DOWNLOAD (1688)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (7644)
WMV QuickTime


You Tube

From Anderson Cooper 360 April 13, 2008. While discussing Rick Warren's recent statements on Larry King Live, which contradicted what he had previously said about his support for Prop 8, the Rev. Mel White slams Tony Perkins for his bigoted stance on gay marriage. Perkins, like Warren, tries to keep the rhetoric from becoming too heated (unlike the Dobsons and Falwells of the world). But as Rev. White points out, that doesn't make their message any less hateful or harmful to the gay community.

White: It's really important for people to realize that Tony and Dobson and these others have been misleading the public for so many years about sexual orientation and gender identity. It's so important to see through their half truths and their hyperbole. It's really important to realize the damage they're doing by not saying that god created us gay. God loves us gay and we should have all the rights that the American people provide to all of us. So, Tony sounds good like, like Rick but they're really saying things that are horrible and destructive.

Cooper: Tony I'll give you a quick response since it was directed to you.

Perkins: Well, I would just say what we...we..it's not true. Uh..the Bible speaks for itself.

White: The Bible says nothing about homosexuality Tony, and it's really important to quit confusing people..(crosstalk).

Perkins: Hey Mel, nonetheless I love you. Appreciate you as a human being.

White: Don't say that. The things you say about gay people lead to destruction, the breakup of families...

Perkins: No, that's not true, Mel.

White: You continue this..we love you, but we hate you.

Perkins: No, I didn't say that.

White: We love you but we don't want you to have rights.

Perkins: I didn't say that.

White: Tony I've read your material. I've monitored you for ten years. You've got to get off this anti-gay stuff because they are leaving the churches because they've seen through your fundamentalist stuff.

Perkins: Actually, Mel, you're wrong on that point. The surveys, the polling data shows that Christians churches that are preaching the truth are the ones that are gaining members. It's the mainline liberal denominations that are losing membership.

White: That's not true at all either.

So we've got religious organizations tracking polling data like we'd expect from political parties now. Isn't that special? And Rev. White is right: You cannot pretend you love gay people and then do things that inflame hatred towards the gay community or suppress their civil rights.



Login or Register to post comments.

116 comments

and is caught.

I'm so shocked.

Ya...I hate Tony Perkins and the whole Dobson/fartwell/Jebus cabal.

However, I also not a big fan of SoulForce. I think they do more damage than good.

I posted my own Perkins video where he linked the "Environmentalist" movement to Abortion & Homosexuality on YouTube just over a year ago.

No joke. Gotta watch to understand the tortured logic.

Tony Perkins was the name of the actor in Psycho, who was also gay, although claimed to be cured, and then died from AIDS complications. Okay, it's not exactly funny, but seems like these useless closet cast bigots have ties to us evil people.

Mullah Perkins will not be satisfied until the clock is turned back to The Crusades.

The Iraq Crusades etc etc

Circus News Network?

down hill one can go in 10 years.

I forgot. Looney Toons.

Certainly Not News.

FOX

For
only
xenophobes

Will Tony Perkins be teabagging on the 15th?

country club.

He probably gets teabagged weekly.

by his spouse?

Only if it's in Mass. or Vermont.

He and Larry Craig will be toe tappin and tea baggin!

I'm seriously disappointed. I was really hoping a group of them would break into my house and redecorate it, kidnap me and teach me how to dress in style, or hold my wife down and cut and color her hair for her. Something. The anticipation is killing me!

I bet they travel in pink limos and wear neon hotpants.
I've got a bathroom that I could really use some help with, the space just isn't working.

)O(

Rick Warren looks like a bear in a leather bar and Ted Haggard looks like Madame. Why is it all these Christian homophobes look like the biggest queens?

Is it me or is Tony Perkins just a little too well groomed? I'm betting he would kneel down to polish some knob except that he's afraid of getting his hair mussed.

Rev. White drop kicked Perkins in his groin with truth.

Perkins of the world need to be called out on the lies and bs more often. We need to be reassured that this is happening and the American media needs to actually do their job that they were supposed to do.
But how do you stop corporate media?
If The Republicans have Fox and say they need another outlet for misinformation, Who's to stop them?
Can this administration reverse those pro-conglomerate laws or is it too late?

