Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Young Republican Attacked (updated)

1. October 2006 • Scott Trudeau
Email this article

young man with a shiner Wonkette reports:

[Justin Zatkoff] was assaulted yesterday as he left a meeting of the Michigan College Republicans. [He] is the apparent victim of a hate crime, perpetrated almost without doubt by— well, we’ll let “a source close to Justin” explain:

Justin may have been 1. randomly attacked (but not robbed??), 2. attacked by BAMN (well known for violence andstrong in Ann Arbor), or 3. attacked by a homosexual rights group (Justin received an ‘odd/threatening’ email from a gay rights group about a day before the attack.)

Update, from the Ann Arbor News:

While at a party that began last Saturday night, police said Zatkoff picked a fight with some of his friends, and got punched in the eye. Police interviewed Zatkoff at a hospital the next day and he didn’t recall what happened.

People who were at the party told police Zatkoff had too much to drink, said Ann Arbor police Lt. Mike Logghe.

“We interviewed the guy who punched him,’’ said Logghe. “He admitted to punching him. He said he was a friend of his from high school.’‘

Thanks to t e whalen, Dale, and others for the pointer to the correction.

  1. Hrrm.

    aa news says no way

       —t e whalen    Oct. 1 '06 - 12:32AM    #
  2. I LOVE the News’ sub-head: “Police: Student picked fight with friends at party, got punched”

    This guy was a Republican supporting MCRI. It HAD to be BAMN, right?

       —Dale    Oct. 1 '06 - 12:35AM    #
  3. Are there many “Violent Homosexual Rights Groups” in Ann Arbor? Me thinks this story sounds a bit suspicious.

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 1 '06 - 12:35AM    #
  4. Here’s all you need to know about this story:

    People who were at the party told police Zatkoff had too much to drink, said Ann Arbor police Lt. Mike Logghe.

    “We interviewed the guy who punched him,’’ said Logghe. “He admitted to punching him. He said he was a friend of his from high school.’‘

       —Dale    Oct. 1 '06 - 12:41AM    #
  5. “We interviewed the guy who punched him,’’ said Logghe. “He admitted to punching him. He said he was a friend of his from high school.’

    Somebody’s got a whole lot of explaining to do!

    Not a smart idea to go around picking a fight with BAMN…

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 1 '06 - 12:48AM    #
  6. The Daily’ll have an article about this tomorrow.

       —Mike    Oct. 2 '06 - 08:06AM    #
  7. So I’m confused, why are we parrotting a non-reputable news source? Especially when it incorrectly implicates a group? I’m no BAMN supporter, but I do think this post deserves a “re-touch” at least.

       —dumi    Oct. 2 '06 - 08:23AM    #
  8. Well, it’s no good to waste a perfectly good black eye. You’ve GOT to blame black or gay people for it. Or something.

    Could have been terrorists, I suppose. Some terrorists he knew from High School.

       —Nitro    Oct. 2 '06 - 07:34PM    #
  9. wait are we sure wonkette wasn’t being a bit tongue in cheeck?? i mean, i don’t really read that blog, but when i first saw that i thought it was kind of a joke…

    ari p.

       —Ari P.    Oct. 2 '06 - 09:35PM    #
  10. I too read the blurb on the Wonkette site, but I believe that they picked it up on this
    ‘Truth Caucus’ site; some type of young Repub blog that listed the dude’s black eye as a “Hate Crime perpetuated by blacks, gays and liberals”.
    I also read about it on Democratic Underground, hardly a local blog. This story has taken on a life of its own…

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 2 '06 - 10:22PM    #
  11. “The Horst Wessel Song comes to Ann Arbor?” is really your name? Wow. I knew mine was kinda plain and boring but it must be a pain for you writing checks or making reservations at a restaurant. Can’t even turn it easily into an acronym like scuba or fubar.

       —Thomas Cook    Oct. 2 '06 - 11:32PM    #
  12. There goes the MCRI deabte.


    Since the town government, and this Blog, are so nearly lily-white…

    ...They can laugh it up with Thomas.

    No need to address the overwhelming power of white privilege.

    It’s worked out well for the privileged.

       —MCRI?    Oct. 2 '06 - 11:50PM    #
  13. MCRI? Isn’t that a barcode font? Nope that’s MICR. The debate went poof probably about the time you made a comparison between some conservative kid getting punched in the face and Nazi “martyrs” thus implying all conservatives are Nazis. So any discussion of the merits or demerits of affirmative action went out the window and became “Vote like me or you’re a Nazi”. One of the benefits of the overwhelming power of white privilege is I get an unmarked 55 gallon drum of ones and zeros sent to my house from Microsoft to waste on jerking your chain. You on a guvment list for being a potential naughty-doer or are your posts written by a committee hanging out at a coffee shop that you have to sign with some silly bumpersticker slogan?

       —Thomas Cook    Oct. 3 '06 - 01:04AM    #
  14. Wow.

    Suddenly that laughable good-old-boy, yukking it up, has vanished.

    Look what happens to him, when you mention the truth about white privilege.

    Those who have it, have built their lives, and their children’s futures, on it.

    They will not give it up willingly.

    Given the power, they will try to put you on what he calls a “guvment list”.

    Also not so funny.

       —Wow.    Oct. 3 '06 - 02:45AM    #
  15. These posts are eerily familiar . . .

       —Jared Goldberg    Oct. 3 '06 - 05:28AM    #
  16. I was waiting for someone else to catch on….

       —todd    Oct. 3 '06 - 05:37AM    #
  17. Hey Wow, or whoever the heck ya are today, I vanished cuz I got a day job and was wasting too much time at work for THE MAN who pays me.

    Yeah the posts are familiar; I was busting on some anonymous poster awhile back about love peace and hair grease in the Mid East. If he ain’t the same guy he sure signs on like the joker who was arguing it’s a perfectly lovely thing to harass people on the Sabbath outside their synagogue about things they got no control over. Now it seems me and my unfortunately white children will be first up against the wall cuz we’re all getting the benefit of living as crackers in Amerikkka.

    Silly me, I thought people of good will could discuss important political issues in a spirit of respect and reason but instead I’m a Nazi cracker who’s built my life on the backs of people of color. I thought I was just a white conservative Catholic who doesn’t hate Israel and Jews. Now I hate people of color too I guess. Thanks for the heads up – where can I check myself into a re-education camp?

