marrige, as you have no religious arguments against gay marrige why would you care about someone making fun of arguments you dont care about?

Hence my comment abot you not having a dog in the fight, as the 'fight' wasnt about gay marrige but the religous agruments against gay marrige.

And ben david, we're still waiting on a small selection of the "many" agruments you have.

One question will they be anything like the valid arguments that made christians marrying jews illegal awhile back?

Huh. Steven Crowder did something vaguely similar called the Qu'ran Challenge on YouTube. It was banned but keeps popping up. He has also received death threats as a result, and it's not nearly one-tenth as controversial as this.

I read the comments section for Ms. Bowers' video and no one is calling for her execution. Someone did mention trying to search YouTube for "Islam sucks" and see what pops up.

This video is going to go down in the logs of 'other mean spirited shit that people did when gay marriage was being promoted'.

This isn't even an effective caricature of the views of Christians regarding marriage. And I'm stating this as someone who isn't religious and supports the ability of homosexuals to marry.

The attempt by supporters of gay marriage to define Christians by a strictly literalist interpretation of biblical stories betrays an ignorance of the nature of contemporary Protestantism.

It's comparable to efforts by certain Christian fundamentalist groups to portray homosexuals as pedophiles and satyriasists using the writings of NAMBLA and the extremes of the gay identity movement.

The attempt by supporters of gay marriage to define Christians by a strictly literalist interpretation of biblical stories betrays an ignorance of the nature of contemporary Protestantism

Yea, but not every christian in america is a contemperary protestant, the guy my aunt just married is a bible literalist.

And anon why do christian have to take shit for things written in the old testement.

4 reasons
1 - the jew and muslims are not part of the religious majority pushing against gay marrige, though as soon as they are I'll belittle their beilfs as well(Mohomed blows goats in hell) See?

2 - Christians veiw the old testement as just as valid, after all Jesus never said one word about ass play, the only place it is mentioned is the old testement

One question here, why do christians get to claim the old testement as relevent when they want to and they disclaim it when it doesnt fit their agenda?

3 - Jesus said the was not here to replace the law and all the old aws were still in effect, therefore according to the founder of you religion the old testement is still a guide on how to live your life

4 - Anon you disingenous bastard, you do realize the scriptures you mentioned about marrige in the new testement did not come from jesus right? The came from his diciples and the diciples of his diciples in their letters to half a dozen churches all over the place. Plus it only says decons have to have one wife, I see nothing that says the rest of us are limited to one.

> Crid the video was about the
> religious arguments against gay
> marrige

I'm sure it was. Reports are in: It was a silly caricature of them.

> Hence my comment abot you not
> having a dog in the fight

It's a rumble with many fighters. My dog might not be scrapping in any particular corner, but I still expect the rules to be obeyed.

>> search YouTube for "Islam sucks" and see what pops up..

The Patton video is FUCKING brilliant! (Which doesn't mean I agree with it.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ&feature=PlayList&p=7B36DDCEC3173800&index=0&playnext=1

lujlp: You're pretty horrible. You can't write, yet you continue your dribble. You're also very inconsistent.

"3 - Jesus said the was not here to replace the law and all the old aws were still in effect, therefore according to the founder of you religion the old testement is still a guide on how to live your life"

Not quite. You ignored my statement on this subject where I said "That means I don't discard the Old Testament. Jesus didn't forsake the Old Testament either."

Jesus superceded the Old Testament Law, which means if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as a Christian, then the Old Testament Law applies to you as a Jew. It's that simple.

Also, if you have no religion, God will be the judge in terms of how you lived your life.

As for #4 of your point, the New Testament books are Canon. It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ said it directly or not. You're nitpicking.

The Deacon quote applies since it matters to Church leaders to have one wife. This multiple wives thing in the video is clearly wrong. Christian must be role model and this clearly matters in terms of how many wives he has.

Funny how you're essentially saying since Jesus didn't say it, parts of the New Testament doesn't matter, but let's hang the Old Testament on Christians since they believe that. There's no consistency with this argument.

