Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: God outlawed homosexuality

Letter by Glenda Hawthorne, Federal Way on June 6, 2012 at 2:15 pm with 64 Comments »
June 6, 2012 2:15 pm

Re: “Gay marriage race begins” (TNT, 6-6).

Please get it right. It’s not about equal rights. It’s not about tradition. It’s not about choice. It’s about God!

People are afraid to talk about the real issue because it’s not politically correct, but let’s be realistic: It was God who outlawed homosexuality 3,000 years ago (actually before, but the Law of Moses was the first written record) and he hasn’t changed his mind!

The structure of marriage needs to be preserved because that’s the way God created it. (It wasn’t Adam and Eli in the Garden of Eden.) Those were the values on which this country was founded and which made it great.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water! If you’re going to report on an issue, let’s deal with the bottom line (fire) and leave out the smokescreen.

Leave a comment Comments → 64
  1. taxedenoughintacoma says:


    You are right of course. The silent majority agrees with you but many are afraid to speak out because in this world of political correctness most are afraid of the names they are called if you speak out against gay marriage. It seems to be only popular to speak for gay marriage, just ask your democrat legislators or a hollywood actor.

    I have even been robo-called and said I supported gay marriage because I didn’t want to go on a “hater” list maintained by the gay loving liberal groups that make these calls.

    Like the other 32 states have proven, when in the privacy of the home I will mark my ballot to protect marriage. The majority want marriage between a man and a woman and doesn’t want the establishment of marriage to be between two members of the same sex that practice unnatural acts.

  2. surething says:


  3. beerBoy says:

    For supporters of theocracy this argument makes sense. I have no use for the Taliban or its Judeo-Christian counterpart in America.

  4. CRB9000 says:

    Thank you for telling us that your definition is based upon your religious views. Since we don’t make laws based upon religious views, we can now discount your view.

  5. docjim056 says:

    No that is your God not my God. You seem to think that the Christian God is the only God. Well I think my God is the only God and it is not Christ. Millions upon Millions of people have been killed in the name of your God

  6. Actually, we DO make laws based upon religious views. Murder, theft, etc. all are originally found in the first five books of the Bible as being prohibited to His people by God Himself.

    Most of the rules of evidence also can be found in Scripture in pretty recognizable form to present day versions.

    However, the First Amendment makes it constitutionally incorrect to make laws based on any religious dogma. In this specific case, there is no societal benefit to changing (or expanding) the definition of marriage. Nor is there any compelling government purpose demanding redress, despite the whining of a VERY small group of professional agitators.

    Lawrence v Texas is the limit to the rights that society and the constitution must respect. In my view, it is unconstitutional to grant rights (the cost of which is a drain on the public fisc) based on voluntary acts.

  7. Glenda – I just spoke with God. He said you need to be quiet.

  8. pgroup? Many many many tribes and cultures who didn’t have a bible but had THEIR own religion and god(s) outlawed theft, murder, etc. So they are NOT original to the bible. Who are you to say who is right or wrong? And why are you so special that you get all the rights and others don’t?

  9. menopaws says:

    This country is rooted in the seperation of church and state. Don’t like it? Go live somewhere else…….Your religious beliefs have no place in this government…….and that is , in my opinion, absolutely correct. God will judge me…and you…and those who are gay…..Your opinion of that judgement bears no importance in the formulation of law for the people of this country. So, thump that Bible in your church—but NEVER assume it has a place in the discussion of law and equal rights under the law. Why do people always assume their faith should guide everyone else?? The sheer magnitude of that kind of ego baffles me…..

  10. Who cares what you god did 3000 years ago Glenda?
    This country doesn’t use your god for it’s laws.

  11. “laws based upon religious views. Murder, theft, etc. all are originally found in the first five books of the Bible as being prohibited to His people by God Himself.”

    You do know the Koran says the same thing right?
    It’s not ‘god’ it’s common sense.

  12. Laws against murder, theft, etc, date back at least as far as Hammurabi’s Code in 1772 BC Babylonia. Their inclusion in the bible does not mean they were created by Judeo-Christian tradition, any more than the colony at Jamestown meant the English created North America.

    We don’t live in a theocracy. I appreciate that you believe God says gay marriage is wrong, but this is not a basis for making laws in a democratic civil society. The State of Washington defines marriage laws, not the bible.