    Sorry to feed the troll folks but I can’t help but call BS on a chicken who won’t sign their name. I know I’m just as bad – I promise I’ll stop if y’all want; I just can’t stand these conspiracy freaks. Someone needs to call them out, plus it makes me laugh.

       —Thomas Cook    Oct. 3 '06 - 09:43PM    #
  18. I’m sorry I can’t give you an answer, for your passionate comments about the Palestine vigils.

    You seem to be especially interested in that subject.

    ArborUpdate has stopped allowing any comment about Palestine.

    But if you will check today’s (Oct. 3) “Detroit News”, or today’s “Michigan Journal”, here is what you will find:

    * Suddenly many stories which you can comment on, all about U-M students’ efforts to protect Palestine, by divesting from Israel.

    If you don’t enjoy synagogue vigils, that U-M effort is certainly another way to express your support (if any) for the occupied people of Palestine.

    At some point, ArborUpdate may give U-M students enough respect to actually open a thread on that U-M divestment effort.

    Until then, I cannot answer your comments further.

       —See Detroit News today-    Oct. 3 '06 - 10:19PM    #
  19. I give up. Somebody else wanna tilt at this windmill?

       —Thomas Cook    Oct. 3 '06 - 10:53PM    #
  20. “ArborUpdate has stopped allowing any comment about Palestine”.

    Well that would explain why it’s been so peaceful around here!

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 3 '06 - 11:44PM    #
  21. Yes,

    Free debate is fine, except when it comes to…

       —First Amendment?    Oct. 3 '06 - 11:55PM    #
  22. First Amendment?

    This site is privately owned-
    I think that they have the right to decide what topics can and will be posted here.

    But worry not, there’s always the Synagogue and City Council meetings…

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 4 '06 - 12:26AM    #
  23. Blaine keeps sending Arbor Update links about it (why am I still on that mailing list anyway?), so I figure it’s the same dude. Nobody reads this blog anyway. Who cares. Blogs are so 2003. Start your own. Yawn. David Boyle started a competitive blog. Maybe he’ll post on it. YouTube is the new blog, Kirk Westhphal is the new Jane Jacobs. Queens is the new Brooklyn. Everyone knows about White Privilege. Most of us went to school, and probably even at U-M. Old news.

       —Brandon    Oct. 4 '06 - 12:41AM    #
  24. You are so right.

    Actually, the entire media is privately owned.

    They have no legal duty to print anything, about anything.

    They can print 30 blank pages a day, every day.

    Glad that’s settled.

    That’s First Amendment reality.

    Have fun with your First Amendment, if you can find a newspaper that feels some duty to promote free debate.

    All that stuff they teach you at U of M, about journalism?

    This is what you really get.

       —Silence is Golden    Oct. 4 '06 - 12:45AM    #
  25. Sheesh, sounds like somebody got up on the wrong side of the hipsterhood this morning…

       —Murph.    Oct. 4 '06 - 01:25AM    #
  26. If “Everyone knows about White Privilege”, as Brandon says, then why isn’t that the central point of argument, in this whole MCRI debate?

    Instead, we get all these arguments for admitting the suburban whites, flush with every material resource, Diet Coke pumping through their veins, on precisely the same terms as those whom the white liberals have strangled, robbed, and left for dead.

    Fairness for that Big Boot on your neck?
    Sympathy for the Devil?


    Real fairness means more than the right to vote for the same racist liberals who starved the schools, who sucked every dime out of the cities, and who built the Projects.

    Real fairness means healing the wound which you caused and benefitted from so richly, for so many generations.

    Defeating MCRI is a tiny step in that direction, and as obvious as the nose on your face.

       —White Privilege.    Oct. 4 '06 - 01:55AM    #
  27. How hard was it not to use the word “Divestment”?
    Just curious….

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 4 '06 - 02:01AM    #
  28. To: annarbor1us,

    Fine with me, as soon as the Arbor Update editors give us permission to discuss divestment.

    You know my opinions on racism, both here and in occupied Palestine.

    Let’s wait for that ArborUpdate divestment thread to open up, and we’ll talk about it.

    Meanwhile, I do wonder why no discusion of MCRI is going on.

       —White Privilege.    Oct. 4 '06 - 02:15AM    #
  29. Making your way in the world today
    takes everything you’ve got
    pretending you’re convincing folks
    even when you’re really not

    Wouldn’t you like to get away?
    Sometimes you wanna go

    Where everyone knows you’re Blaine
    and everything you say’s the same
    you wanna go where you can leave
    your message as your name
    You wanna be where everyone
    knows you’re Blaine.

       —js    Oct. 4 '06 - 02:36AM    #
  30. Ok, I just blew beer out of my nose!

    That was priceless….

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 4 '06 - 02:55AM    #
  31. As an “Arbor Update editor”, I give you permission to discuss divestment.

    Go for it. The problem is, nobody else who reads this blog seems interested in discussing it with you. A monologue does not a discussion make. Why not start your own blog that focuses on such things? You’d think someone would just make a blog about such a topic, as there are obviously a few passionate folks who’d like to consider the pros and cons in a witty, reasonable, and realistic manner. ... the urban planning scenesters that frequent these parts seem to to have little interest in the subject, sorry bro. I also wonder why you don’t try to write a letter to the Ann Arbor News, perhaps, or even the New York Times. I wonder why so much time and energy put into complaining that such a low-level media source isn’t covering your key international issue? Why not start your own newspaper, even? Nobody is stopping you from talking about such things. Just because the 25 or so editors and readers of some little local blog in little Washtenaw County, Michigan, U.S.A. aren’t into it much is no reason to get all huffy. Dig?

       —Brandon    Oct. 4 '06 - 03:06AM    #
  32. If he says “yes”, will you go away?

       —John Q.    Oct. 4 '06 - 09:36AM    #
  33. “Opposing MCRI is important.
    That’s what this thread is for”.

    Help me out…
    The thread begins by explaining how some young Republican activist gets his ass kicked by his childhood friend and then blames it on blacks, gays and BAMN. What in the hell does that have to do with Divestment and MCRI? You’ve already hijacked the MCRI thread, why are you bringing it up again on this thread?

    Typical delusional banter….