The conclusion about gay marriage is so strange, but the video makers didn't see the obviousness that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. And no, I don't believe the Bible sanction polygamy although it was described in the Bible in numerous places. It is a practice that was done in defiance of God, not with God's blessing.

"Plus it only says decons have to have one wife, I see nothing that says the rest of us are limited to one."

lujlp: Again, you're an idiot. Using your words, you're a bastard... literally, an offspring from your father's whore or second wife or wives.

Keep believing this if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Unlike Betty Bowers - I do try to respond to my many admirers:

Julie:
why are we looking for valid arguments against providing grown adults additional freedoms and choices? That is counter to the whole personal franchise thing, right?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Marriage is not a "freedom" (!) or a universal right.
Governments and societies define this arrangement for various practical, social, and moral reasons - pairing the additional obligations of marriage with certain privileges.

Gays have the "choice" of monogamy - they just don't choose it significant numbers. And sexual/emotional fidelity are still the crux of our society's definition of marriage - despite "progressive" attempts to increase people's "freedoms and choices" with garbage like no-fault divorce.

Regarding numbers, Julie wrote:
Actually, at one point it was believed that 10% of the population was gay, however current statistics range between 1.8-4%,

and luljp spewed with:
Well then BEN-DAVID, let's outlaw membership in and practice of small, marginal religions, since so few people take advantage of the opportunity. Why give social sanction to deviant lifestyles of any sort?
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
The gay rights movement promoted the 10 percent lie long after they knew it was incorrect - to bolster their claims to normalcy.

Most researchers now say gays are 2-3 percent of the population.

But statistics from the Holland and other gay meccas prove that only a small fraction of the gay population is interested in marriage, or in a relationship that remotely resembles marriage.

(here's a quick reality check: compare the sizable gay population of southern California with the small number that showed up when Gavin Newsom allowed marriage - and recall that half the people who showed up were from out of state. The TV camera distorts.)

So we are talking about MAYBE 20 percent of that 2-3 percent. Which is roughly 1/2 of a percent of the general population.

And luljp - those small religious groups (you forgot to include orthodox Jews like me) don't want to impose their ways on the general population, they just want to be left alone.... something about "freedoms and choices". Yes, that's it.

First off, Ben check again, Jim said it not me

Second I'm still waiting on those valid reasons against gay marrige

Third, how is the general population limiting the "freedoms and choices" of the minority any better than the minority forcing the majority?

Fourth Gays have the "choice" of monogamy - they just don't choose it significant numbers. And sexual/emotional fidelity are still

And you ignored my argument about gay men still being men, the only reason straight men have less sex is because women say know

And as for fidelity, are you serious, more straight people have affairs all the time.

And if emotional and sexual fidelity are your prerequisites for marrige then why dont you want those gays who are monogomus to get married?

Anon

"3 - Jesus said the was not here to replace the law and all the old aws were still in effect, therefore according to the founder of you religion the old testement is still a guide on how to live your life"

Not quite. You ignored my statement on this subject where I said "That means I don't discard the Old Testament. Jesus didn't forsake the Old Testament either."

Jesus superceded the Old Testament Law, which means if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as a Christian, then the Old Testament Law applies to you as a Jew. It's that simple.

I did ignore your rgument because it was wrong, jesus did not supercede the law of moses, (I swear to god the only thing I hate more that brain dead devotees are the ones who dont even know their own religion)

Jesus said 5:17-19: 17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

See you were wrong

As for #4 of your point, the New Testament books are Canon. It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ said it directly or not. You're nitpicking.

Not really just becuase some guy 100 yrs after christ died says something doesnt make it true, no matter how many child molesting catholics say said so

The Deacon quote applies since it matters to Church leaders to have one wife. This multiple wives thing in the video is clearly wrong. Christian must be role model and this clearly matters in terms of how many wives he has.

