By Dan Merica, CNN
(CNN) – It may not sound very powerful, but gay rights activist Debra Peevey said that a two-inch green button played a major role in convincing voters to legalize gay marriage this month in her home state of Washington.
“Another Person of Faith Approves R. 74,” said the button, which refers to the ballot initiative that wound up legalizing gay marriage in Washington.
As faith director for the statewide pro-gay marriage campaign, Washington United for Marriage, Peevey and her team distributed 5,000 of the buttons. They were conversation starters, she said, ways of letting people know they could relate to one another on the intimate level of religion. And that being religious didn’t meant you had to oppose gay marriage.
“We had people clamoring for the buttons,” Peevey said. “People of faith all over the state wore them. It amplified that perspective that people of faith do, in fact, support marriage equality.”
This year, voters in Washington State were joined by those in Maryland, Maine and Minnesota in handing big victories to the gay rights movement. In the first three states, voters legalized gay marriage. In Minnesota, they rejected a measure that would have banned same-sex marriage.
After watching dozens of states adopt gay marriage bans in recent years, gay rights activists hope this month’s victories mark a national turning point. And to help push other states to follow suit, they are holding up efforts like Peevey’s as a blueprint for how to successfully incorporate faith into future gay rights campaigns.
Some same-sex marriage proponents think their fight may move to Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Oregon or some combination of those states. Wherever the effort goes, gay rights activists say, faith will be a part of the mix.
“Faith became part of the solution and not just the problem in all four states” where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, said Sharon Groves, director of the religion and faith program at the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. “We will never do a campaign moving forward where engaging people of faith will not be central part of that work.”
‘Be who you are, not something you are not’
For Grant Stevensen, a Lutheran pastor in St. Paul, Minnesota, and the faith director for the campaign opposing a gay marriage ban in the state, engaging faith communities depended on framing the debate the right way.
In past gay rights ballot fights, Stevensen said, the same-sex marriage movement put “a big emphasis on civil rights language and connection to the civil rights movement.” But the messaging didn’t work, he said, with many people rejecting the idea of a link between civil rights for minorities and marriage rights for gays.
Instead, Stevensen and his team used words like “love,” “marriage” and “commitment,” in their messaging about opposing a gay marriage ban, words that he said strike at the heart of Christian beliefs about marriage. “Our goal for the whole campaign was to emphasize those themes and talk specifically about gay people,” he said, “as opposed to making this another civil rights movement.”
Similar campaigns in other states took different approaches.
For instance in Maryland, gay rights activists emphasized outreach to African-American churches and played up civil rights arguments.
In Maine and Washington State, enormous effort went into mobilizing lay Catholics, even if their hierarchy actively opposed the gay marriage campaigns. Stevensen’s Minnesota campaign, meanwhile, targeted the state’s many Lutherans.
“Be who you are, not something you are not,” the pastor said, encouraging other gay rights activists to combat the stereotype that all Christians “are opposed to gay people.”
The right conversation
In past ballot fights, which resulted in gay marriage bans in more than 30 states, forces opposed to same-sex marriage had dominated the faith conversation.
A faithful same-sex marriage supporter was seen as an outlier.
When Ross Murray, director of religion, faith and values at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), was asked by his bosses to be one of the lead liaisons between the four state-based gay campaigns and the national gay rights organization, he knew more emphasis than ever was going to be put on religion.
Murray advised the campaigns to ask “people to vote the value that they have been taught” and “make sure that you can reach within all religious groups and get those who have passion and have them reach their friends, neighbors and co-congregants.”
That’s what Stevens tried to do in Minnesota: “We were going to either own this conversation about faith and if we can’t own it, no one is going to own it.”
Stevensen and his eight-person faith staff trained 2,500 "conversationalists," religious people who were taught how to have conversations about gay marriage with other people of faith. They were instructed to discuss same-sex marriage in terms of their religious beliefs. The campaign offered similar training sessions to more than 500 clergy.
The two-hour-long training sessions also focused on people telling their own faith stories. If someone had once been opposed to same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs, they were encouraged to talk about that, too.
More than anything, said Stevensen, the conversationalists were encouraged to listen.
“People have their reasons to think what they do. [We taught how to] draw people out and make sure they are heard,” he said. “All of us like to be listened to.”
The Human Rights Campaign’s Groves said she was impressed by the lengths these campaigns went to reach deep into faith communities. As a veteran of the same-sex marriage fight, Graves was there when the movement struggled with this sort of outreach.
“It makes sense that we would have made some mistakes around that,” Groves said. “LGBT people have been harmed by the church.”
Perhaps the biggest mistake was around the gay marriage ban in California, known as Proposition 8.
Prop 8 mistakes
Debra Peevey was faith-based field organizer in Southern California during the fight against the Proposition 8 ballot initiative in 2008.
One reason she and her fellow gay rights activists lost that campaign was the way the religious conversation played out. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, along with the Roman Catholic Church actively campaigned for Prop 8. That framed the fight as one between secularists and believers.
“There was a resistance in engaging faith community,” Groves said. “We kind of let the religious right define the space for us and that was a real learning that we got from that.”
While religious organizations were pouring in money and manpower, said GLAAD’s Murray, anti-Prop. 8 opponents were apprehensive in reaching out to religious allies and ineffective at building enthusiasm from sympathetic religious communities and leaders.
Both Murray and Groves describe the post-Prop 8 reflection period as a “turning point” for the gay-rights community that gave rise to this year’s intense faith-based organizing.
Now, Peevey said, there’s no going back: “I can’t imagine that we will ever have a LGBT campaign where faith was not a part of the team.”
At pro-same-sex marriage organizations like GLAAD, Murray said conversations are turning to where the next gay marriage fights will happen.
“It is really hard to tell where this is going to come up again,” said Murray, adding that the next attempts to block or legalize gay marriage may happen legislatively in some states, as opposed to via ballot initiative.
He said gay rights groups want to tap into the Lutheran networks in Colorado, Illinois and Oregon early, to ensure that their LGBT outreach is well established by the time any ballot initiative or legislative efforts formally get under way.
By the time that happens, the gay rights community has learned, it may already be too late to frame the faith conversation around gay marriage.