  13. beerBoy says:

    Actually, we DO make laws based upon religious views. Murder, theft, etc. all are originally found in the first five books of the Bible as being prohibited to His people by God Himself.


    The Code of Hammurabi was one of several sets of laws in the ancient Near East.[7] The code of laws was arranged in orderly groups, so that everyone who read the laws, would know what was required of them.[8] Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law.

  14. torinaga says:

    Do you really think that because it says in a book that is wrong to kill it was actually right before it was written down? The laws in which you all speak of theft, adultery and murder and crimes in which a transgression is made upon another human. There are many laws in the bible that don’t work anymore. You can’t have slaves, or marry multiple people. I don’t see a huge uprising to ban working on Sunday, or to deny the right to employers who make their employees work on the lord’s day. This is why most people believe this argument is bigoted. You are selectively applying your own laws in a way that doesn’t really affect you but oppresses 1 out of every 10 people.

    Marriage ceased existing wholly as a religious right when it became licensed by the state. With these licenses additional right are afforded to individuals with regards to property and access to information. These rights are not granted by any religious entity, but by a state that was created in part to escape the tyranny of state religions. This license and these rights are separate from what happens in the church on your wedding day. It is the afterthought of your statement of commitment after the pomp and ceremony. It is a small fee and scribble of five names on an official form.

    The only sanctity that is to be found in marriage should be found in your own marriage or by examining others who appear to be doing it correcly. Marriage is what you put into it. It is a commitment you make to another person. As far as this issue is concerned, I believe that it is a business deal between two equal partners sealed with a kiss.

    Oppression is born of the externalization of religion, enlightenment is born of its internalization.

  15. sonicsboy says:

    Hey, BeerBoy and CRB9000: Your disagreement with the religious views of others does not give you the right to discount their views or label them as terrorists. I could care less that you disagree with their views, but by your very act of simply disowning them because they are “terrorists” or religiously based is like a stab in the back, because you aren’t willing to actually make an arguable debate. You’re only willing to say, “Because your views are different than mine, they don’t deserve to be heard, so STFU.” Don’t forget that freedom of religion, guaranteed by the First Amendment, doesn’t just guarantee you the right NOT to practice and proclaim religion publicly, but it also gives those of us who do believe in God the right to do those very things.

  16. temperance says:

    Now I’m sorry I moved to Fed Way, with such doctrine-bound minds. I’ll be the one walking down the street with rainbows. If you feel gays shouldn’t marry, get the church services out of our public schools; I wouldn’t want the taint of your God hovering around all those children.

  17. Sonicsboy

    They made an arguable debate.

    The debate you can’t argue is, “The Bible says it is wrong.”

    The law does not recognize the Bible in any capacity. We can spout civil rights, respect, freedom of choice and free will all day and the only thing we hear back is “The Bible.”

    Sorry, that will not fly.

  18. SwordofPerseus says:

    Good thing we live in a secular nation and what god says (see made up crap in bible) has no effect whatsoever on we citizens of the United States and the Great State of Washington.

  19. SwordofPerseus says:

    sonicsboy said “Your disagreement with the religious views of others does not give you the right to discount their views or label them as terrorists” Why not? In fact it gives them a valid right and point as well.

    You so called Jesus followers have not understood what the point of the Jesus story was evidently. The point is to be accepting and tolerant of all people, not just the ones who act, look, dress, eat, and talk like you do…

    If there really is a god; don’t worry all you haters, he won’t be vindictive and unforgiving “Like the good book says” those are human traits, not divine.

  20. bobcat1a says:


  21. bobcat1a says:

    “I like your Christ; I do not like your christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” -Gandhi

  22. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Leftists/Statists- please keep up your anti-Church hate and bigotry. It will really help your cause in Nov.

    Ignoring the fact that our Nation was founded by God fearing men is just, well, ignorant. They believed our rights were endowed by …. God! Thank you Founders for your faith, trusting God and the individual over the state.

  23. A correct translation of the 6th Commandment is ‘Thou shall not murder’ which is miles apart of the improper use of ‘kill’.


    sonicboy- conversely being a christian does not give one the right to attack those of other faiths and adhere to the Constitution – which by the way is what gives you the freedom to practice your religion in peace and in public.

    CT7 – we secular types will defend your freedom to practice you religion until you try to replace secular laws with religious law.

    Most of the ‘god fearing’ Founding Fathers preferred a secular government rather than one subordinated the whims or religion.