       —annarbor1us    Oct. 4 '06 - 02:30PM    #
  34. Is it delusional?

    Is it delusional to see clearly, that racism rules U.S. domestic and foreign policy?

    Oppose MCRI.
    Oppose racism, at home and abroad.

       —Oppose MCRI    Oct. 4 '06 - 05:16PM    #
  35. You oppose racism by supporting MCRI. Equal opportunity and justice for everyone!

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 4 '06 - 06:53PM    #
  36. Does that apply to gays and lesbians too?

       —John Q.    Oct. 4 '06 - 07:15PM    #
  37. I hope so. I hope that State Universities would be banned from giving scholarships based solely on the sexual behavior of the applicants. I believe government institutions should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens. I think public schools should be prevented from glorifying homosexual behavior and promoting its practice to children as young as kindergarten age. But since MCRI is narrowly concerned with race and gender, it probably wouldn’t stop the preferences given to homosexuals because they are both male and female. Homosexuality is neither a race nor a gender, it’s a behavioral choice.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 9 '06 - 01:27PM    #
  38. “Homosexuality is neither a race nor a gender, it’s a behavioral choice.”
    I’m sorry, but I’m not going to pull punches with this one.

    This comment is highly offensive, and I suggest that you apologize for making it.

    Sexual orientation is no more a “behavioral choice” than skin color, eye color, personality, etc.
    They are all conditions of being, driven by our genetic makeup.

    Your medical model assessment of sexuality is appropriate for the 1950s, not today (not that it was really appropriate back then either).

       —kena    Oct. 9 '06 - 06:26PM    #
  39. “Homosexuality is neither a race nor a gender, it’s a behavioral choice.”

    So Everybody counts!, how old were you when you chose your sexuality?

       —Juliew    Oct. 9 '06 - 06:43PM    #
  40. Sexual behavior is always a choice, otherwise rape wouldn’t be considered a crime. Same sex attraction does not make a person homosexual. Choosing to have sex with a person of the same sex is the defining moment. I’m offended that you think humans aren’t able to exercise control over sexual urges. Check the medical literature. There is no gene for homosexuality and no legitimate scientific publications that prove such a complex behavioral trait is driven solely by genetic make-up. If sexuality were driven by genetic make-up, how can you account for the tens of thousands of ex-homosexuals? Happily married men and women who are raising their own children!

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 9 '06 - 07:25PM    #
  41. Can you explain the first sentence of your response #43 in more detail, Everybody Counts!?
    It’s bafflingly dim. Do you mean to say it would be a DIFFERENT crime, like assault and battery? Or what?

    And just for the record, I knew Gene for Homosexuality. Nice guy.

       —Nitro    Oct. 9 '06 - 08:02PM    #
  42. Sexual attraction is a complex issue. People don’t choose to be sexually stimulated by one sex or the other – it just happens. But we do choose whether to act on these attractions. I’m married. I might find that I am sexually attracted to someone other than my spouse. But I am capable of ignoring that attraction and not acting on it. Lower animals are driven by instinct alone. Human behaviors are more complex. If humans weren’t able to control their sexual behavior, it would be immoral to consider any sexual behavior criminal. But I am arguing the opposite. I agree that rape is a crime and should be prosecuted.

    I don’t understand some of the previous responses myself. Juliew and Kena – Do either of you believe that homosexuality is a race or gender? Or just something like race or gender? Do you think that MCRI would do away with affirmative action for homosexuals?

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 9 '06 - 08:22PM    #
  43. Everybody counts!:

    You’re absolutely right…sexuality is the result of a complex system. It’s not absolutely determined by genetic makeup. Social influences/controls/norms/etc heavily govern how we act/react/behave in almost every situation, but biological factors form the root or baseline of most of our behavioral experiences. The genetics (not meaning one particular gene) set the overall framework in which the environmental influences operate on an individual.

    However, if you’ve studied complex systems you’ll also know that it’s impossible to determine exactly which factors have the most influence and that it’s not possible to predict the behavior of that system based on analysis of those factors individually.

    But no, I don’t agree with you. I don’t have the direct control over who I am attracted to in the way you imply. I don’t get up and say “I only like Baywatch blondes with big boobs today and Latino males under 80 lbs. tomorrow.” It doesn’t work that way for most people. I can choose not to date either of these groups of people, but that still doesn’t change the fact that my body picks who it likes based a set of biological and environmental factors that are largely beyond my conscious control. I’ll still be attracted to them regardless of whether or not I choose to date them. You’re talking about two separate things. Attraction is not largely defined/controlled at the conscious level.

    I don’t think that you’ve read up on Kinsey-based work on sexuality. Sexuality (for most people) isn’t the duality you implied in your last comment. For most people it’s more fluid than our societal overlords would like us to realize. Most people don’t wake up one morning and like only boys or girls. Most people like both to one degree or another AT THE SAME TIME. People can be more readily attracted to one sex or the other, but it’s often in the context of a more weighted attraction to one sex while maintaining a lesser interest in the other (sometimes very slight). Some people however, are almost perfectly balanced in their weighting between these attractions. The weighting can change over the span of a person’s lifetime (for many people it varies based upon the individual they are currently attracted to). You might be very surprised at what your “happily married ex-homosexuals” might do if placed into another situation with different people…people are very adaptable.

    I’d love to hear the checklist you go through every morning to “determine” your daily behaviors! ;)

       —kena    Oct. 9 '06 - 08:24PM    #
  44. To answer the question from #45:
    Sexual orientation is not a race or gender in the traditional usage of those words, but until society stops treating it as if it were a biological factor on which to base discriminatory actions, we need affirmative action to help ensure that those individuals who are discriminated against are afforded the same life opportunities as the oppressors.

       —kena    Oct. 9 '06 - 08:30PM    #
  45. Everybody counts!:
    Your comments imply that discrimination based on sexual orientation is something that oppressed people can think or wish their way out of by choosing to date someone else.

    Would like to be told that you couldn’t get a job or go to school because of your relationship with your wife (and that the only way you could get said job or school position was to divorce her)? I doubt it…and we have legal/societal protections against that sort of action. Why can’t we have the same protections for people of other sexual orientations?

    I take offense because you’re basing the blame for this situation of discrimination solely on the oppressed individuals.