I have idea
state gets out of marriage business. any two people (for now, maybe extended to N people later) can get a 'kit' and get domestic partner-ship. breaking up of par-tnership is same as divorce.
call the partnership anything like 'partnering' or
leave mar-riage to the chur-ch
g-ay partner-ship = state approved partnership
different s3x relationship's marriage = state approved partnership + chu-rch approved partnership
Idiot. Marriage performed in a church means nothing legally. How stupid are you?
im trying to prove my marriage is better than these kind of deviancies.
Deviancies? Cool word, tea-tea. What does it mean?
teavangelist: what makes you think your marriage IS better?
i got no problem with government getting out of the marriage business. but, if they are in, they cannot discriminate against gays.
the churches can "bless" whichever union they want
that being said, some will perform marriage ceremonies for gays
You said, "I have idea"
I seriously doubt it was original.
Marriage predates all currently dominant religions. The religious don't own the term. You don't get to claim it for your little cult.
If the believers don't want to participate in civil marriages, that's fine. They can form their own religious unions. Civil marriage should be open to all consenting adults.
As far as I'm concerned, churches can set up their own rules for who can enter into their form of religious union. They are free to keep calling it "marriage", as long as it is understood that they don't have exclusive use of the term.
The only involvement that the government has to have is in their role as protector of those that can't protect themselves. Restrictions on the religious unions should include minors, animals and mentally handicapped people, as they can't provide informed consent. Close relatives should be excluded because of the high medical risks associated with such relationships. But, as long as the relationship isn't abusive, and all concerned enter into it of their own free will, even polygamy should be allowed.
The government need not care if these religious unions are restricted to opposite sex couples, or same race couples, or even if they allow people to join their mail box, or other inanimate objects, in holy matrimony.
If the union meets the requirements under the law, they can be eligible for recognition as a civil marriage. That should be the only way these unions are eligible for the rights and protections provided to civil marriages.
marriage is a legal device, not a religious one.
get married in a church by a priest but without a gov't issued marriage license = not legally married
get married in a courthouse without church approval but with a gov't issued marriage license = legally married
you can add ritual and ceremony to a marriage, but it's not necessary. marriage is a legally binding contract between two people. religion, get out of other people's lives.
Great idea, Boots. Tell that to the brute beasts from da gubmint that represent you. It's none of your business.
It's none of theirs either.
Reblogged this on Our Voices and commented:
After gay marriage successes, activists look to build on new faith outreach techniques
Akira, I saw your take on your gay neighbors. Amen sister.
I am straight as you know, but I have been in show biz most of my life. No gays? Then no TV, no movies, no theater, no fashion, etc. etc. Get a clud homophobes, lol.
Well, my neighbors are cool, and they deserve the right to marry...I am no more interested in their domestic life than I am with any other of my neighbors. That's their biz.
Okay, my interest is piqued; what kind of show biz?
Apple, re: Roger Taylor:
Yeah, he looked pretty great as a chick, didn't he?
John Deacon looked like Graham Chapman's Mrs. Pepperpot, sitting on that couch...
Another thing I notices was some bulge inequality going on there.
I can see you guys cracking up hysterically while on the road...
RIP Graham Chapman.
Oh without a doubt. My kids are way cool. lol
It is interesting to see people reminiscing on lost love. Here is a wrinkle: how many of you have fallen in love in your dreams? I can recall three times I have fallen head over heels in love in my dream world and woken up on utter despair...
Only three times? Wow, you're lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view!). It's when these dreams stop that you have to worry.
Athy, yeah you are most likley correct. I just remember the three. The dismay when I woke up that it was all a dream.
Yeah, dreams are very elusive. They're very vivid as you wake up, but they seem to evaporate in just a few minutes while your longer-term memory wakes up. But I've discovered that if you continue to think about them during that wake-up period, their memory will stay with you much longer. It's a matter of letting the rest of your brain wake and go into action.
I have fallen in love in my dreams, but when I woke up, I wasn't in despair; it was more like "aw, that was a dream? Oh well".
I have *epic* dreams. And I mean epic.
They're always interesting, even if they don't make sense in my waking life, thaley make *total* sense in my dream...
Apple, they must have been potent dreams to make you feel such despair when you woke up...
Are either of you able to have lucid dreams? Do you know how?
I have them occasionally, but damned if I know how to make it happen! I once had a friend tell me that eating pizza made him have lucid, exciting dreams! All it does for me is give me gas. I don't think there is any magic formula, at least not for me, it just happens. But it's certainly exciting when it does!
But these lucid dreams seem to occur less frequently as I get older. Of course, a lot of other things are becoming less frequent as well! On the other hand, some other things are becoming more frequent, if you get my drift!
I am unsure exactly what you mean by lucid dreams, Apple.
Usually, but not always, I know when I am dreaming; if I don't like the direction my dream is going, I can switch the channel, as it were, to make it go in the direction I want it to go.
I can incorporate outside happenings into my dreams; for example, if the radio starts playing, it'll be in my dream, also, as me seeing that band...if I like the dream I'm having, and I start to wake up, I can tell myself "no, I want to continue" and keep on dreaming the same dream.
If I want to wake up from a dream, I'll just tell myself, wake up, and I do.
I can't will what I dream about, either, (wouldn't that be awesome??) but it seems I do have some control over the direction it takes once I'm asleep.
Is that what you mean?
I'm too lazy to look it up, lol.
Akira, yes! I can occasionally do the same thing! I sort of have control over the dream when I'm kinda half awake. It's sort of a tricky "zone" of half conciousness where almost any outside disturbance (chiming grandfather clock or my wife rolling over) can ruin it. It's sort of like "scud running" as we pilots say, where you're cruising along just above the clouds, occasionally boring through their tops. Man, is that fun or what!
Yes... what you are describing would be considered to be...*lucid dreaming.*
Athy and realpeace:
I have a blast in my dreams, I really do.
My daughter and I were talking about dreams, and the following scenario came up: what if our dreams were our real reality, and our waking moments were our actual dreams?
In that case, a) boy, am I living an adventurous life, and b) that control aspect of lucid dreaming would come in quite handy, lol...
Athy, what a cool thing: a pilot? Awesome!
Not any longer. It lost its allure and I probably couldn't pass my physical anyway. But it was fun for a long time. Many adventures to Mexico and various parts of the US. I'd still like to try helicopters someday. Maybe a few hours of dual just to get the feel. Suckers are damned expensive, though.
