Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Tea Party candidates at odds with top GOP figures on homosexuality

I noted below that Christine O'Donnell appears to believe that homosexuality is an "identity disorder."

Now another Tea Partyer running for Senate, Ken Buck of Colorado, has come out against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell in strikingly hidebound terms, claiming the military should be as "homogenous as possible" and describing homosexuality as a lifestyle choice:

BUCK: I do not support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I think it is a policy that makes a lot of sense. It's not whether an individual is gay can serve in the military, the question is whether that individual can be openly gay in the military.

It's one thing to deny someone access to the military and to a career in the military, it's another thing to -- for morale purposes and other purposes -- make sure that we are as homogeneous as possible in the military in moving towards the common goal of the security and the military action, as opposed to the distractions that are caused by allowing lifestyle choices to become part of the discussion.

This highlights yet another way Tea Party candidates are at odds with some leading GOP establishment figures: Over homosexuality. More and more GOP figures seem to be concluding that the party's best hope for the future is to ditch its reactionary aura by modernizing the party on issues that make it seem hostage to intolerance. But Tea Party candidates risk complicating that effort.

As Dave Weigel reports, gay Republicans are already outraged by the O'Donnell quote I highlighted about homosexuality being an "identity disorder." Similar outrage is bound to follow about Buck's comments.

On one side, GOP figures as diverse as Ken Mehlman, Steve Schmidt, Dick Cheney, Laura Bush and Colin Powell are all coming out in favor of gay marriage and/or gays in the military. Yet on homosexuality we're now seeing GOP/Tea Party candidates in high profile races go way farther than merely opposing gay marriage or DADT repeal -- they harbor views that are right out of the 1950s. It's yet another reason these candidates have provoked so much wariness from GOP figures who want to broaden the party's appeal by bringing its views on certain hot-button issues into line with the 21st century.

By Greg Sargent  | September 20, 2010; 2:33 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Senate Republicans, gay rights  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How Dems should nationalize the elections
Next: Game on? Senate Dems move towards vote on middle class tax cuts

Comments

More likely, it is top GOP figures who are at odds with GOD on homosexuality.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Even EXTREMIST, right-wing wacko, Barack Obama is not in favor of same-sex marriage ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

It doesnt matter JakeD2. Obama doesn't get a vote! Call your Congressmen.

Posted by: roxsteady | September 20, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

jake, these guys go way further than taking a stance on gay marriage or DADT. their views are out of the 1950s.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

hide·bound (Adj.)

1. Unwilling or unable to change because of tradition or ultra-conservative views: "you are hidebound by your petty laws".

2. (of cattle) With their skin clinging close to their back and ribs as a result of bad feeding.

Thank you, Greg, for giving us yet another example of how to "nationalize" the upcoming midterm elections ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama is an extremist right wing whacko?

HA!

OT, this is your Nevada GOP:

Jon Ralston reports that Doug and Cindy Hampton -- the couple at the center of Sen. John Ensign's (R-NV) sex scandal -- may lose their house at a public auction next month.

"Doug Hampton has said he cannot find work since he went public about Ensign's scandalous behavior, which has resulted in federal and Senate Ethics Committee probes. Ensign, in seeking money for his defense, has quite astonishingly played the victim. Meanwhile, it appears the Hamptons are going to lose everything."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/20/former_ensign_staffers_may_lose_home.html

Pathetic.

Why is Ensign still in the Senate?
Where is the Senate Ethics Committee?
Where is the FBI's investigation?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Christian O'Donnell has a Lesbian sister, and Phyllis Schlafly has a gay son.