       —kena    Oct. 9 '06 - 08:40PM    #
  46. I’m also annoyed because my son is in first grade, and he has yet to have the “glorifying homosexual behavior and promoting its practice” kindergarten workshop that Everybody Counts! refers to in #40.

    Whatever happened to No Child Left Behind?

    You know who’d be a good guy to teach that class? Gene for Homosexuaity.

       —Nitro    Oct. 9 '06 - 09:32PM    #
  47. I am very familiar with Kinsey’s research. The man was a closeted homosexual who paid known pedophiles to sexually molest infants and small children and report their findings to him confidentially. His “research” could not be approved under standards that exist today for experimental use of human subjects and his “findings” promoted his political agenda and aren’t given any scientific merit today. The publication of his work should have resulted in his criminal arrest. “Your medical model assessment of sexuality is appropriate for the 1950s, not today (not that it was really appropriate back then either).” -Hung by your own words.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 9 '06 - 09:41PM    #
  48. “So Everybody counts!, how old were you when you chose your sexuality?”

    Still waiting on an answer to this one….

       —John Q.    Oct. 9 '06 - 09:51PM    #
  49. MCRI was not designed to stomp the GLBT communities.

    MCRI WAS designed to stomp Black Americans.

    MCRI was not designed to spare any Black person, due to sexuality, religion, money, or politics.

    MCRI was designed to demoralize all Black people.

    MCRI was designed to empower the white-sheeted, racist thug community of Michigan.

    I hope to see more discussion on that.

       —Back to MCRI    Oct. 9 '06 - 10:04PM    #
  50. John Q –
    On the day I became sexually active. How about you?

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 9 '06 - 10:09PM    #
  51. Everybody counts!:
    Hung by my own words how? Please elaborate…

    Kinsey’s research about childhood came from recollections of experiences from adults. Kind of hard to (allegedly) molest a(n) (alleged) child when he’s 35!

    It’s funny because most of the people who made these allegations (the most poignant of which was published decades after Kinsey’s actual work was released) quickly backed down off of them when publicly confronted by the Kinsey Institute. Lawsuits were threatened against the Institute but were dismissed by the courts.

    “Closeted” Kinsey was not…and he was a bisexual to begin with (if we have to nail him down using divisive terminology).
    He did make some interesting lifestyle decisions that I myself might not have, but we’re not the same person.

    I certainly don’t find the Kinsey research any more “substandard” than the “scientific” anti-homosexual drivel created by neoconservative think tanks, foundations, and universities from today. Findings from most of those sources can be easily predicted when you track down the funding sources.

    Kinsey’s work was perfectly “acceptable” when the findings coincided with the social norms of the existing establishment’s institutions.
    But “heaven help us” (yes I did choose those words for a reason) when he didn’t publish findings which supported the beliefs of those institutions.

    Watch out or you may trip over the rope you’re trying to hang people by…

       —kena    Oct. 9 '06 - 10:12PM    #
  52. Kena,

    He filmed some of the molestations in the attic of his home. Not a recollection – he was the motivating conspirator!

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 9 '06 - 10:48PM    #
  53. Nitro,

    Would hate to have your son left behind. Maybe you could move to this school district next year:

    “Families with children at the Interdistrict Downtown School in Minneapolis are learning firsthand how homosexual activism in public schools seeks to undermine parental authority. The Star Tribune reports that as a part of the “Families All Matter” diversity curriculum at the school, second-grade teacher Peter Sage read to his class Asha’s Mums, a book about a girl with two moms. Gena Bounds, whose 7-year-old daughter Darriell was in the class, said Sage “told [the class] that he’s gay and that he and his partner are adopting a child, and the child will have two dads. Now Darriell thinks the school is telling her she needs to believe that two daddies or two mommies is the same thing as a mom and a dad.” The teacher also implied to the children that those who do not share his views on the family were bigots just like Sage’s racist grandfather. When parents complained to the principal, they were told that their children could not be reassigned, and should consider enrolling their kids in a private school. Unfortunately, this case in Minnesota shows the all-too-common tactic used by homosexual activists to go around parents by indoctrinating children through the public schools.”

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 13 '06 - 04:28PM    #
  54. No, not at all. Not any more than you are telling me the sky is orange?

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 13 '06 - 06:01PM    #
  55. Thanx! I’ll just have to make do with overt gay agenda home-schooling in the meantime, I guess.

       —Nitro    Oct. 13 '06 - 07:08PM    #
  56. Are kindergarten students and 7 year olds a threat to the homosexual population? How are they making schools unsafe thereby requiring teachers to educate them about same-sex behavior? We all want and need safe schools, but lets not confuse children with age inappropriate material that suggest 2 men or 2 women can have children together.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 13 '06 - 08:12PM    #
  57. Everybody Counts:
    Out of curiosity…is your last name Reisman or Dobson…or are you just a devout disciple?

       —kena    Oct. 13 '06 - 09:36PM    #
  58. “Families with children at the Interdistrict Downtown School in Minneapolis are learning firsthand how homosexual activism in public schools seeks to undermine parental authority.”

    Why is it that teaching children anything than what you believe is an effort to “undermine parental authority”? Have you done such a poor job of teaching your children your values that exposing them to any other views will cause their belief structure to crumble? Or are you so unsure of your own values that they can’t stand to be exposed to any contrary views? I’ve never understood why those who act as if they are the most devout are those who are the most fearful of anything that might be seen as challenging those views. If you really believe what you believe, why are you so fearful?

       —John Q.    Oct. 13 '06 - 09:53PM    #
  59. I fear only God. I fear the consequences of my personal sin if I don’t speak up and help others who are being led down the path of destruction to an eternity in hell. It’s not my view vs. yours: it’s your view against God’s revealed truth. I’m not worried about children who have been taught the truth and have a personal relationship with Jesus. I’m worried about those who have never been exposed to the truth or those who might be swayed by the peer pressure and influences of our post-Christian culture. And I’m afraid that I’ve never even heard of Reisman but I am certain that Dr. Dobson has a mansion waiting for him in heaven.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 13 '06 - 11:39PM    #
  60. So it’s your job to raise my kids according to your values?