The Walter Mitty types have been shown the path for aviation science. It's quite cheap, too.
Just use a lawn chair, some weather balloons, a BB gun, a loaf of bread, and a sixer of malt liquor. It shows love of flight.
The religious' favorite and most played "card" is:
"I am offended and I am hurt by you(r) (words)."
"I am being attacked."
–Recognize this fact: there is no way, we, the atheists, can say this phrase to YOU nicely.
–>"You've wasted your life on a delusion."
What exactly is a waste?
Your faith. Your god.
Here jarhead ..something for you to question yourself on..
1) Name one thing in existence that was always there.
2) Now explain it to yourself where this en-t-i-t-y was before the universe came into existence.
3) Where is this e-n-t-i-t-y now?
4) Where does time exist and where does it not?
That is funny. I could ask the same thing to you, and yet you will not have a ligitimate answer. No proof, just theories. Same as me.
I will give it a try.
2) No mind can fathom anything eternal. Either God always was, or (as you claim) the universe always was. You still can't tell me what was before the universe.
3) God is all around. He interacts with creation and those who choose to interact with him.
4) Time exists during my lifetime, and it does not exist when I am dead.
There you go. Your turn.
Oh really? Let me answer my own question then. XD
1) Name one thing in existence that was always there.
–Mine: there is nothing that was always there.
–You: you will note "god"
2) Now explain it to yourself where this en-t-i-t-y was before the universe came into existence.
–Mine: as per #1, this thing does not exist
–You: this 'god' – your being – you don't know
3) Where is this e-n-t-i-t-y now?
–Mine: does not exist
–You: would say "in his kingdom" – your heaven. You'll go there when you die.
4) Where does time exist and where does it not?
–Mine: time exists in every dimension/universe even in your god's dimension because god can not be outside of any time.
–You: would say that time is not a binding to god.
Now ask why #4 is so logical.. XD
Here is the logic on #4..
Imagine a box of matches.. without the matches.
S-t-r-i-p all the sides of it's covering. Place a grain of sand in there. Float the empty match box in your imagination. Whether you would like to a-s-s-u-m-e time is invisible or not.. does not matter. That grain of sand or your god in it ..continues from a mere moment to the next towards eternity.
Jarhead is free to have his fantasy. You (and I, btw) consider it nonsense and perhaps a waste, but it seems to make him feel good. What I do bristle at is the self-righteousness and insistence that *everyone* *should* believe and follow those fantasies (or else).
You do not have one single shred of verified evidence for your idea of a future post-death kingdom, or any other-dimensional scenario - past, present or future. Not. One. Single. Shred.
I know. I already know this line by the religious people.
"God is all around. He interacts with creation and those who choose to interact with him."
A constant 'claim'. "He interacts" - never mind all the others.. this is the main highlight. It equates this in my mind.. to this sentence.
–>"He interacts with ME.." <<– "I am special". Another claim.
All religious people have this need for that special feeling. It is the one driving force. To oneself to consider that they are looked after by their god. Special.
Funny how you attempted to answer my own questions, clever. And if there was nothing, and now there is something, doesn't that defy the most BASIC of scientific laws? Even you can't keep science straight, nor does it sound like you have even one actual theory on how life began.
You are correct. I do not have One. Single. Shred of evidence. And to be honest, you do not have one either. The truth is that neither of us have exact proof of life, or afterlife. I do not have an agenda to promote Christianity on this board, only to promote open discussion about topics. While you all claim that Christians are so closed minded to science, it is obvious that you are just as closed minded to intelligent design. And spare me all the reasons that I cannot prove my case, and we can just agree that neither side has exact proof. That is my point. I just like the discussion on the matter.
Just because I don't understand the whole big bang does not mean the validity of the event. A drop of water in a pool creates the ripples that expand out. You can measure the motion of the universe in the expansion and trace it back to beginning. I accept that. Can you?
Nope. You have just the word "faith". You trust a book. I have confidence in other men who have written numerous other books with evidence supporting the theories. That is the difference.
You'll want to counter with some evidence that your "book" provides the same. So go ahead.
" it is obvious that you are just as closed minded to intelligent design. And spare me all the reasons that I cannot prove my case "
Dover Case. Look it up. You so called "openminded" person.
I-D-i-o-t-s. ID iots!
What is it that you have against intelligent design? Its funny though, because even Charles Dawkins does not like touching that subject. Many atheists love to dance around the discussion about how life came from nothing. Yet the second that intelligent design comes up, which is a valid topic, every one goes on the offensive instead of supporting opinions.
One cannot be a Christian unless you buy that an ancient angry deity required his son to die, so he could feel better.
If Something can not come from Nothing, from where did your deity come from? If all things need a creator, what created your deity? It's a bit silly to say that matter can't have come from nowhere and then turn around and basically say 'hey, my deity came from nowhere'.
Why don't you go search Youtube and hear Dawkins talk about it.
"How the Universe came from "Nothing", Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss" discuss about "nothing".
And you being an ID iot.. is a creationist spin. Keep on lying to the uneducated that it isn't. Do your best to lie to everybody.
One day you may convince a judge on it. The Discover Ins-t-i-t-ute that you probably work for would appreciate your e-f-f-ort. Ask them to pay you if they do.
Well YOU'RE saying a "living" god came from nothing. Actually god is not "sentient" or "alive" as they both require space-time, a priori.
Your kind and all those apologists just love to plug that your ID stuff is a valid discussion. Oh yes you do.
And in this world your kind are not in the process to follow the scientific community of peer reviews. Oh no.. your kind wants to go to the media. Your kind wants the GENERAL POPULACE to have a say on what SHOULD be included into science.
That is your "logic". Sorry but science has no use for the general populace input. Science is not for the general populace participation. Science is not the general populace's emotional tool. Science is the generating of knowledge. That is what it is. It has strict processes to self govern it's research.
Really, because Dawkins hates the subject. I saw him questioned about ID, and he stuttered. He only wants to deal with life after it has been created.
As far as something comming from nothing, I thought that was scientific law. It is funny how you only want to use it for your agenda. God or not, how was there nothing, then something?
Oh so "he stutters" and you have your answer that he is wrong?