So you agree that the one wife thing only applies to church leaders

Funny how you're essentially saying since Jesus didn't say it, parts of the New Testament doesn't matter, but let's hang the Old Testament on Christians since they believe that. There's no consistency with this argument.

There's no consistency with this argument.
Thats becuase your stupid, you god claims the old testement is in effect therefore for you to claim otherwise would mena you belive your god is a liar.

So how exactly does saying that jesus said the old testement is true and saying the letters of church leaders to their follwers werent the words of jesus contradict either stastment?

The conclusion about gay marriage is so strange, but the video makers didn't see the obviousness that gay marriage will lead to polygamy.

So what?

And no, I don't believe the Bible sanction polygamy although it was described in the Bible in numerous places. It is a practice that was done in defiance of God, not with God's blessing.

If that were true then why did god continue to bless, and give prophetic power to those who defied his will?

like abraham, issac, david, soloman etc, ect?

Yea, but not every christian in america is a contemperary protestant, the guy my aunt just married is a bible literalist.

But American Fundamentalists are, and that's who these attacks are targeting - and if your aunt's husband describes himself as a 'literalist', he most likely follows an evangelical protestant denomination. Biblical literalism is primarily based on evangelical hermeneutics in the US. But it's claims to literalism aren't always credible.

Crid, you're embarassed for Amy because she posts something on HER blog? Perhaps she should run her posts by you before putting them up on HER blog to make sure they pass the Crid test. Betty Bowers is a member of the hilarious cast at http://tinyurl.com/84jxl and if you can't appreciate satire at its best you must not be much fun to be around.

> because she posts something on
> HER blog?

Yeah. I've been coming her for years and know what she's about. This is just silly

"Satire at its best"? Do you really mean that?

(Do I have to follow the link?)

Oh, boy, another blind follower!

"Also, if you have no religion, God will be the judge in terms of how you lived your life.

See? The invisible man in the sky will come get you, even if you don't believe "he" is there.

"As for #4 of your point, the New Testament books are Canon. It doesn't matter if Jesus Christ said it directly or not. You're nitpicking."

This broadcast is the property of the National Football League, its owners and sponsors. (And the Council of Nicea and King James have decided what the official content is for you, so you don't have to do any dangerous thinking.)

"This multiple wives thing in the video is clearly wrong."

Didn't watch it. But the Bible says marriage is the union of one man and one or more wives and concubines (II Samuel 5:13, I Kings 11:3). I'm used to people quoting only the parts of the Bible they like; they'll say the OT doesn't apply because they don't want to stone their neighbor for wearing blended fabric, then cite the OT on the age of the Earth.

"Funny how you're essentially saying since Jesus didn't say it..."

Isn't the whole point of "Christianity" what Christ does? Yes. Well, that and telling others what to do. The rest is filler - entertainment, sometimes really savage.

"The conclusion about gay marriage is so strange, but the video makers didn't see the obviousness that gay marriage will lead to polygamy."

Just like straight marriage leads to polygamy. See what Bible-thumping leads to today: furtive glances, sneaking around, "abstinence" problems that don't work... oh, if we could only use force! If Baptists had their way, with abstinence and total privacy before marriage, total strangers would be expected to find completely satisfying partners by luck. Oh, wait - the arranged marriage would be back, and women would be property. Maybe no more so than the minor male assigned his third cousin with the acne.

A claim to authority is what I see when somebody waves a Bible at me - and often, that somebody hasn't bothered to read it. Just like today.

-----

Do you want to be the perfect witness for the Bible? Shut up and lead by example, not by repeating things others can clearly dispute. Your wild, unprecedented success, solely because you are faithful, should not only be everything you'll ever need, but the perfect example to others.

Saint Augustine had a few words to say about this. Don't get mad and miss what he said.

Radwaste! I went to your blog, and I have this question about your post of Sunday, May 3:

How come blogs have these tiny little columns of text in the middle third of the screen? I paid for the whole monitor... Why can the text fill as much space as is available?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.