       —John Q.    Oct. 14 '06 - 12:22AM    #
  61. Nope – it’s my responsibility to keep you from imposing your personal values on everyone else’s kids. They aren’t teaching Christ in the kindergarten – they’re teaching the homosexual agenda.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 14 '06 - 12:43AM    #
  62. Two of my daughter’s public school classmates, starting in kindergarten, have “two mommies”. The parents seem to be doing a good job raising them: both of them are great kids.

       —Larry Kestenbaum    Oct. 14 '06 - 01:05AM    #
  63. Thanks for clarifying Everybody Counts:
    I now have a better understanding of why your comments sounded amazingly consistent with Judith Reisman.

    When trying to understand groups of people who differ from yourself, you may want to rely on other sources of information than Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and other such “impartial think tank” groups (or their mainstream media sounding boards)…

       —kena    Oct. 14 '06 - 01:21AM    #
  64. “I fear the consequences of my personal sin if I don’t speak up and help others who are being led down the path of destruction to an eternity in hell.”

    Everybody counts, you’re obviously an expert on the Bible.

    Can you post the excerpt from the Bible where it is specifically stated that homosexuality is a sin, and that anyone who practices it is going “down the path of destruction to an eternity in Hell”?

    Thanks. I look forward to reading and discussing this passage.

       —todd    Oct. 14 '06 - 01:47AM    #
  65. ”[i]t’s my responsibility to keep you from imposing your personal values on everyone else’s kids”

    Not to be flip but who made you God? Worry about your own kids. When I or anyone else want you to worry about our kids, we’ll let you know. Otherwise, let us worry about how we want our kids raised and the values we want them raised with in this world.

       —John Q.    Oct. 14 '06 - 02:13AM    #
  66. Larry – Don’t believe it. Every child in your daughter’s school has one father and one mother.

    Kena- Maybe I should try to engage pro-homosexual persons on a local blog in a discussion in order to better understand other points of view. Who is Judith Reisman?

    Todd – There are two specific passages in the Bible: Old Testament and New Testament. If you read them I would be happy to discuss them with you. Taking a sentence or two out of context does not suffice.

    John – The moral values being pushed on all children in the public schools are not my personal values and are no longer the moral values shared by the vast majority of parents. Why can’t you share your values with your kids in your home and let all other parents do likewise. Aren’t there enough academic subjects to fill the school day?

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 14 '06 - 05:29AM    #
  67. Oho, so to you, only the biological parents count? It sounds like you know nothing of adoption. The parents who matter for all purposes besides genetics are the ones who raise the child.

       —Larry Kestenbaum    Oct. 14 '06 - 05:49AM    #
  68. well todd, there’s your theological evidence. pretty hard to argue with a citing like that, eh?

       —tim    Oct. 14 '06 - 05:52AM    #
  69. Larry – If Mom divorces her husband in order to find self fulfillment in a lesbian relationship, Dad still has a lifelong relationship with his kid. He may have partial custody and should have visitation rights. He most likely has a financial obligation to support his child until adulthood and has an emotional bond and desire to continue to raise his child in spite of the difficulties resulting from the breakup of his marriage.

    Meanwhile, Mom moves her new sexual partner into the home and tells her child that he/she now has two Moms. Kids are resilliant – in the best case scenario they will still feel loved and wanted by both Mom and Dad and won’t blame themselves for the breakup. The new Mom may also have a positive influence on the kid and may reduce the strain of single-parenting. The child is conflicted and may perceive acceptance of the lesbian lover as betrayal to his/her father. A boy in this environment can easily perceive the emotional bitterness directed toward his Dad as rejection of the male gender role and this can have a detrimental effect on the acceptance of his gender identity. In an ideal situation, both Moms will love the children and do the best they can to look out for the welfare of the children. Kids will form an attachment to the second adult in the home and outsiders will perceive them as great kids whose “parents” are doing a good job of raising them.

    While I’ll admit right now that nearly everyone can relate an anectdotal story to prove the exception to the rule, numerous studies have shown that more than 90% of these homosexual relationships will fail within 5 years. New Mom will move out and sever all ties to the children. Both the emotional conflict preceeding the breakup and the subsequent abandonment of the child will have further detrimental effects on the child proportional to the degree of bonding experienced between the children and the lesbian lover.

    It has been well documented in numerous studies that children in these situations are far more likely to be depressed, substance abusers, drop out of school, become promiscuous, and/or commit suicide.

    In conclusion, I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. The parents who matter are the ones who raise the child and have a lifelong interest and relationship to that child.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 14 '06 - 03:18PM    #
  70. “While I’ll admit right now that nearly everyone can relate an anectdotal story to prove the exception to the rule, numerous studies have shown that more than 90% of these homosexual relationships will fail within 5 years.”

    I won’t question your “numerous studies” or ask you to cite the study, because I know that you don’t have them at hand. I will, however, point out that the heterosexual divorce rate is well over 50%. Does this mean that these people shouldn’t have children? Do you have a percentage in mind when you think of acceptable failure?

    What about those who have children out of wedlock? Fornication is a sin. Why aren’t you working to stop “these people” from keeping their children?

    Or how about the fact that someone born into poverty is much, much more likely to, as you put it, “be depressed, substance abusers, drop out of school, become promiscuous, and/or commit suicide.” Does this mean that the poor shouldn’t be allowed to have children?

    What if a study shows that parents of a certain race or religion, to use an example, heterosexual white mormons, are the most likely parents to stay together and raise “productive” children? Should you, because your religion or race fails to hit the percentages that the Mormons do, be denied the ability to have children?

    Why is it that Bible belt Christians preach exclusion?

    Why, as an example, would you and your group single out homosexuals for your ire because you say that they are sinners and will sin again?

    Why don’t you shut your doors to those who serve in the Armed Forces? Killing is a sin. It’s in the 10 commandments, spelled out, bright as day. They are sinners, and they will sin again. God makes no exceptions for the “thall shall not kill” commandment. So why are teachers allowed to tell their stories in history class in public schools?

    Why are these people, in your mind, allowed to have children when they have sinnned, and will continue to sin? Why aren’t Christian church groups protesting at military recruiting centers, since the military is clearly the path to sin?

    These are serious questions. I appreciate your answers…...and I’m still waiting for your Bible citation.

       —todd    Oct. 14 '06 - 08:00PM    #
  71. I don’t agree – they are not serious questions, and they illustrate why I didn’t want to quote scripture to a person who has never seriously read the Bible and has limited understanding of the Gospel.