How come those two all knowing Right Wing Women have not been able to "cure" their own family members?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

You keep telling yourself that (then come up with some OTHER explanation when the TEA Party candidates all win ; )

BTW: the main reason that Prop. 8 passed out in California was because so many conservative DEMS came out to vote for Obama and Prop. 8. It's not as "cut and dried" as you think.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I'm gonna enjoy watching the GOPs ham-handed attempts to reverse their well-earned reputation for reactionary stances on social issues. Especially now that their mutant step children the Tea Party is muddying the H2O.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Why is Ensign still in the Senate?
Where is the Senate Ethics Committee?
Where is the FBI's investigation?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 2:45 PM |


And where are those "Values" Republicans on this, or Prostitutes who were sought out, to put Vitter In A Diaper?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Tea Party candidates are at odds with some leading GOP establishment figures: Over homosexuality." Who, Lindsey Graham!?! Most of US who are NO HOMO really just do not spend a lot of time on this subject but thanks for the observation and please do feel free to tell us whom you are referring to.

Posted by: SCHotline | September 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still:

My mother died of cancer, so why couldn't I cure her?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"It's one thing to deny someone access to the military and to a career in the military, it's another thing to -- for morale purposes and other purposes -- make sure that we are as homogeneous as possible in the military in moving towards the common goal of the security and the military action, as opposed to the distractions that are caused by allowing lifestyle choices to become part of the discussion." The military is the most diverse, heterogeneous institution in the country, and that is one of its great strengths.

Posted by: adlynn24 | September 20, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I complained about the lack of civil behavior on an earlier threat.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

This is becoming real fun now. Watching guys like Mr Sargent confront plain speaking folks who say what they mean in straightforward terms is amusing.

To the extent that the GOP heirarchy has adopted PC speak this batch of unorthodox candidates makes the DC power structure (a part of which Mr Sargent is, like a remora is part of a shark) unhappy.

Oh well.

Tell us, how did the audience react to the statement made by Mr Buck.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

iam-still:

My mother died of cancer, so why couldn't I cure her?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 2:55 PM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Because she ended up with you as her child, so she just lost the will to live.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

There is no "Tea Party" position on homosexuality...

Posted by: ninjapirate | September 20, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

So, all of you GOP commenters think that homosexual behaviour should be illegal? You think the gay can be cured? You think it's a lifestyle choice? A psychological disorder?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

further proof that the left is its own worst enemy:
===============
Because she ended up with you as her child, so she just lost the will to live.

=========================


this is completely unnecessary. It seems to me that the level of vitriol here is inversely proportional to the polling data about Democrat candidates.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The Tea Party fully backs Palin and O'Donnell. Therefore they do support treating gay people like sub-humans.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Where's sbj on this. He's gotta have an opinion. He's always highlighting how Dems are blocking the gay agenda.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

If we have advanced to the point where "top GOP figures" (i.e., the GOP establishment) understand that homosexual attraction is not a choice and we are only arguing about the hard right - then we have made much progress. Greg is rightly suggesting that the GOP establishment is taking a more moderate line on cultural wedge issues. That's a good thing.

It'll be up to the voters in Nevada and Colorado and elsewhere to decide whether these issues are important when determining who best represents them. There's gonna be a lot of voters out there who are (rightly or wrongly) more concerned about how someone voted on the stimulus than on how someone might vote on DADT.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28:

Great point! Both Greg Sargant and Dave Weigel (linked to in his original thread) were journ-O-listers, hell bent on making sure that Dems are elected to office.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Dying gasps of angry (mostly older) white people who don't know anyone who doesn't look and act just like themselves.

In ten years this will move through as younger people dominate this discussion. They just don't have these hang-ups about sexuality.

Shorter: it's a waste of time to argue with fraidy folks who think homosexuality is a sin or, worse, are so afraid of sexuality in general that they want to force everyone to either stop or conform.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Did John Ensign speak at the Value Voters festival?

Does Sharron Angle approve of John Ensign's "Values"?