... is what is economically viable.

It's just like security in the post-9/11 world - we don't do what is smart, necessarily (reinforcing & locking cockpit doors), but engage in theatrics and fancy measures that are of questionable value (such as the 3 oz. limit ... math is commutative).

The deregulation and ownership rules were changed to accomodate the new 'paradigm' of corporate ownership. Simply put, there was no way for a media giant to acquire all of the properties they wanted without violating the rules.

So it won't move away from that until there's a compelling reason to do so, and even then - it'll likely be a breakup like AT&T, the pieces eventually come back together and the monopoly is reborn.

Unfortunately, Perkins may be right as far as his argument goes:

http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

"There is a real and growing theological polarization in American society," according to scholars at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., who have just published the American Religious Identification Survey 2008 (ARIS), a large, respected study that was previously conducted in 1990 and 2001.

Most of the growth in the Christian population occurred among those who would identify only as "Christian," "Evangelical/Born Again," or "non-denominational Christian." The last of these, associated with the growth of megachurches, has increased from less than 200,000 in 1990 to 2.5 million in 2001 to over 8 million today. These groups grew from 5 percent of the population in 1990 to 8.5 percent in 2001 to 11.8 percent in 2008. Significantly, 38.6 percent of mainline Protestants now also identify themselves as evangelical or born again.

"It looks like the two-party system of American Protestantism--mainline versus evangelical--is collapsing," said Mark Silk, director of the Public Values Program. "A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States."

Now the good news:

Overall, the country is becoming less Christian. The 1990 ARIS study found that 86.2 percent of the population described itself as Christian, a slice that shrank to 76 percent in 2008. Catholic, Baptist and "mainline" Christian faiths (e.g., Methodist, Lutheran and Episcopalian) populations declined, as did those who described themselves as Christian without a particular denomination. But there were more people who described themselves as evangelical or born again and in Pentecostal denominations. Now, 49 percent of all Christians describe themselves as "born again."

So traditional Christian denominations declined while the nontraditional and unaffiliated Christian population grew.

One other cohort grew: the "nones."

"Nones" either are atheists, agnostics or people who simply say they have no religion. They made up 15 percent of the 2008 population, up dramatically from 8.2 percent in 1990.

So this country is following the world-wide trend towards entrenched fundamentalism in all its forms, "believers" and non-believers alike.

i was up at tahoe a few weeks ago. i met a dude who happened to be a evangelical. we talked for close to an hour. this person's main concerns are homosexuality,"gay" marriage and abortion. NOT the war(s)
NOT the financial crisis/economic crisis. when these topics came up that he was interested i just got into NOT judging. that put brakes on his conversation.

Was America EVER Christian nation?

... where some troll showed up to argue that the founding fathers weren't actually deists, that us liberal types were misinterpreting history, and so on.

Religioulous(sp) was brilliant! The quotes by the founding fathers were quite telling and thoroughly debunks any fundies talking points.
They have nothing but lies and misinformation.

)O(

There was a thread the other day ...
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 10:46 — Shadowgm
... where some troll showed up to argue that the founding fathers weren't actually deists, that us liberal types were misinterpreting history, and so on.
____________________________________________________________

Did I respond any?

It was someone named 'CRB,' I think ... and when he got to a point he couldn't refute, he would simply not reply.

As Harvey Kaye said on Thom Hartmann, the left needs to talk about the revisionism of these conservative "Christians"

The key document here is Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man'' (1791-92), which advocated that both France and America embrace the full implications of their respective revolutions: the end of slavery; equality for women; abolition of all property requirements to vote; complete separation of church and state; global peace enforced by an international confederation of republican governments.

eh, Mr Perkins?

If Perkins didn't have this anti-gay gig, no one would ever have heard of him. It's amazing what some people will do and or say just to try to be relevant. Is he sincere about what he really believes or does he say what his followers want to believe and hear?

"White: The Bible says nothing about homosexuality Tony, and it's really important to quit confusing people"

Like it or not, agree or not, The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination to God.