    We are all sinners. There is not one person who is not a sinner. Jesus came to save sinners. Christianity is the most inclusive religon that ever existed because it is not dependent on what we do, but on what Christ has already done for us.

    Admit that you are a sinner. Agree with God that the things you have done in your life are not in agreement with God’s plan for you, repent, turn away from your sin, and accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. Resolve to sin no more, yet ask for forgiveness and help from the Holy Spirit when you do fall short of the goal of perfection, which we all do.

    Stop arguing with God – you’ll never win. Accept His mercy. Not only can former homosexuals be saved and gain eternal life, but even the most egregious sinners, rapists, and mass murderers can be saved if they are truely sorry for their actions and ask for forgiveness and turn away from disobedience to God.

    While you quote the commandment, “Thou shall not kill” it is better translated “Thou shall not murder.” Read Aquinas and the principals of Just War. God clearly commanded His people to kill others multiple times in the Old Testament. There again, it is difficult to discuss the concepts in the Bible with a person who has not read the Bible in its entirety.

    Homosexual parents can’t have children. It’s not something “in my mind”, it’s a biological impossibility. Many homosexuals feel that Christians have singled their group out for persecution. I admit some “so called” Christians do, e.g. Rev. Phelps. I feel Christians oppose homosexual activism because gays are proud of their sin and they are organized to change our laws to endorse their type of sin and require others to affirm their belief that it is not harmful. The goal of many homosexual activists is to make the practice of Christianity illegal. As someone who has read the Bible, I just want you to know that God does not agree with your interpretation and you will stand before Him on judgement day. It makes no difference what I think, or what the majority of people think.

    The one phrase in the Old Testament that is repeated a number of times for emphasis, and that impacted me and made me turn away from 25 years as an atheist, is: “And they did what they thought was right in their own eyes.” This phrase typically preceeds a description of the destruction of a people or a nation.

    The Bible is difficult to read from front to back. I started and stopped a number of times. I found Genesis and Exodus interesting to read and then gave up when I got bogged down in Numbers and Leviticus. I suggest you start with a book in the New Testament like John. Read 30 minutes a day for 30 days. Start each day with an open mind and a short prayer, “God, if you exist, reveal yourself to me.” I promise your life will never be the same again. And I will keep you in my prayers.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 15 '06 - 06:21AM    #
  72. ‘God clearly commanded His people to kill others multiple times in the Old Testament. There again, it is difficult to discuss the concepts in the Bible with a person who has not read the Bible in its entirety.’

    The difficulty is yours. Dwell on the Old Testament all you want and you can convince yourself of the most amazing things. The bible has some great things to say however many of the less great things have been used to distort the world over and over again. The god that brought us the bible said this;

    Matt 22:36-40
    “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
    Jesus replied: ”’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
    This is the first and greatest commandment.
    And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
    All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Everybody counts! hang you logic here; Jesus did 2000 years ago! Find a way to bring people together and not tear them apart. He did.

       —abc    Oct. 15 '06 - 08:12AM    #
  73. Don’t argue scripture with him. You clearly just don’t understand it on his rarified level.

    You can totally persecute and/or kill people and simultaneously love them as your neighbor.

    It’s kind of “Tough Love.”

       —Nitro    Oct. 16 '06 - 05:40PM    #
  74. Sure, Jesus brought the people together 2000 years ago. They came together, arrested Him, beat and tortured Him, and hung Him on the cross to die. Those people were as opposed to hearing the truth as many are today.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 17 '06 - 05:28AM    #
  75. “I don’t agree – they are not serious questions, and they illustrate why I didn’t want to quote scripture to a person who has never seriously read the Bible and has limited understanding of the Gospel.”

    Uhhh, yeah.

    Not that I think it matters, but apparently you do, so:

    I graduated from the oldest Jesuit University in America with a BS in Philosophy, and a BA in Lit. You can’t get those degrees without studying both the Bible and Christian philosophy in detail.

    So while you were spending “25 years as an atheist” before going to some weekend Bible camps with a bunch of Ned Flanders wannabes with program titles like “How to Be More Judgemental” and “We’re More Worried About Them Gays Than We are Feeding the Poor”, I was studying the Bible and authors like Heidegger under the tutelage of some of the most respected Christian scholars in the World.

    But more to my line of thinking: when someone outside of your church asks a question about the Bible, do representatives of your church ask for their curriculum vitae? I mean, seriously: what’s with the pompous, five-year-old “I know something you don’t know” crap?

    And hey, if you want to talk about that hack Aquinas and the Summa Theologica with its logic holes that you could drive a truck through, fire away. Why not just read Augustine, particularly on the subject of war, and cut out the middle man?

    But back to my question about killing. You cannot change the words in the Bible to suit your needs, and then turn to the rest of us and say “see, God said so.”

    The Bible doesn’t work like that…not if you want to claim that it is the word of God. When you manipulate the Hebrew words to “suit the times”, you have changed the words of God. You’d think that someone as devout as you would recognize that you are therefore representing your words as God’s words. That’s a no-no.

    BTW, the Hebrew word “ratsach” has never meant anything other than “kill”. It is used in the Bible to describe many types of killing, including accidental killing. The NSRV translation was changed to the more narrow word “murder” to suit politics, not God.

    Do your homework before passing out condescension.

       —todd    Oct. 17 '06 - 06:29AM    #
  76. Todd Leopold rocks!!!

       —Dale    Oct. 17 '06 - 08:12AM    #
  77. Yeah, you know, I probably shouldn’t have made the Flanders comment, but since it was a cartoon reference, it can’t be that offensive.

    If it was, my apologies. I was reacting to some pretty smug comments.

       —todd    Oct. 17 '06 - 09:38AM    #
  78. Thank you, Todd.

       —Young OWSider    Oct. 17 '06 - 03:28PM    #
  79. Oh Learned Scholar, mea culpa. Since you have been so studious, perhaps you can give me the scripture reference that provides an exception to fornication and sodomy for homosexuals.

    And if the 10 commandments prohibit killing of all kind, how do the Jesuit scholars explain the existence of cities of refuge?

    Where is the reference that says feeding the poor pays for the sins of sexual immorality?