Does Christine "Gays have an Identity Disorder but Witches are Great" O'Donnell approve of John Ensign's "Values"?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

sbj3, would you willingly vote for a politician that wanted to outlaw homosexuality if you thought they would stop the Obama agenda 100%?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:09 PM | Report abuse

More of THIS, please:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/senate-dems-vow-tax-cut-vote-before-election----even-if-it-fails-we-win.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

this is completely unnecessary. It seems to me that the level of vitriol here is inversely proportional to the polling data about Democrat candidates.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 3:03 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I completely agree with you. JakeD2 should stop trying to use his dead mother as a political football, and using her illness as a instrument to try and score political points.

With a callous son like that, no wonder the poor woman lost the will to live.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Mr Sargent is discussing this because he can't discuss the economy.

there is no point in bringing up the issue relative to the delaware race because the Democrat candidate has a terrible record as a person who broke a promise not to raise taxes. Not once, not twice, but three times.

Oh and I note that Mr Sargent said nothing about this guy being Harry Reid's pet. yeah, that should help him to a landslide in this election year!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still @ September 20, 2010 3:00 PM wrote "Because she ended up with you as her child, so she just lost the will to live."

Don't you think that you should retract that?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 20, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

BG in CHI -- more on that coming in a few minutes.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

@mikeA: "Where's sbj on this. He's gotta have an opinion."

What's the question? As Greg points out, some of these candidates that are tea party supporters are definitely in conflict with the GOP establishment when it comes to gay issues. I'm glad that many conservatives are making slow but steady progress on this and I'm happy to agree that Buck is wrong. He doesn't make a very strong case at all that DADT is good policy. It makes no sense to tell proud, patriotic, and willing gay people that they cannot serve in the military.

I think this quite misses the point I earlier tried to make: it's the economy, stupid.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"can't discuss the economy"

O.K. Compare the last couple recessions to this one and tell me which one we've recovered from quicker in terms of job growth and GDP growth.

You're probably going to be surprised.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

It'll be up to the voters in Nevada and Colorado and elsewhere to decide whether these issues are important when determining who best represents them. There's gonna be a lot of voters out there who are (rightly or wrongly) more concerned about how someone voted on the stimulus than on how someone might vote on DADT.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 3:05 PM |

................

Your fellow Right Winger, JakeD2 just equated your sexual orientation with his Mother's Cancer.

He claims that you are both diseased, and also

"at odds with GOD on homosexuality."

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

From the GOP in Civil War file:

[Lisa Murkowski] took aim at "tea party" kingmaker Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C) and the Sacramento-based Tea Party Express, casting them as outside influences who tried to sway the results of the election.

"Let me tell you, Jim DeMint or the Tea Party Express coming out of California, far be it for them to determine whether or not the senator representing the people of Alaska is conservative enough for them," Murkowski said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/-1-2-alaska-republican.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

OMG, Skip: "Oh and I note that Mr Sargent said nothing about this guy being Harry Reid's pet. yeah, that should help him to a landslide in this election year!"

He is??!!

Anyone know where I can get a tattoo of Chris Coons removed?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

@MikeA: "sbj3, would you willingly vote for a politician that wanted to outlaw homosexuality if you thought they would stop the Obama agenda 100%?"

No.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

AMviennaVA

He was the one who sought use his mother's illness and death, to score cheap points. Tell him to retract that, and to stop degrading people, because of their sexual orientation, and then I will reconsider your request.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The Murkowski family must be furious being ousted by sister Sarah. She's going nuclear on the tea-party now. It's all or nothing in her eyes.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Well, at least you've got some standards I agree with.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

From the GOP in Civil War file (continued):

The next Tea Party targets

Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)
Scott Brown (R-Mass.)

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/the-next-tea-party-targets.html

HA!

They're angry and they ain't gonna take it anymore! LOL

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Anyone know where I can get a tattoo of Chris Coons removed?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 3:16 PM

..............

Have you tried having a witch remove it? Christine Sybil O'Donnell, or Quitter Palin should be able to recommend where to contact one.

Has anyone tried to throw Christine O'Donnell in the water, to see if she floats? How else will we be able to get to the truth about if she is no longer a Witch?

After all, there used to be a brand of teabags, name Salem!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"Is this my new reality?"