The Bible also sez that eating shellfish is an "abomination" to God as well. Why hasn't he got Focus On The Family protesting in front of Red Lobster?

I'm not disagreeing with you, I am simply pointing out that White is not accurate when he says that The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. It does.

White is not accurate when he says that The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. It does.

Where?

Provide proof.
You make a statement, back it up.

Here are a few of the many examples:

King James Version

Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 1:9-10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

Again, Will -- seek out the original texts, and stop relying on a translation which was made for political purposes.

I have already addressed the Leviticus passage.

Romans is talking about lasciviousness.

1 Cor 6:9-10 is a bit more complicated, but easy enough. The word to look up is "malakos". It translates into 'soft' or 'loose'. It is an obvious reference to those with loose morals. 'Whores', in the current vernacular.

1 Timothy 1:9-10 is also an obvious reference to whores, or people who otherwise debase the sexual act...either by having sex with everyone and anyone, or by being male prostitutes (male temple prostitutes were quite common).

These cultists are criminal minded. As if others owe someone else a world free of homos, adulterers, shrimp and lobster eaters, ETC, and may therefore murder others.

In Lev. 18:22, the phrase, 'shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind' is presumed to mean sexual intercourse.

Yet, in 20:13, it goes on to say, 'also' - it condemns the man who is apparently sleeping with a man and a woman, as well as the woman, because I guess it's her job to check her boyfriend's dance card.

We move on to Romans 1:27, where 'leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another' - the natural use of the woman is sexual intercourse? Hello? Is that really what God meant in Genesis 2:23, when He describes woman as a helpmate?

Corinthians. So much for Christ forgiving the thief on the cross beside him, because thieves ain't going to heaven. And that was pretty much a last-minute conversion or plea for mercy, so is the argument that God would really be an asshole on Judgment Day? Oh, right, the thief really, honestly believed in Christ, so he's saved. But anyone whom you don't think is sincere goes to hell.

And revilers ... isn't that another word for 'haters'? Would racists and strident homophobes fit in that category? Do you really recite prayers with that mouth?

And again with Timothy, the lawless, liars, and perjurers are lumped right in with the 'homosexuals.' We can pretty much figure that the whole of the Bush Administration, their faith-based sideshow notwithstanding, are going straight to hell.

by people we don't know says? And then a Scottish King had it translated to say what he wanted it to say in the 17th century.

Who gives a shit? Really? Why do people insist on having what a bunch of long dead faceless patriarchs said millenniums ago tell us what to do today?

I mean, according to Lev, IIRC, I can kill my kid for mouthing off, have to feed the hungry if I have any excess, have to house the homeless if I have any extra room and can't sit in a regular house if I'm on the rag. I can also kill my neighbour if his cooking smells are offensive or some such rot. Horseshit. Fuck the bible and all the misery it visits upon us to this day, 2000 years after the last chapters were added.

....what miss_kitty said.........:)

)O(

Tue, 04/14/2009 - 12:11 — Will

Sounds like I got some catching up to do.

According to an online test I'm only due to land in the seventh level of hell.

so...you gonna room with Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly?

As a gay male myself who is a former member of the Metropolitan Community Church I know that what MCC is telling gay people about the "clobber verses" in the Bible are contrivances and that MCC is simply telling people what they want to hear so that they can confidently remain gay and Christian at the same time.

The fact of the matter is this. The Christian god IS anti-gay. And for me that's just one more nail in Christianity's coffin. Religion is bullcrap. They all lie. You can't trust any of them.

Gee, lets trot out a one off line from Leviticus again and again.
One line in a book that was not written by god but by men.

The Levites were of the priestly caste. Their holiness codes were never meant to be for non-Levites.

)O(

Gee... I was under the impression that the WHOLE THING was written by men....

)O(

But it makes sense, if Levites were monkish, they may've had the problem monks had for centuries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Qbidac8J8

The Bible clearly says that homosexuality is an abomination to God.

how do you get around the prohibition on masturbation?

Or do you use the two biggest male lies..1) I don't jerkoff...2) I've stopped.

Does the use of sex toys count? It's not really me spilling my seed. If my girlfriend jerks me off, will I burn?