    Do the Jesuits think Aquinas is a hack, or is that you personal belief? Go ahead, drive the truck through for us less enlightened.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 17 '06 - 04:52PM    #
  80. Everybody counts (that knows the bible in its entirety – but is that enough?)

    My point is that the bible is filled with conflicting views of things and the scholars, who try to sort out the conflicts if that is even possible, will be discussing them for the coming millennia. In it you can find broad sweeping notions of peace, and reaching out to people, and helping the needy and sick; as you can find passages espousing hatred and violence toward people who are themselves not violent. A little something for everyone? … Just because god was trying to be inclusive?

    Naw, the book was written by men; men who were imperfect and who, at times, had agendas based on their culture, their time, their struggles, their biases. Fallible men who wrote “God fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever” This passage provided the basis for Galileo to be persecuted by the church and not forgiven for the next 359 years; after men walked on the moon!

    But that’s OK because my god gave me a conscience, and I use it everyday, to make sure that I filter all that I read and hear regardless of the source. My conscience protects me from people who try to argue that it is alright to hate or kill and pore over the bible trying to find references to justify their agenda; people bent on exclusion hiding behind monikers of inclusion.

       —abc    Oct. 17 '06 - 06:23PM    #
  81. 1. From my readings of and on the Bible, it doesn’t say anything against or for homosexuals. It speaks directly against prostitutes and rapists (like in Sodom and Gommorah), and it speaks against sexual activity (fornication) in general when not directly involved in procreation (like heterosexually outside of marriage or during a menstrual cycle, for instance.) But consensual relations between same-sex people doesn’t seem to have been an issue that warranted comment beyond that. Your eight-track tapes on the Bible will probably not confirm this.

    2. You’re right, the Ten Commandments are just real vague guidelines, and you if you covet your neighbor’s ass or whatever, it’s entirely all right to justify taking it at your convenience.

    3. I’d answer that question and the others too, but I have to assist with some deliveries of food to disadvantaged people. On that note, does anyone have the exact ratio of payoff for food-based charity points against my sexual immorality tab?

       —Nitro    Oct. 17 '06 - 06:54PM    #
  82. An irreverent short film (titled ‘In God we Trust’) about using points-based accounting for determination if people are eligible for heaven was posted to AtomFilms awhile ago.

    You can find it here

    It’s a little over 15 minutes long, but it’s pretty funny.

       —kena    Oct. 17 '06 - 09:20PM    #
  83. 1. Leviticus 18:22

    “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:21-23 2. Leviticus 20:13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. Leviticus 20:12-14 3. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 4. 1 Timothy 1:10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching 1 Timothy 1:9-11
       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 17 '06 - 09:25PM    #
  84. Well, for instance, I’m not convinced that’s a good translation of the intent in Leviticus when they said “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.” And in Corinthians, the word “Malakoi” does not clearly translate to “homosexuality” per se. The stuff in Timothy may be a reference to male prostitutes and/or their customers, depending on translation. That, and everything else in the book are subject to interpretation, and mistranslations of convenience on both sides.

       —Nitro    Oct. 18 '06 - 12:04AM    #
  85. Who cares what Scripture says or how many linguists favor this interpretation or that? The Bible has no more authority in matters of public policy than the Boy Scout manual or Emily Post. They’re all pretty good ways to live your life, but not enforceable over anyone else. The Constitution (and derivative legislation) is the only set of rules we’ve voted onto ourselves.

    Laws derive from a communal morality hashed out in the political process. This is easy when there is consensus (e.g., theft is bad, murder is wrong) but can be very divisive when peoples’ value systems differ (e.g., homosexuality, abortion).

    No one seems content with “live and let live” anymore. Public schools shouldn’t be the battleground for an agenda, whether that’s “gay is OK” or “homo is a no-no”. Both sides are guilty there.

       —mcammer    Oct. 18 '06 - 04:31AM    #
  86. “Oh Learned Scholar, mea culpa. Since you have been so studious, perhaps you can give me the scripture reference that provides an exception to fornication and sodomy for homosexuals.”

    To your questions:

    1. The word “homosexual” doesn’t appear in the Bible, unless you’re using the “Spongebob Squarepants New Edition Bible”. I’m kidding, I’m kidding. A little levity. Try smiling. Yeah, I know: that’s from the ESV Bible.

    There’s nothing wrong with using a given translation of the Bible, if you are using the Book for personal guidance.

    The problem is, you’re trying to use the Bible as a sword….using the Bible to condemn the earthly actions of others. You can’t do that. It’s specifically blasphemy. You are representing the words of a lowly man for the words of God. Big, big no-no. Much worse than any of the sins you are casting on others. If you’ve read Aquinas, as you say, you know that he felt that heresy pretty much the biggest sin of all. You and your ESV readin’ friends would have been burnt nice and crispy because of your views and mistranslations of the words of God. Which is why your mention of Aquinas is, well, ironic.

    So, in short, there isn’t a “scripture reference that provides an exception to fornication and sodomy for homosexuals.” Why? Because the Bible doesn’t make reference to homosexuals at all. The guy down the road who penned the ESV did, and that doesn’t count. We’re not discussing horseshoes or handgrenades. We’re discussing the word of God in the context of condemning sin. The words matter.

    2. More to my personal point, let’s assume that you’re right, and there aren’t any contradictions to the sin of fornication. The obvious question to you and your group is: why aren’t you fighting to deprive other “perpetual sinners”, such as fornicators, of the right to marry, have kids, and have some representation in public schools.

    There’s plenty of “perpetual sinners” who are proud of their sin (as you put it) to direct your ire at: Muslims, Buddhists, Gluttonous fat guys, Soldiers (killing is a sin, despite what your ESV states). So I ask you: why not focus on making it so the Muslim who lives down the road can’t have children? They are heretics, right? Why do they get a free pass? I would really, really like an answer to this fundamental question.

    My personal belief is that homosexuals have next to no political power in America, and that’s why they are singled out. They are an easy target. Your group chooses to bully them because you can, and no one is going to stop you. It’s really that simple.

    I really, really hate bullies.

    However, all of this is Sound and Fury because, in the end, man is in no position to condemn their fellow man. This lesson has NEVER been learned by this weird new group of American Christians. This group seems to think that their function in the world is to judge the rest of us, and then monkey around with US laws based on their wholly faulty, and frankly heretical, fudged translation of the Bible.