Explain your reasoning on Dawkins? Are you afraid to be debunked on religious dogma because Dawkins is so adamant against your stupidity?
Sorry, I didn't know you didn't know what you believed in. ID believers will have you believe that everything came from a deity, that you can't get something from nothing which is what they accuse those who subscibe to the BBT of doing. So my questions still stand, unanswered.
I'm starting to question how much you 'looked into both sides' when you say something from nothing is a law.
Oh he stuttered? Well obviously you can't believe anything he says because he stutters. Really? This is your argument?
He changed his story. Dawkins wants nothing to do with how life began. Have you read or researched Dawkins? He only wants evolution after the life has begun.
Who's Charles Dawkins?
The more you write – jarhead .. the more you incriminate yourself. XD
You're an ID. That is always so telling. An ID person doesn't abide by the law. No judge saying "that ID is not science" will deter you right?
–>jarhead being his namessake.
Paron me, Richard Dawkins. Just the same, he wants nothing to do with how life began. Yet many of you want to live without the question of how or why. Claim Christians follow blindly, and I can also say the same about atheists.
Oh, I'm all for learning and I'll be tickled all sorts of colors if a definitive answer is reached. 'My deity did it' is not definitive, it is a wish.
Do you still go on about that line?
"Atheists follow blindly." << you know how wrong you are? You know what we base our world on?
Evidence. We have conclusions that we a-c-c-e-p-t. We a-s-s-e-r-t the confidences that we have discovered and e-m-p-l-o-y them to live. Like, we make cars – we understand the c-o-m-b-u-s-t-i-o-n engine and can r-e-p-l-i-c-a-t-e it.
You have faith – it is blind. Let me hear you explain again who is blind. Your preacher and his preacher before him have you s-p-o-o-n fed to repeat this. LOL
Let me hear it again.. go on. XD
So how did life begin? I keep asking this question, yet nobody wants to have an opinion. I find that funny, because I have an opinion, and I am the crazy one,
But the problem, jarhead, is that you believe in two consecutive miracles to explain life. First, a creator was formed (an event you fail to adequately explain), and then this creator somehow "manufactured" life (again, not explained). Why hang your hat on two miracles when one will do the job? Admittedly, we atheists don't yet have the answer to how life started, but a single-stage miracle is far more plausible than two in a row. Common sense should win, don't you think?
Here is my opinion ...
I was conceived (born) from my mother and my father's s-e-x-u-a-l act. And before that they were born from their parents.. recursive process. Going back is the whole evolutionary process. To that very end are the i-n-t-e-r-a-c-t-i-o-n-s of non-living base chemicals that form the first genes and then the genes came together. From non-living materials to life itself.
You = human kind was created. Rubbish.
jarhead, unless you can povde independent evidence to support your statements about Richard Dawkins you are a liar. Please provide references or admit that you are a lar.
I wasn't there to see life begin, so I am fine with saying that I don't really know. If you truly want an opinion then I can say that fairly random events developed into patterns which allowed for the formation of life. I do not understand how the very first living thing came to be, but I can understand the process of evolution from there.
I have never tried to explain the origin of God, so it is not a "miracle." Also, if one believes in a creator, then the creation of life is also not a miracle. I understand that you do not believe in the same things, and that is fine. But without having any theory of your own as to how the origins of life began does not make mine any less valid.
"any less valid"... that's called l-a-c-k of evidence in your creationism.
So if someone doesn't try to explain something it is not a miracle? Wow, that's about as logical as a flying elephant!
So, here you are with your Deific Theory. Explain it, how can it be proven besides saying 'it's in my holy book', how do you explain all the fairly unnecessary things in this universe if your deity's sole motivation was to create humans, why did your deity create many kinds of spiders when one should have been enough?
Oh look .. the harder questions are here.
I feel a confrontation and this line "you guys are attacking me." is about to be heard.
@0G-No Gods- Watch the movie Expelled. Multiple interviews with Dawkins. Call me a liar then.
@Answer and @Athy
Im still waiting... You don't even have the nutz to say where life began??? I put myself out there. Surely you all have at least an educated guess as to how life began, right? People of science shouldn't be without at least some sort of theory.
Here is my opinion ...
You = human kind was created. Rubbish.
December 2, 2012 at 1:41 am
===Read it. ID iot.
It doesn't matter how life began, jar. You're tasked with explaining two miraculous events (which so far you refuse to do) while I only have to explain one (which is beginning to be explained by experimental research in organic chemistry). Who do you think is more likely to win this race?
Youtube it. Here is the scientific guys giving it to you.
"The Big Bang – Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku "
–You want to ignore posts because they were posted and you were lazy to go through the posts. That is your agenda. But you're the fool to say "nutz". Oi look at the pretend marine. Go get another orifice added to that nuggan of yours.
Do you even know the components that would sustain even a single celled organism? You keep telling me to do research, yet your argument of chance is amazing. There was nothing, then thousands of perfectly coded DNA strands came together with ribosomes and amino acids, to form 250 perfect proteins in order to support 1 single cell that changed into plants, birds, and humans. I forgot, I'm the crazy one.
It's not my fault that you can't get the information that energy creates matter. It's not fault that matter is chemistry. It's not my fault that you refuse to understand that the atomic bomb is the complete opposite of the "big bang" and we have technology to convert matter to energy. It's not my fault that we can conclude that huge amounts of energy that came from the big bang is the basis for our understanding that our universe is now the way it is.
Go on with your puny defense. Go on.
A movie that has been described by the American Association for the Advancement of Science as profoundly dishonest (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/0418expelled.shtml) and as intelligent design propaganda can hardly be considered independent. It would be like saying god exists because The Babble is the word of god and it say god exists. You are going to have to do much better to avoid being publicly branded a lar.
See, here is the thing that has bothered me (and many of my friends)for years: where did God come from?
In order for this ID to be palatable to me, I have to believe there is an intelligent being behind that design...so where did this being come from?
jarhead333.. evolution has nothing to do with Biogenesis.. the creationists can only say with out any evidence of course that "god" did it.. creationists can offer nothing that can stand scrutiny as a plausible explanation of biogenesis . The minute that questions are asked and evidence presented their hypothesis collapses.