The Bible also doesn't recognize any of the nun orders.

I missed that part where the Bible advances the idea of altar boy molestation.

everybody else, it's the luck of the draw...

but then, god being god, and all powerful, would have the kinig-hell of ALL self-loathing complexes, innit?

...but Leviticus also says that shellfish is an abomination too, that we have to put to death children who curse their parents and not to wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. Oh, and we should deport every man and woman who have sex together while the woman was having her period...

It's time for "bible-believing" hypocrites to get called out at every turn. Go Mel White!

That those shellfish verses are in there. The fact that those verses about "man lying with a man as with a women deserves death and their blood will be upon them" are actually in there.

Anyone who is gay and professes to be Christian should care that those verses are in there. Who in their right mind would worship a proposed god that ever would allow an edict in which death is the penalty for being who they are? It's absurd, and clear evidence that the Bible isn't to be trusted. And to ignore the parts one doesn't like is just picking and choosing and making up your own religion (which is what all Christians do).

Religion is bunk.

The New Testament supercedes the Old Testament.

Old Testament God is kind of a dick.

New Testament God is kind and forgiving.

They have a fight; New Testament God wins. New Testament God.

Yeah...but you have to admit...the whole frogs and pestilence thing was pretty cool.

turning grasshoppers into locusts...

someone would smite Rush with the jawbone of an ass.

"someone would smite Rush with the jawbone of an ass."

Isn't that redundant?
They could just use his own jawbone.

Even as a kid I thought the story of Abraham and Isaac was pretty fucked up. What kind of childish god would demand that a father sacrifice his son to prove his loyalty/belief? I love South Park's take on Job and Kyle's assessment of the absurdity of Job's trials.

was so funny. I love the Samuel L. Jackson addition.
Thanks!!!!

)O(

Depends on Whether you believe in Christ
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 11:21 — Geraldo

Christ wears Depends?

And I thought it was Judas whose bowels spilled out.

Actually, Will, you are not correct. I suggest you acquire the book "What the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality" by Helmeniak. I further suggest that you seek out the original texts in their original languages, rather than rely on the KJV.

And lastly, I would ask you to consider the following sentence:

"A man shall not lay with another man as he lays with a woman."

Some people interpret that as a prohibition against homosexual behavior, when in fact it is a clear prohibition against a particular type of threesome -- the MMF type. 'As' is a synonym for 'while', and that makes perfect sense given the culture. MFF threesomes wouldn't have the consequences of MMF threesomes -- namely not knowing the resultant child's father.

I always took it more as soldiers, seaman, and others on long trips away from home who are otherwise straight, couldn't resort to homosexuality because they have a throbby.

When you translate the actual Hebrew, you end up with something more like:

"A man shall not lay with another man in the bed of a woman."

The word 'bed' is definitely there. Some insist that it acts as a verb in the sentence, as in "to bed someone", or to land someone in bed. A definite sexual connotation. However, the verb is already present in the sentence, and reading 'bed' as a verb is realllllly going out on a limb.

Epinnoia,

I do not proclaim to be an expert on Greek or Hebrew, although I have studied both, and I will grant you that all translations are imperfect and subject to the whims and politics of the translator.

I would also suggest to you that to that it is disingenuous at best to suggest that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. I would further say that scholarly works such as the one you mentioned, "What the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality" by Helmeniak, could be written and researched with a particular point of view, or agenda, in mind.

Referring back to my original post, I am not on some type of crusade here, I just felt that White was being less than accurate in his remark "White: The Bible says nothing about homosexuality Tony, and it's really important to quit confusing people"

Thank you for the sincere discussion.

I generally question those who throw Bible verses around without any of their own writing. I am glad you're willing to discuss these verses yourself.

As for what you said about Helmeniak... Of course I understand that. However, you need to understand something here. Truth isn't truth based on whether person A says it. It's based on logic and evidence. You seem to suggest that Helmeniak's book must somehow be suspect simply because it was written by a fellow human being (aren't all books, including the Bible?) I reject that as 'ad hominem' in the making, and would encourage you to do so as well. What Helmeniak writes is right or wrong, quite independent of Helmeniak. And until you pick up the book, read it, and analyze the arguments, you really have no leg to stand on when discussing it.