Writing about Buck and lifestyle choices is just not that important. I'm sure this woman cares about DADT but she has other far more important concerns:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/09/20/cnbc_town_hall_questioner_to_obama_im_exhausted_of_defending_you.html

via hot air

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, they missed Grahm from SC. He'll be next when his primary date comes.

I still can't get over Hatch. It must be his friendship he had with Kennedy. The right wing loathes him.

And re Scott Brown. If you remember, it was Freedomworks and Dick Armey's groups who were up there in Mass to canvass and work for him during the special election. The Freedomworks teaparty group is just another arm of the GOP and don't care about the constitution, only about gaining power then gutting Govn't so private industry can make more profit regardless of the social repercussions.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Tomasky answers Greg's question from earlier today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/sep/20/obama-administration-us-midterm-elections-2010-the-days-big-leak

Apologies if others linked and I missed it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

sbj, why would they cut off the response?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Who wants to argue with this:

(G)iven the debate on Capitol Hill about tax policy, the president's remarks on the subject may have been the most noteworthy. "Here's what I can't do," Obama said. "I can't give tax cuts to the top 2% of Americans -- 86% of that money going people making $1 million or more -- and lower the deficit at the same time. I don't have the math.

"I'd love to do it. Anybody in elected office would love nothing more than to give everybody tax cuts -- not cut services, make sure that I'm providing help to student loans, make sure that we're keeping our roads safe and our bridges safe, make sure that we're paying for our veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. At some point, the numbers just don't work, so what I've said is very simple. Let's go ahead and move forward on what we agree to -- which is tax relief for 97% of Americans, in fact, everybody would get tax relief, just up to $250,000 a year or more -- and let's the economy moving faster. Let's get it growing faster.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025755.php

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

this is completely unnecessary.

Hey SS28, jd2 started it with his totally OT snark about his mom...

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

At the same event (and from the same Benen post), the president took note of the ambiguities of the Tea Partiers' agenda. He summarized their pitch this way: "We're going to control government spending. We're going to propose $4 trillion in additional tax cuts and somehow magically this is all going to work." Obama would like to know if these same activists would want to cut veterans benefits, Social Security, and/or Medicare. "The challenge for the Tea Party movement is to identify what exactly would you do," he said.

Anyone care to respond to the President?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

@cmccaulley: "So, all of you GOP commenters think that homosexual behaviour should be illegal? You think the gay can be cured? You think it's a lifestyle choice? A psychological disorder?"

Um, no. No, I don't.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you can't tell the difference between different people? Who say clearly different things?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 20, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey SS28, jd2 started it with his totally OT snark about his mom...

Posted by: srw3 | September 20, 2010 3:31 PM |
.....

And he brought it up to equate homosexuality with cancer?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still @ September 20, 2010 3:17 PM: I understand your position. But do you really want to stoop to that level? Are you, shall we say, as experienced at it?
;^)

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

@Mike: The response is linked right below. Not very effective - although I'm sure you'll disagree. Obama replies that he *has* helped the middle class, which shows he doesn't understand his predicament. She's a smart woman - an Obama supporter - and she says she is *still waiting* for help for the middle class. You don't win her over by claiming that you already have helped the middle class. It's like telling someone they're too dumb to realize they've already been helped.

For Greg from Jay Cost:

"Republican candidates everywhere will answer the charge of radicalism with a simple question: "Where are the jobs, Mr. President?"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-search-strawmen-midwest-health-care-and-more

Posted by: sbj3 | September 20, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out, Senate Dems move towards confrontational vote on middle class tax cuts:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/senate_dems_move_towards_vote.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Boehner promised, back in 1994 for to observe term limits, and to only stay in Congress for eight years. He is now in his twentieth year of his eight year term limits promise, and is running for another term.

Why does the Tea Party trust this guy?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Looking for individual comments from individual posters hoping for individual answers.