Jar, it probably started with far fewer than 250 proteins. All that was required is a cluster of molecules formed by heat, lightening, or whatever environment was extant at the time. All this cluster of molecules needed to do was process energy from its environment and replicate itself. Competition among its peers then forced it to become more and more complex and eventually evolve into life as we now know it. Keep in mind that this happened over unimaginable time spans (certainly not 10,000 years!). Don't you think this is a more plausible explanation than two consecutive completely independent (and unrelated) occurrences?
Energy? That still does not explain how. Why won't you at least commit to something? At least be real for once. I have put myself out there for all of your criticism. Why won't you do the same. If you have a theory, don't just push some obscure "energy" garbage on all of us. Elighten us with your knowledge.
The aaas, really? As if they don't have an agenda? Have you seen Expelled? It was done by Ben Stein (non-Christian) and spoke with Richard Dawkins as well as other scientists.
@jarhead: There is no scientific evidence that supports with certainty how life began. There are several hypotheses (not theories). I believe the most promising one is hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. Our common ancestor appears to be an aquatic microorganism, so tell your friends it is time to update their jokes about us coming from monkeys because we've tentatively looked even further back than the ape-like common ancestor most people know about. You can learn more here:
The reason saying "I don't know" is better than "god did it" is because a belief in a god assumes the answer without any proof. "Seeing god all around you" is not evidence, it is belief. The bible is not evidence, it is belief. Since we do not actually have an answer yet we cannot answer your question: "if you tell me god didn't do it then tell me how it happened." We don't know, and it isn't smart to guess. And it's downright dishonest to teach others that one knows with certainty "god did it" when no one actually knows it – they only fervently believe it.
What part of energy do you not want to accept?
You want a pat on the head and say to you that your god created everything? LOL
Let me hear you beg. "Acknowledge that a god did it." XD
You can't see that I have given you the most detailed and simplified e-x-p-l-a-n-a-t-i-o-n that a l-a-y-m-a-n can understand.
"Ben Stein" LOL
I do not recall anyone speaking about monkeys? If you are going to follow along, pay attention. I respect you for at least having a stance. The @Answer does not. I still do not know how your "hypothesis" out weighs mine. Isn't that why you people don't like Christians... Because they think they have all the answers?
You are still the one who won't fess up to not having a "hypothesis." You laugh at Ben Stein? A non-Christian and non-practicing Jew who interviewed Dawkins? Richard looked like a fool and his writing still supports what he said.
You're at that point when you're in denial that the posts along the way have given you answers.
Reject them tomorrow or the next day but they're the answers. Your god doesn't e-x-i-s-t.
Something you want so b-a-d-l-y.
Stick to your story man. Others have at least put themselves out there with their theories, but you are weak. Its not that you don't believe in God, but you don't have an answer for ANYTHING. I respect those who at least dialogue about their beliefs.
It's your fault for not r-e-a-d-i-n-g. That's your choice. I made clear my knowledge.
Let's see why you have your p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c belief. Type them out.
250 proteins is the minimal requirement for "life" of a single cell organism. That is science.
Lightning Striking a perfectly thousands of perfectly coded DNA strands, that are perfectly coupled with ribosomes, that are perfectly made into a protein 250 times? No... I will say in my delusion, and you can stay in yours.
Jar, Answer HAS answered your questions, as have the other posters; whether you want to accept them is entirely up to you, however, saying that Answer hasn't answered your questions is false.
Now answer mine: where did God come from? If I am to believe that there is intelligent design, there must be intelligence designing it; is that intelligent being is God, where did he come from?
Jarhead, your silly beliefs and reliance on totally inexplicable miracles are going to cripple you intellectually, probably for the rest of your life. But, incredibly, you're apparently willing to do this voluntarily. As is often said, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. At least you're safely in your comfort zone, and no longer have to be bothered with logical thinking.
"Perfectly"... haha you're on that spiel. It's 'perfect' because it was created 'perfect'. You're the only one saying perfect.
That is the mindset of the heavily dogma controlled creationist. Just so perfect that you are putting that thought into what other people have said. You demand the perfection to an explanation because your god is to you 'perfect'. Man you're so funny.
"If I can get even one answer that I don't agree with.. then all their arguments are false." LOL
You creationists.. all or nothing. If even one thing is unknown to those atheists then they are all wrong. I love your kind for being so p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.
I will give you your "heart" .. the true meaning of YOU.
"If science can not p-r-o-v-i-d-e me with all the things that I want to know NOW then ALL of science is w-r-o-n-g, and god is right. God then is the answer."
–This is what you are. Every one of you ID i-o-t-s/ creationists are neatly summed up in that quote.
I have not watched the movie. I have read several reviews and watched the Dawkins segment and see no reason to spend a single cent on ID propaganda. If you believe Dawkins changed his views based on what's in that "movie", well, you are delusional.
If you don't like what th AAAS had to say – how about Scientific American's article t!tled "Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed – A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust"? Have you reviewed what the National Center for Science Education had to say about this "film"? – w w w . expelledexposed.com/. Yes, they clearly have an agenda, but can you rebut their statements?
Or how about "However, it has some elements that we find troublesome and inaccurate, so that we cannot enthusiastically support it" and "Yes, I know it has problems and some of the evolutionists were suckered into responding incoherently" from w w w . godandscience.org/apologetics/expelled.html#rich? Your own team has walked away from it!
I could go on and on, but I will give you one more chance to provide definitive evidence of Dawkins changing his mind – before officially declaring you a delusional intelligent design believer liar.
@jarhead: I am using terms like theory and hypothesis assuming you know what they mean because you've personally said you understand science. This is an important issue because it is one that is continually misunderstood - in scientific terms:
– a theory is as close to a "fact" as we get. Gravity is a theory. It is an idea whose supporting evidence has been peer reviewed and accepted generally by the near entirety of scientific establishment because it can be repeatably tested.
– a hypothesis is a working assumption or "educated guess" that scientists believe has merit and are trying to determine if there is enough evidence for it to become a theory. It may either be in very early stages of conceptualization, mid-level stages undergoing testing or it may be in later stages where peer review is happening.
"I do not recall anyone speaking about monkeys?"
I wasn't implying you had. It's a common enough joke. If you understand science you should understand it is a theory we share a common ancestor called Mitochondrial Eve who existed 250,000 years ago. It is a hypothesis we share a common ancestor of an aquatic microorganism generated in a thermal vent at the bottom of the ocean.