Furthermore, you don't want to argue the merits of your particular translations. You just sling them forth as if to suggest that they speak for themselves. They do not. The overwhelming theme of those passages you presented are NOT against homosexuality, but against whorishness. For you to not realize that much indicates, to me at least, that you're not really interested in actually learning what these passages MEAN, but more interested in furthering an errant translation.

Epinnoia,

If you read up the thread you will see that I was asked to name specific verses that dealt with homosexuality. I am not arguing the merits of specific translations, I am responding to a request. I recognize that all interpretations are subject to debate. Your implication that I do not care what the passages mean is off the mark. Respectfully, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, at this time, about the meaning of the verses in question.

My initial purpose, again was to question White's remark "White: The Bible says nothing about homosexuality Tony, and it's really important to quit confusing people" Every Bible I have ever seen does say things about homosexuality. There is no perfect translation in my opinion, but to say that its not mentioned is, in my opinion, questionable at best.

Will,

I challenge you to consider what is meant by "The Bible". You seem to want to argue that The Bible is a creation of the early 1600s, when in fact it is a collection of texts which were not originally written in English.

So if I tell you that THE BIBLE doesn't mention homosexuality, you should realize that I am not talking about that perverse book created in the 1600s -- namely the KJV. I am talking about the original texts, in their original languages.

And they do NOT mention homosexuality.

or wrong. Depends on your point of view. So do you go with majority rule (KJV)? or with the original scripts? The bible (which ever version you like) is a subjective collection of philosophical stories.

and Epinnoia, while you may be an expert on the matter (good for you if so), realize you come off a bit condescending.

)O(

We're all getting off.

Perkins has trolled more than a few mens rooms looking for gay sex or at a minimum, he has gay porn in his sock drawer. I'm a straight man, but my gaydar is going WHOOP, WHOOP, WHOOP RED ALERT!!!!

he really looks like he would not have any idea of what to do with a woman, other than perhaps have her give him a manicure. He looks like a bag full of neuroses.

tony perkins is a queermo

You get his biography page.

Perkins and his ilk have ditched the white sheets for the suits and ties. Same shit we've seen from these conservaklans for the past 50 years just repackaged and re-marketed.

Or mebbe Baton Rouge, if JingleBobby moves on...

)O(

I would've guessed the AC-DC.

"I'm married" is proof you are not gay. Unless gays can get married.

Once that happens, you can't prove you aren't gay by being married.

(You can't anyway, but in their minds it is cover, like a dog hiding behind a barstool)

n/t

Good for Rev. White -- he said what needed to be said and Tony Perkins made an ass out of himself - as usual.
*

)O(

If tony (MOTHER!) perkins made an ass of himself

Who made himself the KY Jelly,

(Gotta do my regular plug for Kentucky.)

=-)

)O(

Why are people's civil liberties effected by anyones nurological disorder? Just because Perkins is delusional (and lots of other people suffer from the same delusions) why should that shape public policy? The religious people in this world need to put thier BS in check - It should be personal - so please - keep it to yourself!

I'm sorry Rev. White didn't use the word "homophobe"
*

...to put this mysticism into an objective perspective for the more rational types?

)O(

Supposedly bigot is derived from Bei Gott, (By God), often exclaimed by priests trying to convert the German states. The populace used the exclamation as an insult.

Same with the etymyology of cretin for Christian, although another country.

BIGOT:

1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bi...

CRETIN:

1779, from Fr. Alpine dialect crestin, "a dwarfed and deformed idiot," from V.L. *christianus "a Christian," a generic term for "anyone," but often with a sense of "poor fellow."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=cr...

God's bi?

And wouldn't Old English be very similar to Saxon which is closer to the German original?

No. He's quite right. The Bible says nothing about homosexuality.

Leviticus calls one act, male-to-male anal sex, a "to'evah" or an abomination. The two passages don't mention two men kissing or doing other sexual activities, and it doesn't mention women at all. Jewish commentary over the centuries is pretty clear that male anal sex is forbidden if you choose to observe Mosaic Law. Male anal rape was considered a form of humiliation in the Middle East and often used on captured enemies. In any case, it's perfectly possible to be a male homosexual, be in a relationship and not have anal sex.