    It really comes down to a childishly simple question: who judges who has sinned, and who has not? If you look into your understanding of God and the Bible, and come up with “Jerry Falwell with the ESV in his hand”, or “me”, then we have nothing to discuss here.

    If, however, your answer is “well, God judges sin,” then we have some common ground, and the next question I ask is “well then why do you think that it is your place to keep homosexuals from the rights of marriage or children when you are in no position to judge whether or not they have sinned?

    The frankly meglomanical claim that any man is in charge of deciding who is a sinner and who isn’t was discussed, at length, in the Book of Job.

    Lets briefly examine the Book of Job using the citation that you mentioned as something ” that impacted me and made me turn away from 25 years as an atheist, is: “And they did what they thought was right in their own eyes.” This phrase typically preceeds a description of the destruction of a people or a nation.”

    The purpose to the Book of Job, and to the entire Old Testament, frankly, is to get man to understand that God’s in charge. We may find things in life, as well as in the Bible, that are oxymorons, or contradictory, or complicated. But we, as mankind, can never, ever read the mind of God. Not only do we not have the power, it is not our place. These new Christians seem to have completely skipped over the Book of Job. Your neighbors are free to choose any path that they like, and spiritually speaking, they don’t have to answer to you, the Bible, or anything that God has done in the past. They only have to answer to God, and only when God decides that it is time for such questions.

    So when you try to find unassailable logic or black and white answers in the (updated and incorrect translation of the) Bible, as you did with your assertion, that “This phrase typically preceeds a description of the destruction of a people or a nation,” you are making the same mistake that Job did. When Job tried to find the logic behind what was happening to his own “people or nation”, God replied in the manner that I don’t really need to bother to quote here. You know what God’s reply was.

    It’s not man’s place to judge these things. It never has been. Those that do are taking the place of God, and not only is that hubris of Biblical proportion, it’s downright annoying to your neighbors.

    And actually, I’d like to quote from the film “Rudy”. Yep, the one about the Notre Dame walk-on football player. At one point, Rudy is confused about his lot in life, and asks an older Catholic priest about his situation.

    The priest responded “Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I’m not Him.”

    Pretty good summation of why man is in no position to judge others: we don’t don’t know what the hell we are talking about.

    For those who watched Little House on the Prairie as a kid, I’ve always wondered what happened to America that’s given us so many Christians that are more like Mrs. Oleson than Mrs. Ingalls. Yeah, they both went to church on Sunday, but man, what a difference that judgemental sneer makes…..

    Oh, and p.s.: I never said I was a scholar. You’re the one who asserted that I’ve never read the Bible, not the other way around. Some of the best spiritual discussions I’ve ever had have been with 5-year-olds who haven’t even seen the inside of a classroom. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about….but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t talk to me.

    And I apologized for the Flanders comment, and I apologize here once again: I’m sorry.

       —todd    Oct. 18 '06 - 07:29AM    #
  87. god hates shrimp!

       —peter honeyman    Oct. 18 '06 - 03:01PM    #
  88. It’s the NLT translation. God never spoke in King James English either. If you read what I said, I never condemned anyone, I offered hope for salvation. I said it doesn’t matter what I think or what the majority thinks – God is the judge.

    Take another look at Job. It starts and ends with the fact that God considered him righteous. He asked questions of God and didn’t get the answers that he hoped for, but God responded to him personally none the less.

    I don’t find anything in the Bible that is contradictory. Some isolated phrases may seem to be contradictory at first glance, but further study will show that the correct interpretation is consistant with the entire Bible.

    It is the Word of God. It contains something like 500 or more predictions of future events, and not a single one has been proven false. Archeological digs today continue to unearth artifacts that substantiate the historical facts contained in the Bible.

    I have lots of opportunities to share the gospel with Muslims everyday. We discuss the moral values and scripture that our two faiths have in common and we point out where the faiths diverge. God wants all Muslims to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ as well. How can they know if no one tells them?

    I served in the Armed Forces for three years. The chaplains did consider everyone in the military to be sinners. As I stated previously, we are all sinners. But Jesus also said, My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. (That’s from NIV, FYI)

    I am grateful for the soldiers who have died to preserve the freedoms that I enjoy today. And I am grateful for the soldiers who survived and won the battles. No, it is not a sin to fight to protect against aggressors.

    There is no need to apologize to me that you have a different opinion. I thought your comment about Ned Flanders got your point across and was funny. Do you realize that Ned is perhaps the most positive portrayal of a Christian in any regularly scheduled TV show? He’s the butt of a lot of jokes, but at least he’s not portrayed as a psycho who kills abortion doctors or blows up buildings.

    My church doesn’t have Bible study camps as you described. It does have classes to help people who are struggling with a lot of different sins. There are support groups of ex-homosexuals who encourage each other, groups of people who were addicted to porn, groups of people who have been raped or subject to other kinds of sexual violence, groups of people who were addicted to drugs or alcohol. We don’t blame sinners. We strive to come along side them and support them and offer them love and friendship. But it is not a place where people can argue that their particular type of sin is O.K.

    I believe in the idea of “live and let live”. But ignoring the plight of persons who think they will have eternal life when their actions may result in spiritual death, is more akin to “live and let die.” And not mentioning that to someone who may not be aware is, in my humble opinion, morally wrong.

       —Everybody counts!    Oct. 18 '06 - 05:37PM    #
  89. Right. What you said in the last paragraph. So keep lookin’ in the mirror, mostly.

    That’s great stuff in #91, Todd.

       —Nitro    Oct. 18 '06 - 07:48PM    #
  90. Wow, Can’t believe I missed this particular boat.

    As the female partner of a man whose ex-wife is now in a commited relationship with a woman and as the (likely) future stepmother of their two young boys, I am very curious about these “numerous” studies of homosexual relationships you have cited, both their brevity as compared with heterosexual relationships, and their negative impact on boys’ gender identity, Everybody Counts. So, if you could please post the references for at least 100 peer-reviewed studies on each of those topics, published in reputable journals, I’d appreciate it. I was unaware that anti-gay studies had been raised to a legitimate academic subdiscipline.

       —Anna    Oct. 30 '06 - 04:58AM    #