"If you are going to follow along, pay attention."
Trust that I am.
"I still do not know how your "hypothesis" out weighs mine. Isn't that why you people don't like Christians... Because they think they have all the answers?"
Science does provide many answers, but when it can't, it says, "I don't know." Religion ALWAYS says, "we know god did it," when in reality there isn't the tiniest sliver of supporting evidence that any god did anything. It remains a possibility in science that there is a Creator, the same as there remains a possibility a large pink polka-dotted elephant farted us into existence, there just isn't any evidence for either one.
Hydrothermal origin of life hypothesis (among others) outweighs yours because it has basis in science, which is the educated field of study we use to understand how our universe works. "God did it" has no education to its guess. It is simply a fervent belief. One can believe the sun rises because it is actually a chariot of fire that Helios rides across the sky each day, or one can depend on science to actually explain why the sun rises and sets.
I don't care for Christianity because I don't care for any religion - while claiming love they are truly only satisfied with hate, intolerance and divisiveness. Christians are just people, and they are variably good and bad just like atheists are good and bad. All religion has the same basic tenet of converting everyone to like-mindedness not just in origin of life issues but other social issues, whether an individual person keeps faith to himself or not. So the Christian can be harmless or not, but Christianity is never harmless. No religion is satiated until everyone subscribes and its wicked rules become the rules of mankind.
"Lightning Striking a perfectly thousands of perfectly coded DNA strands, that are perfectly coupled with ribosomes, that are perfectly made into a protein 250 times? No... I will say in my delusion, and you can stay in yours."
So it sounds like that is in the ballpark for Thermodynamic origin of life hypothesis. I am not a scientist so I can't speak to what parts of that are correct, or to what exactly you are referring. I think there were early hypotheses that lightning strikes may have generated the heat required to start selection in a chemical solution. There are several origin of life hypotheses.
All origin of life theories seem to have a problem during the stage of chemical to physical mutation because selection, typically not seen in chemical systems, is required for evolution. It is proposed that thermal fluctuations may provide for selection in that "changes in the number of molecules in a given volume due to thermal motions, may allow selection to become effective, leading to the increase in molecules having an evolutionary advantage."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news201171540.html
* I meant "All origin of life hypotheses seem to have a problem..." See how easy it is to incorrectly interchange "theory" with "hypothesis" all because in science these have different connotations than in layman's terms? :)
Marriage is marriage, gay or straight. I don't get what the big deal is? Why not let gay people get married and be miserable like the rest of us married people. I'm actually hetero and happily married but stick me in front of some bigot talking about how gays are the scourge of society and my gay spunk will come out and I might deck a guy. Bigots make me sick.
I'm sure no one will be surprised, not even jarhead333, that jarhead333 has not been able to show that Richard Dawkins has changed his views on intelligent design, aka creationism, and is therefore proven to be a liar, in addition to being a delusional myth believer. No one should trust anything this person says without substantial and verified supporting material.
jarhead333 appears to be missing in action, or more likely, in full retreat with hands over ears chanting "la la la la – I can't hear you – la la la la. . . ". What a pathetic loser.
"No mind can fathom anything eternal."
Isn't that what theists do? Presume to fathom god?
Ya, we muslims believe and follow Thin Allah, justifies of boy abuse as a holy tradition, and followed by filthy Pluto, Micky, Mini, Donald the duck, queen and King James of England, author of book of Mithra ism, savior ism called Satanic Verses. and do not forget alcoholic priest in never ending list. I am disgusted with my life.
spit on my face. Ya, spit on my face. I am disgusted to be a muslim.
After agreeing with most of you, I mention I am a Christian and get attacked. Ateists are such hypocrites. Complain about how Christians condemn others, but look in the mirror.
What you are expressing is the logical arguments and the reasoning that you are being exposed to. Do not get it confused with physical attack.
The reason why you feel you are being "attacked" is because you can't defend yourself beliefs. You have no knowledge of the arguments and are at a constant lose. That is why your kind constantly say "attacked". It is called confrontation.
Can our words harm you? – Yes. To your mind. You are weak in your psychological defense because your exposure to ridicule can not be defended by YOU. You have no basis for your believe except faith and your emotions. Your kind dwell on fear and have it constantly in the back of your mind. Too bad for you.
I feel no pity for your kind. A bunch of cvnts that can't even string together a couple of sentences about your own beliefs.
..loss - corrected
I don't think most were attacking you; and I applaud you in your good common sense that people are all worthy of respect.
Christian or not, that's a good thing to aspire to.
I guess the people who post things like "atheists are all faqqots and should get out of the country" may make put some on the offensive.
There are people who fan the flames, no matter if one believes or not...but I didn't get that vibe from you.
I'm starting to, though.
What do you expect from a hindu, hungry dog?
with one exception, they all spit on my face.
No matter how their kind makes any kind of attempt to communicate with other people – their main motive is to spread their emotions. Their god.
If you talk with them long enough – they all want to be "consoled" or "praised" on their choice that they found their god.
They come not to make their case for their god.. they come to offer other people their tiny experience and get a pat on the head and have others say "good job.. you've done well."
And the other is "Did I not do good to find god and now I can have peace when I die." It's never to ask.. "Do you really think that my god exists?" – The answer that they don't like to hear is "No."
Can your words hurt me? No. I have come to my deceision. I was not brought up as a Christian. I investigated on my own. I know people like you. You prefer to be on the offensive, but the truth is you are probably undereducated. You get your science from PBS specials. I respect Atheists and everyone who takes a HONEST look at the evidence on both sides, then makes a decision. If someone says that they believe that life spontaniously happened, then that is fine. If someone says that God created man, then that is fine. Your anger is sad to me. While you do not have pitty for me, I certainly have pitty for those who live in anger like you.
Answer, I'm not that much of a confrontational person, but I totally get what you're saying...and it is becoming more and more apparent that is the response they desire.
I am tempted to say, "Yay! What do you want, for me to throw you a fish?"
So your tact is now to place a label of "your anger"?
Your anger is sad to me. While you do not have pitty for me, I certainly have pitty for those who live in anger like you.