I got your answer, Kevin, any of the other GOP commenters care to chime in on the questions? From the comments above from some of the other "conservative" posters, these seemed like fair questions that would elicit interesting answers.

Yours, Kevin, was both uninteresting and predictably condescending.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 3:40 PM | Report abuse


Liam-still @ September 20, 2010 3:17 PM: I understand your position. But do you really want to stoop to that level? Are you, shall we say, as experienced at it?
;^)

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 20, 2010 3:35 PM |
.....................

I do not believe in coddling vicioous hate mongers, and that is what this JakeD2 is. Anyone, with any sense of respect for their own mother, would not have tried to use her memory to try and denigrate gay people, because of their sexual orientation.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

"More likely, it is top GOP figures who are at odds with GOD on homosexuality."

Posted by: JakeD2

+++++++++++++++++++++++

So Jake knows what GOD thinks about homosexuality? Fascinating, given that there is no term in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures that can properly be translated as "homosexual" or "homosexuality." Those terms didn't even exist until the latter half of the 19th Century, so anyone claiming to find parallels in Hebrew or 1st century Greek (the language of Paul's epistles) is, well, lying.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 20, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"My mother died of cancer, so why couldn't I cure her?"

According to Christians and the Bible, God answers all prayers.

So my guess is either you're a lousy Christian or there is no God.


Posted by: steve-2304 | September 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

steve-2304:

The third option, of course, is that God sometimes answers "No."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I never equated homosexuality with cancer.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Where are the jobs, Mr. President?"

Dems added $288 billion in tax cuts to the stimulus package to appease Repubs. Shouldn't the same question be asked of Boehner and McConnell? After all, I have repeatedly been assured by righties on this board that tax cuts = jobs.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"so many conservative DEMS came out to vote for Obama and Prop. 8."

I don't know if this was the case in California, but Maryland and D.C. have many African-American voters who very strongly oppose homosexuality. Some of this seems to be cultural and some of this seems to be religious. I find their stance on gay rights and same-sex marriage to be saddening. That's because discrimination against minorities affects everyone, and the principle involved applies to all minorities regardless of the degree of discrimination suffered by any particular minority.

Besides, the issue isn't really opposition to same-sex marriage but the demonization of gays, which is what O'Donnell is doing.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

God created Gays for God's reason. Curb the over population of the world, find loving parents for children abandoned by straights ... gotta trust in God's program. Only Gays know the TRUTH ... they are born that way. Others base it on prejudice and hearsay.

The tea party is moving more towards the KKK! Hateful, condemning, discriminating, and crucifying group of holier than thou, ignorant, old white people. What they sow, so shall they reap!

Posted by: stevenleonghawaii | September 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Carstonio:

What, specifically, is Christine O'Donnell doing to demonize gays? You would agree at least that CLOSETED homosexuals are subject to an "identity disorder", right? Maybe that's all she was referring to? We only have the word of one (journ-O-list?) reporter so far.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"What, specifically, is Christine O'Donnell doing to demonize gays?"

She's on record as saying that gays "get away with so much," which is an attempt to stir up resentment against them. (She sounded like a preteen complaining, "Mom like you best!")

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

stevenleonghawaii:

Do you think that God created murderers too?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Carstonio:

You would agree at least that CLOSETED homosexuals are subject to an "identity disorder", right?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"The third option, of course, is that God sometimes answers "No.""

Really? It says that nowhere in the Bible Jake. So now, you not only pretend to know what God thinks, but you're making up new chapters in His Holy Book?

How utterly Christian of you.....

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 20, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"You would agree at least that CLOSETED homosexuals are subject to an "identity disorder", right?"

No. Some of them might live in communities where they would suffer violence if they came out, and others might be disowned by their families. There are still communities and families that give people a hard time for dating outside their ethnicity or religion.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

steve-2304:

Moses prayed that God would allow him into the Promised Land, and God said "no." Do you need chapter and verse?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I was talking about God answering prayers. And you know that, yet you choose to go off course in a feeble attempt to be "right".