    One on the major differences between we secular types and you religious types is we defend your rights to your beliefs even as you would define us that same right.

  24. sonicboy – knowing that self proclaimed Christians tied a man to a truck and dragged him until his death is enough for me to use the word “terrorist” if I choose.

  25. CRB9000 says:

    SonicsBoy, I’m not allowed to discount what others say? Isn’t part of the freedom of speech, that you talk about, the freedom to not listen?

    I have every right to discount what people say. I also have the right to give extra weight to what others say. You have the same right. So, for you to say I don’t have the right, how dare you?

    As for the letter writer, she wants to define rights of others by the definitions of her narrowminded religion. Even though there are those who don’t believe as she does, she wants to force them to abide by her religious views. Luckily, we have a Constitution that says you can’t do that.

  26. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Larry, the rebirth of the right is what keeps you up at night.

    The rest of your hate is worthless.

  27. GeronimoV says:

    This letter is so silly it’s foolish for people to waste time arguing about it; but I admire the writer for having the courage to express her opinion here.

  28. Reason_enemy_of_faith says:

    Why does the TNT publish this rubbish? What if I wrote a letter stating that god hates blacks and that blacks are intellectually inferior and more prone to crime and more promiscuous than white? What if my letter stated that Allah wants us to murder all christians?

    People just need to get over the fact that there is no god. When you are dead, you are dead. If heaven is sooooo great, it should be pretty easy to end your life on earth. Then people who were diagnosed with cancer would not have chemo or radiation. It would be a great ticket to eternal ecstasy where you could sit around washing and kissing jesus’s feet and worshipping the lord forever. Yay, can’t wait!

  29. Reason_enemy_of_faith says:

    Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are/were all atheists. I would place my lot with them.

  30. zenmonk says:

    When were sent here to inforce “Gods Laws”. Who deemed us the enforcers. If gay people want to get married let them and then let them be judged by your God instead of being judged by you. If you dont want to be gay then dont be gay but dont throw stones. Only God can judge people not you based on how your beliefs align with the bible. Too many people spend too much time trying to be God’s deputies in enforcing religion. God does not need deputies to help Him judge who is worthy of his love and who is not. Stop trying to be God.

  31. auwing1978 says:

    Wow Glenda…thanks a lot for shoving your personal religious beliefs down my throat. What is the old saying…something about kissing me when you do this to me ’cause I like being kissed when I get frustrated. Or something like that.

  32. bobbysangelwife says:

    Isn’t it funny how all the people who slam God/Jesus/religion, disregard arguments regarding religious discussions….are the ones with the MOST personal knowledge on those very subjects? It’s interesting to me that those are the ones who can quote scripture, argue the point so vehemently in favor of what point they’re so desperately trying to get across.
    Sadly it’s misplaced, but it’s all good in the end.

  33. concerned? Jesus tore up the church and chewed out its leaders while he walked here on earth because it was a capitalist profiting business and the leaders were hypocrites. Then they took part in crucifying him. He was a socialist with a leftist agenda. I’m with Ghandi. Not fond of the church or christians, but I do like Jesus.

  34. tellnolies says:

    Glenda, I think what you really mean to say is that you find it annoying that people don’t accept your personal view as absolute truth.

    While all the major religions contain some truths, none of them have THE Truth.

  35. Theefrinker says:

    Glenda, it’s not about “God”; it actually is about equal rights. And while this country has always been very hypocritical about “rights”, we’re getting better at it. It’s credulous folks like you who also would have fallen under the hypnosis of Hitler (for example). Also, discussions on gods and discussions on rights are exclusive of one another.

  36. Chippert says:

    The only place in the Bible that specifically addresses homosexuality and “outlaws” it is in Leviticus, Chapter 18. Interestingly even there it only “outlaws” male homosexuality, not lesbianism… But also that chapter condones slavery as long as the slave is not a Hebrew and outlines a whole host of dietary restrictions that only Orthodox Jews follow today. So, if you continue to think homosexuality is not OK, then you obviously think slavery is fine and you don’t eat pork, right? Or do you get to pick and choose which of these we should all obey?

  37. CrazyJim says:

    Glenda! Glenda! Glenda!

    Picking and choosing her way through the bible to deny others what she herself has. I’m just glad we’re a secular country and not run by the Talibangelists.