So funny. Try every kind of emotions you can. Go ahead. Convince yourself that this is the emotion that goes through every other person who confronts you.
Who thinks that "life spontaneously happened?" I'm an atheist, and I have no idea how life happened. I also don't know a lot of things. Why can't I honestly say, "I don't know?"
I appreciate your response. You are the first atheist that has responded honestly to that question. I enjoy a logical discussion about the origin of life. The truth is that I, as a Christian, cannot prove it and neither can anyone else. I just enjoy a discussion about the topic rather than the closed mindedness that usually goes on here.
Actually, the last time I asked others where the origin of life came from, I got about six responses in a row of people telling me what they didnt believe, not what they did believe.
I see absolutely no evidence at all that Answer is angry about anything; further, I see no evidence that he is uneducated or should be the object of anyone's pity.
It would be a mistake to call the majority of posters here uneducated; they are a well-rounded group of people who have higher levels of education that I suspect is not normally found on blogs.
When someone debates you, jarhead, and they disagree with your beliefs, they are not angry, they just disagree.
I would posit that you're not angry for being a Christian; they are certainly not angry for being an atheist.
It is what it is.
Here tool.. be openminded as you say you are..
"The Four Horsemen: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris e Christopher Hitchens. "
I am well educated on evolution, darwinism, and naturalism. I did not come to Christianity at a young age. When I say uneducated, I mean that many of you do not even chose to see both sides of the conversation. That is the only way to make a logical decision. I respect your beliefs either way, but if you do not know both sides of the argument, then how can you claim to have an educated opinion?
Many of the people that post here *were* in a religion and chose to become atheist.
I have observed that many have read the Bible and/or the Quaran and have rejected them as having any factual basis.
Therfore, one can conclude that they can, indeed, see both sides and reject one side for the other.
As an American, I absolutely support the right for everyone to follow the religion of their choice, or to not believe at all. However, there is not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of ANY god, therefore, using a god as an excuse to harm others is not valid.
I'm sorry that you feel put upon by non-believers, but keep in mind that speaking openly about personal atheism is a fairly recent phenomenon. Open or even suspected atheists used to be (and in many parts of the world still are) subjected to public scorn, shunning, anger and sometimes even violence in religious cultures. You call yourself a "jarhead", implying that you are a Marine. One would hope that you're tough enough to survive what amounts to just a few angry words.
Yes, I am a Marine. I am tough enough, and comfortable in my faith to handle "angry words." While it is true that atheism is dangerous to speak of in certain areas of the world, speaking about Christianity can get you killed in many more areas of the world. I don't come on this blog to preach, thats not my style. I just want to promote discussion about the different worldviews. I also want to let people know that not all Christians are out to condemn others. I enjoy our freedom in this country, that's what makes it so great. I respect others beliefs, even if they don't match mine.
You're not here to do that. You're the same kind as the preachers. It's shows already.
You claim to be openminded? That's a laugh. Labeling others angry just at the site of confrontation..
All the same tactics of a true hypocrite who can't stand that faith leads you to a wasted life.
It is my personal, and professional, opinion that you are angry. I am not sure how you can judge my motives. I have not attacked your beliefs.
Please attack beliefs, if I find I hold an unfounded or untenable belief I want to get rid of it...beliefs have to stand or fall on their own merits. People deserve respect, beliefs should not get automatic respect.
You have no motives? HAHAHAHA
Just looking at your pure stupidity on "ID" as a valid discussion instantly puts you down as a liar willing to lie pro-bono for creationism. I'll confront your beliefs any day. I know your kind are so weak in your arguments that you need to label people off as angry. So keep on going at that only angle that you have.
Tell me about the Dover Trial. Explain how your ID is not creationism. Tell the next judge that you don't have an agenda because this world is getting more secular and you're afraid that your faith is going dead.
Actually Dawkins described a possibility of ID that was another planet that had Aliens come and plant life on this planet.
So one remark – that you p-i-c-k up on – and you now want your WHOLE ID to be c-o-n-s-i-d-e-r-e-d as ALL valid?
Go on and explain.. I like to have people who string out their rationale from just one thing and make it more plausible for themselves.
Never once did I say ID was ALL valid. I also did not say that everyone should believe the same as me. Do you understand yet why I think you are angry? I just say it should be on the table for discussion. After all of this talk, you have yet to state your belief on how life began. I'm waiting.
You have a reading d-i-s-a-b-i-l-i-t-y? Do you equate "big bang" to me s-u-p-p-orting creationism? LOL
I find it odd that in some of your posts you take the stance that you are the only person to have ever done any research on this. I think most people have examined both sides and made a choice based on their observations.
Let's assume for a moment that life on this planet came from another planet or was started by aliens, does this require that you worship them?
I do not think that most people on this blog know history. There is some historical proof about the Bible. When it comes down to it, it has to do with whether people believe Jesus is who he said he was, or not. Also, your comment about Aliens is no different than what you or I suggest. It has not, and will not be proven.
Yes, there is evidence that bibles exist, I'll grant you that. Are you going to answer the question of who created the creator or are you just going to brush it under the rug?
In all honesty, I belive that God existed prior to everything. I do not know how, and I admit that. I understand that I do not really have a leg to stand on as it pertains to that. But after examining evidence, neither does science. The mind cannot comprehend something comming from nothing. Even though it is a "scientific law" most atheists bail on it when talking about the origin of the universe. Please admit that you cannot prove it either.
I can and do state that matter has always existed in one form or another. I do not think that what we call the big bang is the first big bang to have occured. I can conceive of something from nothing, it's not that big of a stretch.
I never claimed to be able to prove anything, did I?
You rely on 2 impossibilities, I rely on one.
I'm glad you shared that little piece. Still does not say anything about what you believe really happened, but thanks for actually taking a stand. I also never said that you had to prove anything, that has been my ENTIRE point. I don't understand exactly why my opinion is crazy, and yours is valid, when neither can be proved. For the record, read my post about miracles. If you believe in God, then it does not take 2 miracles.
@jarhead: Thank you for your service to our country. Nw if you truly want to help the country, help it into the future by keeping it from being bogged down in some fantastic notion of intelligent design.
You've talked about history. Please watch Neil Degrasse Tyson give a history lesson in how cultures have progressed via science only to nearly shutdown when they become mired in religion.