God hates it when you lie.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 20, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Jesus prayed: "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me." (Matthew 26:39)

I could keep going, but it would be embarrassing to keep proving you wrong over and over again.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

steve-2304:

Of course God hates it when you lie (do you need THAT chapter and verse?).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Carstonio:

We will have to agree to disagree then : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

The Bible is the word of God. So what is one to believe when God utters this famous line?

Notice it doesn't say anything about answering it, and answering "no". It says YE SHALL RECEIVE.

Go ahead Jake, spin that one for us too. If you did pray for your Mom to get better, than you either are a lousy Christian that God didn't respond to for some reason, or there is no God. There is no middle ground. God said as much.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 20, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

For a while there, I thought the GOP might be taking serious steps toward ridding itself of the slogan "bigotry for all, especially gay folks." The comments from Dick Cheney, in particular, surprised me and gave me hope. But now, with the Tea Party joining the Christian Right in the GOP's "prejudice wing," I fear they'll begin backtracking again all the way back to 1951.

Posted by: jaynashvil | September 20, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, Jake, I don't see where Moses prayed to be able to enter the Promised Land. In Numbers 20:12, God explains why Moses and Aaron will not enter the Promised Land, but it isn't in response to a prayer from Moses:

But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 20, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

steve-2304:

I prayed (as all Christians should) IF IT IS YOUR WILL, please take this cup from my mother. What is you explanation for God "not answering" Jesus's prayer in the Garden?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"Jesus prayed: "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me." (Matthew 26:39)

I could keep going, but it would be embarrassing to keep proving you wrong over and over again."

Jake, you proved nothing. You posted a verse where Jesus prays. You'll have to explain to me both how this supports your position and does not support mine.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 20, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Well, Jake, Matthew 26 says that Jesus prayed that the cup might pass from him. In fact, Jesus prays that twice. But the Gospel is completely silent as to whether God said anything in response. So, your contention that God said "No" is scripturally unsupported.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 20, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"We will have to agree to disagree then : )"

Why? I might understand the term "identity disorder" if we were talking about someone who is in denial about being gay. Or perhaps someone like George Rekers or Larry Craig who practices homophobic demagoguery while hiding his orientation, or someone who simply publicly pretends to be straight. But if a gay person doesn't publicly reveal his or her orientation, it would seem questionable to label that as an "identity disorder."

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

Even the Devil can quote Scripture ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

"What is you explanation for God "not answering" Jesus's prayer in the Garden?"

Easy. It's the exact same answer. Either God did not deem Jesus worthy enough of answering his prayer, or it's all a big fairy tale.

After all, God said if you believe, you receive.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 20, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, Jake. I disagree with you, but I don't think you are Hitler. OR the devil.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 20, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1 (and steve-2304):

God answered NO, because He knew the end result of the Crucifixion.

Carstonio:

If a gay person is "in the closet" (but dating / marrying someone from the opposite sex), that is the very definition of IDENTITY DISORDER. As always, your mileage may vary, which is why I typed the words "We will have to agree to disagree". Let me know if you have any other questions.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

In the civilian world, you go home to housemates/roommates you, for the most part, choose.

In the military, our roommates, tentmates, and shower mates are often chosen for us. Even as a senior officer, I'm sometimes assigned another male officer as a room mate.

When rooming assignments are made, we segregate by rank and gender. We should not allow gays to bunk/shower with normal people until society is comfortable with bunking their 18 y/o daughter with a bunch of teenage guys.

Posted by: cdrdavy | September 20, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"Even EXTREMIST, right-wing wacko, Barack Obama is not in favor of same-sex marriage ..."

Except in Obama's case, he chose that position so as not to drive away overly sensitive hot-button voters.. politics as usual.

There are about as many legitimate reasons to prevent same-sex marriage as there are reasons to prohibit marijuana: NONE. It's an old-world taboo that rather than being left behind with Jim Crow, McCarthyism, and 8-tracks, has been turned into public policy.