  38. frankiethomas says:

    Oh MY God!

  39. scott0962 says:

    How does the author know what God may have banned thousands of years before the first written records were made?

    She absolutely has a right to express her views and try to persuade others but “because God says so” isn’t the best argument she could use given the long and sorry history of strife, intolerance, wars and persecution associated with believers (of many faiths, not just Christians) uttering those words.

  40. “concernedtacoma7 says:
    June 6, 2012 at 9:53 pm Larry, the rebirth of the right is what keeps you up at night.”

    Does this mean it was dead? You’ll probably blame a “liberal abortion” as the cause of death.

    Meanwhile, God told me to tell you to be quiet.

  41. wildcelticrose says:

    Sorry Glenda,

    It’s about secular law, not your version of god.

    Your argument is not valid.

  42. “Jesus tore up the church and chewed out its leaders while he walked here on earth because it was a capitalist profiting business…”

    He did huh? You’re quite sure that was his reason? For the record, there was no church in that story.

  43. beerBoy says:

    Seriously sozo? Criticism due to substitution of Church for Temple from the English translation of the original text?

    And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

    The interpretation that Frida put forth is not without support from another of biblical scholars.

  44. menopaws says:

    I just received a lovely e-mail with this in it”Going to church does not make you a christian: anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car.” Well said!

  45. BSW – those who have the most personal of the bible read it critically rather than accept it out of pure, blind, faith (which is what is required of Christians).

  46. “Good thing we live in a secular nation and what god says (see made up crap in bible) has no effect whatsoever on we citizens of the United States and the Great State of Washington.”

    Amen to that brother!

  47. “the rebirth of the right”

    Once again ct7 proves that she is 180 degrees from reality.

  48. frogjeremy1 says:

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding
    God’s Law. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22
    clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some
    other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
    is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting
    two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    Taken from Hunter S. Thompson, Letter to Dr, Laura

  49. brett987654321 says:

    The Christians who are opposed to Gay marriage are no different from the Christians who opposed the end of slavery and no different from the racists who used bible quotes to support their opposition to the racial integration of society. You losers need to fix your broken hearts. Your ancestors will be embarrassed.

  50. sonicsboy says:

    Krumm: Actually, yes, in the standpoint of the Constitution, you are right, that made a debate. My bad.
    Sword of Persus and CRB9000: Discounting, in my view, is not the same as disagreeing. Disagreeing is saying that you don’t agree with what someone else does, says, or believes, which is perfectly acceptable. However, discounting is, as I believe you have done here, is to not allow someone else to argue their opinion, which to me is not acceptable, because you aren’t allowing them to have their opinion and argue it, while you, apparently, are allowed to do so.
    xring – I did not attack the beliefs of anyone. Nowhere in my statement do you see anything along the lines of “Your opinion is wrong and mine is right”.
    LarryH – You’re making an awfully big jump to count the actions of a few as the actions of all.

  51. slugoxyz says:

    Well done frogjeremy1. Sarcastic. Beats the letter writer with her own book.
    I guess my question to Glenda is this: Was it actually God who outlawed homosexuality? When did God say that? 3000 years ago? Are you absolutely sure that this is exactly what “he” said? What language did “he” say it in? After all, it was 3000 years ago. So, that would be… 988 BC? What time was it? Did God mark the time by looking at the clock on the wall or on “his” Rolex? Or was it a Breitling?
    Since you are obviously an authority, and we were talking about Adam and Eli…I mean Eve, what were their kids’ names? It was Cain and Abel right? I think I read that in either the TNT or Olympian notices of live birth or something like that. Anyway, we all know how that relationship ended up. Abel was killed by Cain. Here’s the part I don’t get. God (the guy wearing the Rolex) cast Cain out to wander the earth. But Cain was immediately afraid of being killed by people who found him. Wait a minute. Cain and Abel were the first two children of the first man and woman right? What other people?
    So, this goes to those craz…sorry… vehement literalists who see everything in the Bible as a FACT rather than a parable or a lesson. Let’s look at the book of Job for a minute. So, God and the Devil make a bet that Job will turn away from God if enough hardship is thrust upon him? Wait a minute… Let’s go back to that first part. God punished Job on a bet? So, what did God bet? His Rolex? What was the Devil wagering? If that’s true (and we’re being literal here) isn’t that kind of…awful? Sorry God – I’m just sayin…
    OK. Finally. Here’s my point. The minute you start shoving the Bible in people’s faces as some literal textbook of God written facts, the cracks begin to emerge.
    What is religion for? I mean the very reason for all religion? Tells us where we came from. Tells us where we’re going (hopefully) and tells us how to get along in between those first two points. The rest of it is essentially fluff. I know! Divinely inspired fluff but tons of fluff to carry the message. Larry would call it mythology and I guess that’s all right. It’s all a bunch of stories to carry a lesson. Accuracy? Well… I think we’d probably get in a bit of trouble saying it was all exactly as it was written and not embellished or recollected incorrectly or mis-translated etc.
    I’m not exactly sure where I stand on the gay marriage thing. Between you and me, I don’t really care and considering I’ve been divorced and re-married, I have to tell you, if you want it, you can have it. It’s no piece of cake. If two men want to give it a go and they can defy the 50% divorce rate, I say fine. But what about that line? Where do we draw the line? Maybe we need to think about the word “marriage”. What the state does is really a legal union…a contract between two people. We get married in a church before God but the authority is really the legal system. So, while Glenda is throwing the bath water out, maybe we need to just stop saying “marriage”. That’s the word that everybody is freaking out over. I love my wife but between you and me, it’s not God that keeps me in that house. It’s love. So, why can’t two women or two men do that? I don’t really know. 50% of heterosexual marria…unions fail so maybe we could all use a lesson from homosexuals. Here is my fear. Where does the line go from here? Homosexuality has come a long way in a short amount of time. Not unheard of in history but generally scorned, as recent as the 1940s, homosexuality was considered “deviant” behavior along with all those other sexual deviances. Let’s say we give gays the right to marry or form a union in accordance with state law. What’s next? Hmm. Not sure but worthy of some thought.

  52. frogjeremy1 says:

    I am often surprised that people think that god wrote the bible. The bible written by people who believed the world was flat, women were inferior, and Methuselah lived 900 years.

    It is literature, not god’s word.

  53. “LarryH – You’re making an awfully big jump to count the actions of a few as the actions of all.”

    So, sonicboy, the actions of two dozen terrorists on 9/11/01 are not the actions of all Muslims, correct?

  54. took14theteam says:


    The entire cast was here today….


  55. beerBoy says:

    Slugo – you are in rare form – I enjoyed your post immensely.

  56. Bandito says:

    Why do we even bother to create laws? Why not simply deffer to our religious leaders to enforce “God’s” laws? They can be trusted. Right?

  57. penumbrage says:

    slugoxyz – “Homosexuality has come a long way in a short amount of time. Not unheard of in history but generally scorned, as recent as the 1940s, homosexuality was considered “deviant” behavior along with all those other sexual deviances.”

    Homosexuality has gained much more mainstream acceptance since medical science has shown us that the DNA blueprint that causes a fetus to develop into a man or a woman isn’t always followed perfectly. Due to dozens of different medical and genetic conditions, somewhere between 1/2 and 1 percent of the population is born ambiguously sexed, a group that covers the entire spectrum in between male and female. Depending on the condition and severity some pass for normal (until a CAT scan or a genetic test indicates otherwise), some are males partly or mostly feminized or females partly or mostly masculinized, some are hermaphrodites (both XX female and XY male) and some are truly strange humans who change gender at puberty or who are not technically male or female at all. Gays of choice and sexually traumatized gays of circumstance aside, should we condemn someone born with a male brain and a female genitals because he’s attracted to women?
    The existence of these people (and the rights they should have as US citizens) make some of us extremely uncomfortable (as you can see from some of the posts here) since they make the phrase ‘one man, one woman’ sound overly simplistic, ignorant of the reality of human reproduction and even prejudicial. It’s not an easy call but you should do some research from sources you trust and make up your own mind on the issue.

    “Let’s say we give gays the right to marry or form a union in accordance with state law. What’s next?”

    We’re talking about blameless consensual adults here. Bestiality, pedophilia or any other behavior involving those who don’t or can’t give informed consent is still inexcusable.

  58. slugoxyz says:

    Why thank you BB. I lean to the right but I live right here in the middle.