Romans 1:23-27 draws a cause-and-effect relationship with pagan idolatry and out of control lusts who then descend into murder and other vices. In verse 23, St. Paul describes what the pagan gods look like and then says "Therefore" and "Because of this" these idolaters committed "unnatural" lusts (not love). It basically says that worshipping idols drove people to act in crazy ways. When you read about some of the practises of Roman paganism (including the cutting off of genitalia and cross dressing found in the Cybele-Attis cult) he may have a point. In any case, Romans 1 is descriptive, not proscriptive.

And 1 Corinthians 6:9 is a problematic passage in that it uses a hard to define Greek word: arsenokoitai, which literally means "man-f*ck" (koitai being the root word of coitus. For most of Christian history, it was used to condemn masturbation. In Martin Luther's New Testament translation he paired it with the previous word on the "sin" list "malakoi" which literally means "soft" but was slang for boy prostitutes and then defined "arsenokoitai" as "child molesters". Only in the 20th Century did translations render "arsenokoitai" as homosexuals or homosexual offenders. But in cultural context, same sex relations in ancient Greece were paedophillic, with an older man mentoring a young boy in exchange for sex.

So Mel is correct. The Bible doesn't really address "homosexuality". It addresses one homosexual act and different forms of prostitution and idolatry.

You are mostly correct, but your understanding of Leviticus is simply wrong. I have already addressed this. It becomes quite clear when you translate the actual Hebrew words. This is a passage against MMF threesomes, which, given the cultural importance of inheritance and such, makes perfect sense -- since it would have been impossible to know which of the males were the resultant child's father, thereby confusing inheritance rights.

Note that MFF threesomes would not have this issue, and note further that MFF threesomes are usually seen as a positive thing even by today's so-called Christians.

)O(

The problem is a lot of people would say it's not the age of the person in question that's the problem in the Bible but that it's same-sex sexuality.

And for every translation or mistranslation you point out in the Hebrew, they'll point out another.

I've heard it said about Jews, and my own ancestors, the Scots, that if you have two in the room you have three opinions.

And that's not taking into account hermeneutics.

One thing interesting is today at least, many Jews said the sin of Sodom and Gomorroh wasn't homosexuality but lack of hospitality.

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
—Ezekiel 16:49-50

)O(

I wonder how many republican homo-phobes have read that?

I actually wonder how many right-wingers actually READ at all. I suspect that a great many of those who profess to be Christian NEVER pick up the Bible to read it. And fewer still actually take the time to research the actual Greek/Hebrew/Latin words which were used. They rely, instead, on translations which have been shown to be errant, and they pick and choose passages to conform to their bigotry.

Ezekiel CLEARLY says that the sin of Sodom was something other than sexual preference, or homosexuality. And since Ezekiel is a part of their Holy Book, one would assume that the passage comes with some weight of consideration. Yet we still find that people use the word 'sodomy' to refer to sexual acts, rather than 'arrogance', 'overfed', 'unconcerned', 'haughty', or being stingy.

It should be clear why this is the case. If we were to use Ezekiel to define what Sodomy was, the VAST MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS WOULD BE SODOMITES!

People ae leaving these sick hateful fundamental bigoted churches that Perkins represents for more liberal and open an excepting churches and that is the real truth. Perkins is still a hate monguering, money grubbing, fake religious man and the world is waking up to their dividing intolerance.

Perkins is only talking like a normal, Christian capitalist.
Dumb-down your market about the competition. That way they stay loyal.
It's just good business!

.. that an author here would find it acceptable to put words into Perkins' mouth and assume certain meanings that are not ther.

And with all the presumed hate by Perkins, I wonder if all the hate being expressed toward evangelicals and fundamentalists is worthy of a similar response?

Unless, of course, C&L finds some hate acceptable.

So we are to be tolerant of those who are not tolerant? What kind of disarming tactic is that?

When the gay community proposes legislation that FORCES any particular church, mosque, or temple, to PERFORM homosexual marriages, then you MIGHT have an argument.