Posted by: spongekill | September 20, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

spongekill:

Why isn't "society encouraging procreation" a legitimate reason to you?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"If a gay person is 'in the closet' (but dating / marrying someone from the opposite sex), that is the very definition of IDENTITY DISORDER."

No, it isn't. One should only use the term "identity disorder" if the person has a mental illness that creates confusion in his own mind about identity. What you describe could be the product of that confusion, but it could also be a deliberately created deception. The latter would not be very different from living as a foreign mole like Anna Chapman. A gay person can pretend to be straight without having a mental illness.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

cdrdavey:

They don't even seem to acknowledge that reality (or the fact that it was BILL CLINTON who instituted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or, God forbid, signed DOMA ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

Then you shouldn't have much trouble citing the passage in the Gospels where God says "No."

My point is simple: there is no "answer" from God at all in response to Christ's prayer.

God "speaks" only twice in the Gospels -- at the baptism of Jesus by John in the River Jordan, and at the Transfiguration. But perhaps you have written your own Gospel.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 20, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"We should not allow gays to bunk/shower with normal people..."

You are a dinosaur on a fast track to extinction in this country.

Crawl back in your hole already.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 20, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Carstonio:

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree then : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Gays, Blacks and Union Thugs Support Obama!

Big surprise!!!

November can't come soon enough!

Posted by: 2012frank | September 20, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"Why isn't 'society encouraging procreation' a legitimate reason to you?"

That doesn't make sense. First, many gay couples do procreate with outside assistance. Second, same-sex marriage doesn't prevent straight people from procreating. ("I'm sorry, honey, I just can't get in the mood anymore, not after seeing Bob and Ted down the street holding hands in public.") Third, it's not like people need encouragement from society to procreate.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

Obviously, God does not appear to most people and verbally say the word "yes" or "no" -- This is not a George Burns or Jim Carrey movie -- the fact remains (if God exists) He says "no" to many prayers.

Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Carstonio:

"Closeted" gays who marry the opposite sex and procreate, but would otherwise not do so if same-sex marriage were legal, prove you wrong.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

But that is precisely the point Steve was making -- if good people pray for their loved ones to be cured of cancer, and sometimes they are cured and sometimes they die, one completely consistent explanation is that there was no God around to say "yes" or "no." In other words, the inconsistency of the response proves that there was no God to hear the prayer, let alone respond.

I'm not saying anyone has to reject the existence of God because we don't get everything we pray for. But we also need to be careful not to read into scripture words that are not there.

Among the faithful, God is kind of the opposite of the manager of a baseball team: God gets credit for all the wins (people who are healed), and no blame for the losses (people who die).

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 20, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I "blame" God (it is ALL His will ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"'Closeted'" gays who marry the opposite sex and procreate, but would otherwise not do so if same-sex marriage were legal, prove you wrong."

They might still procreate in a same-sex marriage. Besides, that misses the double standard at work. If procreation is so important that society should require gays should be required to marry the opposite sex and procreate, then it should require all single straight people to do the same. Using that standard, it might be reasonable to draft people into becoming parents. We could require men and women to donate gametes for test-tube babies to be raised by infertile couples. I'm obviously not advocating that, simply pointing out that any procreation-based argument should apply equally to straights.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

No repug ever lost a vote by being a bigot - against anything. That is the repug party's bread and butter - bigotry.

Why would this surprise any other repug??

Posted by: solsticebelle | September 20, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"one completely consistent explanation is that there was no God around to say "yes" or "no." In other words, the inconsistency of the response proves that there was no God to hear the prayer, let alone respond."