    Penumbrage – Interesting piece. I wonder if all sources concur. Like I said, it doesn’t really matter to me but homosexuality did not become as common place as it is today because of this scientific discovery. Half the people who write on this blogs have no idea what DNA is and your conversation on genetics and DNA certainly falls on some ears that fail to understand. I’m not even sure I understand the real nitty gritty details. I just don’t care what somebody else does in the next room as long as they’re not doing it to me. So, given that a large portion of the now tolerant or intolerant people don’t care about the DNA, they either accept homosexuality based on their values, principles and beliefs. So, if that is true, the gay population that wishes to marry, will need to count on people’s nature not their knowledge of genetics. If things go their way, people will be tolerant and allow for a relatively new form of “norm”. But let’s assume this acceptance of a new “norm” succeeds. What are we going to add on to the new “norm” next? If we’re pushing this new paradigm into normalcy, shouldn’t we consider what’s next?

    Hey – I still don’t care. As long as the guy in the next metaphorical room isn’t hurting anyone/anything else, I could care less what they’re doing so if your thing is with the dead – more power to you. It makes for a lousy dance partner but hey…whatever you’re into as long as it’s legal. But what if the paradigm shifts enough to allow organizations like NAMBLA to succeed in lowering the age of consent? That means a gay relationship between a man and a young boy merely requires the shift of two current laws. The shift of two current “norms”. Clearly, you see where I’m headed without resorting to more currently, socially unacceptable examples. While my tolerance towards gays has shifted from ignorance to acceptance over the last 20 years, I’m just a little worried about what’s next. I am considerably more protective of animals or children despite some organizations beliefs that they are able to consent. Because as you say, what two consenting people do should be allowed. What if the “norm” shifts again? What if the next scientific study can produce another genetic discovery? I’m stretching this all to the somewhat fantastic but think of what people in the 1940s would have said if they knew we were voting on gay marriage? That’s just 70+ years ago. A blink in the eye of time.

  59. notimetobleed says:

    “It was God who outlawed homosexuality 3,000 years ago (actually before, but the Law of Moses was the first written record) and he hasn’t changed his mind!”

    Of course the writer is speaking of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 here. What she fails to mention is that Leviticus is was a Holy Code written for Priest only and was not meant for the common believer.

    Leviticus was written for a particular time and place. You need to separate the law from the culture of the time. Frogjeremy1 – does an excellent job of pointing out how the laws of Leviticus have not been very applicable for thousands of years.

    If the author of this article really wants to live by Levitican law, she would have already been executed!

    Those that dig up these phrases in the Bible only do so to promote their own bias. Jesus was the ultimate liberal and told us all to love they neighbor as thyself.

  60. What language was the Bible written in? Please. Don’t go confusing the issue with smokescreens about translations and metaphors and all that other liberal claptrap. It says what it says, any fool can understand it.

    If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

  61. beerBoy says:

    If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.


  62. penumbrage says:

    slugoxyz – “Interesting piece. I wonder if all sources concur.”

    There might be some that deny the medical facts, but feel free to confirm.
    Your search terms are intersex (the almost current term), disorders of sexual development (the new term – I just use ‘ambiguously sexed’ because it contrasts so nicely with ‘one man, one woman’), Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (the most common cause of men with innies), Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (the most common cause of women with outies), Klinefelter’s Syndrome (the most common non-male non-female sex) and true hermaphroditism.
    While the old Intersex Society of North America (http://www.isna.org/) has a most informative website for laypersons, you can check out the US National Library of Medicine/National Institutes of Health (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm), the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/intersex.pdf) or any of the articles (1100+ written since the 1960’s) that an ‘Intersex’ search brings up at PubMed.gov (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) or the Journal of the American Medical Association (http://jama.jamanetwork.com).

    “But what if the paradigm shifts enough to allow organizations like NAMBLA to succeed in lowering the age of consent?”

    The only paradigm shift is the simple recognition that ‘proper’ behavior for males and females does not strictly apply to blameless individuals for whom the definitions ‘male’ and ‘female’ do not strictly apply, the requirement of informed consent will never change.
    Since the age of consent is intended to protect the overwhelming majority of children, there would have to be extremely strong scientific evidence supporting ALL kids maturing at a substantially younger age for it to be lowered by even a year or two. Even in that unlikely event, we would only be recognizing an earlier capability to give informed consent, not compromising the requirement itself.

  63. Bandito says:

    Press one for English

  64. I must often have to “press one for English” when dealing with privately held corporate entities. The “Invisible Hand” has determined that it is good business to make you opt for English.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0