Until then, you are simply trying to tell us that we should be tolerant of those who are intolerant, or that we should stand by and be considerate of those who are inconsiderate.

The tolerance doctrine is implicitly self-contradictory. It lacks (what intelligent people call) self-referential coherence. In simple terms that the Leftist can understand, it's nonsense.

A church in NJ was already forced to rent its property against its will. Is that enough? Or how far does it have to go until you are willing to admit that there is a problem>

Heather complains about Tony Perkins' "bigoted stance on gay marriage" as though that amounts to bigotry. But not to be stopped by a dictionary, Heather goes on to complain about church intramural matters. She responds to Perkins' assertion:

Perkins: Actually, Mel, you're wrong on that point. The surveys, the polling data shows that Christians churches that are preaching the truth are the ones that are gaining members. It's the mainline liberal denominations that are losing membership.

To which she says:

So we've got religious organizations tracking polling data like we'd expect from political parties now. Isn't that special? And Rev. White is right: You cannot pretend you love gay people and then do things that inflame hatred towards the gay community or suppress their civil rights.

Nonsense aside, Heather is wacky. She does what all good Leftists do -- she redefined the discussion about religious matters in her terms -- political matters. That is the fundamental claim that all Marxists and Hegelians hold to -- that the government is the final arbiter of all morality. For Leftists there is no room for church to even engage the state as a separate entity. That makes her position evil because it reduces liberty, specifically religious liberty, in its outcome.

"That is the fundamental claim that all Marxists and Hegelians hold to -- that the government is the final arbiter of all morality. For Leftists there is no room for church to even engage the state as a separate entity."

The government is the final arbiter of all law. What you are trying to do is legislate your own flavor of morality, which is quite antithetical to the history of the USA. We have a right to not be Christians in this country. We have a right to not be Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Indeed, we have every right to insist that you keep your own religious DOCTRINES out of the law books.

And before you return to tell me that we do legislate some morality, such as theft and murder -- I would expect you to recognize that those are crimes with victims. Allowing a gay couple to be married doesn't create any victims.

What gets me is that so many people in the religious word are gay. I work on many political campaigns for years, and there were many pastors leading a double-life(and there still are many).
Perkin is satanic in his demenor, all the while attemping to dress-up his venom with a smile.

)O(

His smile always reminds me of the guy who farts but pretends he didn't.

The Rev. White was recently eliminated, with his gay son, on "the Amazing Race".

They represented gays terrifically on the show and the Rev Mel has just kicked it up a notch.

Nice to see some real courage displayed by a "man of the cloth".

Perkins denies the truth to White through the whole interview and then says this.

Perkins: Actually, Mel, you're wrong on that point. The surveys, the polling data shows that Christians churches that are preaching the truth are the ones that are gaining members. It's the mainline liberal denominations that are losing membership.

So...what is the truth? Either he's preaching that gays are acceptable or that they are an abomination against God.

)O(

Actually the growth is in megachurches which aren't about truth, but theotainment.

)O(

Funny thing though about the gay issue.

Many Dallas Episcopals, like those in St Mathius, are so annoyed at the national church's embrace of homosexual priests and bishops, that they call themselves Anglican now, and are a part of the Province of the Southern Cone headquartered in Argentina>

I wonder if the bible is the first fantasy book ever written?

Jewish commentary throughout the centuries says that the verses ban male-to-male anal sex. It even formed the basis on the current policy in Conservative Judaism whereby gay men in relationships are welcome and can become rabbis but are requested to abstain from anal sex.

From the Washington Post:

But a third answer allows same-sex ceremonies and ordination of gay men and lesbians, while maintaining a ban on anal sex. It argues that the verse in Leviticus saying "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman" is unclear, but traditionally was understood to bar only one kind of sex between men. All other prohibitions were "added later on by the rabbis," Dorff told reporters.

Washington Post: Conservative Rabbis Allow Ordained Gays, Same-Sex Unions

I figure they know best how to interpret their own scriptures.

Can us straight guys still play rump ranger on our wimmin?

.

.

Wouldn't an anti-gay bigot be prejudiced against the anti-gay?

116 comments

Login or Register to post comments.