There are other possibilities that assume a god exists (and I don't make an assumption of either existence or non-existence.) Perhaps the god has nothing to do with curing or not curing cancer, either through indifference or inability. Perhaps the god isn't capable of even hearing human prayers, or isn't even aware of human existence.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Carstonio:

No, it shouldn't, because -- all other things being equal -- straights can procreate naturally and gays can't. That's what I am talking about re: society encouraging procreation (IVF is wasteful just in terms of allocating resources, if not immoral).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, I don't believe in a God who is indifferent and/or unable to cure cancer. We live in a fallen world, however, so there is sickness and even death.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Something else for us to "agree to disagree" on : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Jake: you have the better of the dummies trying to debate scripture, but they didn't make their original points very well before they got diverted on a fool's errand.

It should be somewhat easier for O'Donnell to address her sister's "mere" identity disorder than for you or anyone to cure your mother's cancer. If it isn't, and being gay is such an intractable disorder that even a future senator can't guide her sister out of it, then maybe it's not something that should be judged at all. She and other's of her ilk have to make homosexuality as volitional as smoking in order to justify the positions they take on their behavior and rights. If they can't help it, all those positions are absurd.

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 20, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Jake: you have the better of the dummies trying to debate scripture, but they didn't make their original points very well before they got diverted on a fool's errand.

It should be somewhat easier for O'Donnell to address her sister's "mere" identity disorder than for you or anyone to cure your mother's cancer. If it isn't, and being gay is such an intractable disorder that even a future senator can't guide her sister out of it, then maybe it's not something that should be judged at all. She and other's of her ilk have to make homosexuality as volitional as smoking in order to justify the positions they take on their behavior and rights. If they can't help it, all those positions are absurd.

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 20, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Either way, you could pray for Christopher Hitchens:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/20/atheist-christopher-hitchens-skip-prayer-day-honor/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

"Has anyone tried to throw Christine O'Donnell in the water, to see if she floats? How else will we be able to get to the truth about if she is no longer a Witch?"

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Hey, Dufus! Don't you dare throw O'Donnell into the water to see if she floats. You do that, Dummy, she'll melt!

She's really the "Wicked Witch of the West" in drag!

Posted by: chamateddy | September 20, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Re: whether Christine O'Donnell floats.

A person wise in the ways of science would tell you that the actual test is whether Christine O'Donnell weighs the same as a duck:

(1) Witches burn.
(2) Wood also burns. And wood floats in water.
(3) A duck also floats in water.
(4) Therefore, if Christine O'Donnell weighs the same a duck, she is a witch.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 20, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"all other things being equal -- straights can procreate naturally and gays can't. That's what I am talking about re: society encouraging procreation"

Millions of straight people can't procreate naturally, either, or at least without minimal assistance such as fertility drugs. If the marriage issue was really about procreation, then it would be hypothetically reasonable to limit marriage only to fertile couples.

"(IVF is wasteful just in terms of allocating resources, if not immoral)."

I don't understand how it's wasteful that way. Would you explain?

"I don't believe in a God who is indifferent and/or unable to cure cancer."

And I don't treat the issue as matter of belief, but as a matter of unknown fact. Either gods exist or they don't, and no one has the knowledge to form a conclusion either way.

Posted by: Carstonio | September 20, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

"One should only use the term "identity disorder" if the person has a mental illness that creates confusion in his own mind about identity."

It's fascinating that the modern "psychology" establishment has decided to replace its identification of homosexuality as a disorder with identification of nonacceptance of one's homosexuality as a disorder. There isn't a principled, logical way to decide that it is the homosexuality or the "conflictedness" that is a disorder. It's a political decision, not a scientific one.

"So Jake knows what GOD thinks about homosexuality? Fascinating, given that there is no term in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures that can properly be translated as "homosexual" or "homosexuality." Those terms didn't even exist until the latter half of the 19th Century, so anyone claiming to find parallels in Hebrew or 1st century Greek (the language of Paul's epistles) is, well, lying."

No, you are lying. You can quibble all you want about the term "homosexual." You can't quibble your way around Romans 1:27-28. You can't quibble your way around the fact that marriage is always described as male-female. You're free to defend and bless homosexuality, but you're lying when you claim there is no Biblical position to the contrary.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company