My point, jarhead, is that you don't know how life began either, so you shouldn't use your lack of knowledge on life's beginnings as an argument. Be honest, like most atheists, and join us in saying "We don't know."
You don't know whether a big invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz, and I don't know whether atoms were or were not successful in certain combinations over other combinations that did not hold and then built upon themselves, kludge upon kludge, however it seemed to work for survival until the next generation until eventually certain chemical processes took on what we call "life" from our current perspective but in reality is just another type of complex chemical reaction that looks the way it does based on the previous, successful chemical reactions.
The deep questions we should be asking are: 1. Why does time exist or appear to exist that allows for chemical reactions to occur as they do and build complexity based on the success of prior chemical reactions, and 2. Why do gravity and the other forces exist that allow for chemical reactions to occur as they do. These questions are just as important for the atheist as for the one who believes that it is all the divine hand of god.
Just saw your last post above.
Most atheists and scientists do not say that "something came from nothing." In fact, it seems that "nothing" does not and cannot exist and that "something" always was and will be. When people like Krauss discuss "nothing," they are really talking about what appears to us to be "nothing" but, in fact, is packed full of action and virtual particles.
Science deals with description and seeks to further and further define HOW a process occurs with more and more specificity.
Goat is a Wahhabi sanatan stupid gawd of muslims, copy cat from littered gutter of gay ism, Sunni love ism by faith, called Daristan or Dari Satan, he will love to have it in his ass as a holy tradition of Sunni ism, mullah blessing. Daily ritual performed in every musalman , gay ism, mosque, dungeon of illegality. skunk ism, gay ism, faith of Allah's, ignorant s.
spit on my face, I am ashamed to be a muslim.
Here Daristani racist punk.... on your face
Truth absolute Thin Allah created them perfect human, but Saudi gay's, filthy Wahhabi lovers abused gift of Good lord, CHOICE to follow Islamic filthy animals to satisfy their uncleaned soul, filthy lust, than truth absolute GAWD. HE has nothing to do with their Is lamb ism, illegality of Allah gay ism, filthy Allah love ism.
Spit on my face, Spit on face of all muslims. We are ashamed to be muslims.
Bend over and take my Bedouin Snake like a Muslim.
Go ahead, spit on hindu's copy cats hindu ugly face.
Spit on my ugly face, I am ashamed to be a muslim. Spit on face of Daristan, I am ashamed to be a Daristani.
Snake is a hindu sanatan stupid god of hindu, copy cat from hindered gutter of gay ism, hind love ism by faith, called india, he will love to have it in his hind as a holy tradition of hinduism, hind blessing. Daily ritual performed in every hindu , gay ism, temple, dungeon of illegality. hinduism, gay ism, faith of hindu's, ignorant s.
While I appreciate the importance of the legal battle, part of me wishes that the gay community would claim being gay is a religion. They could have their own deity and everything. That way they would be protected under the consti.tution and could do everything religions can do including getting married. If Mormonism and Christian Science can be considered a religion, surely anything can.
Their religious symbols would be FABULOUS!
BATC: that made me roar! Thanks!
Holy Trinity Submission: Elton John as god the father, Anderson Cooper as god the son, and Judy Garland as the holy spirit.
Please, no more religions. We really need to get over that stuff. It's been running on our wetware for at least 10,000 years.
all praises to the messiah Farrokh Bulsara
Àw, I love Freddy Murcury...RIP.
Ya, they believe and follow hindu Zoroaster, justifier of boy abuse as a holy tradition, and followed by filthy Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Alexander the chicken queen and King James of England, author of book of Mithra ism, savior ism called Bible. and do not forget Catholic priest in never ending list.
Yeah, I miss Freddie Mercury too. :(
Snake is a hindu sanatan stupid god of hindu, copy cat from hindered gutter of gay ism, hind love ism by faith, called india, he will love to have it in his hind as a holy tradition of hinduism, hind blessing. Daily ritual performed in every hindu , gay ism, temple, dungeon of illegality.
@Tom, Tom, to the contrary, I think the more ridiculous tax free religions out there, the more the status will bequestioned.
Their clergy outfits would be FIERCE! *snap*
True story. I take my family on 3k – 4k mile driving vacation every summer. We have been everywhere. The first one we did, we were driving through Texas towards the gulf coast when "I Want to Break Free" came on. We pretended all the cows in the feed lots were running out on to the highway and following us and singing the song. You had to be there, but we have been doing that and laughing our asses off for years.
Also Roger Taylor looks hot as hell.
I was 15. For quite some time in school I did have my eyes upon a lovely young lady 3 years my younger. I would run the school halls seeking to get but a glimpse of her in her classes. I was mesmerized and enamored with her beautiful face and tenderly voluptuous figure! Alas I quit school and ran away from home when I was 17.
Finally coming home, but before I went home I paid my high school a visit and to my surprise they were having a dance and wouldn't you know when I went into the dance the love of my life was there! She spied me and did ask me to dance with her. I could not resist. While we danced I did tell her to stay with the fellow she came with and to forget about me for I was a lost cause and our lives together should be parted.
When I turned 22, I was on a bridge and took out the picture I kept of my once sweetheart of younger years passing. I tossed the picture into the bridges watery motions as a gesture of finally letting go of my teenaged crush upon the most beautiful young woman ever my eyes did lay sights upon.
To tis very day, I think of her and what might have been. The dreams by a dreamt of dreamer may never be a reality but alas now too old and too darned hideous for the younger generations leavenings, I shall ever onwards be but a shallow recluse never more in need of wanting any lady be they young, middle aged or my elder. I am found complete nowadays as a singularity, nothing more and never more to seek what was once sought. The end.
Ah, yes. A not unfamiliar story of Platonic love. As the poet, Robert Frost, put it: "The woman you have is an imperfect copy of some woman in heaven or in someone else's bed."
Mr. Lamb, well done. No shit, that was good and it moved me. Is it all true? I sometimes wake at night crying over my stupid mistakes.
Wow, ll, nice story.
Mr. Lamb, this is what we expect form you. Well done.
okay, so Lion is a troll using a random word generator, right?
Yes it was all true though I left some bits out. Didn't want to be long winded! I till this very day do think about the love I once had and could have taken if only I wanted to so do. I do so love her still Apple. I do.
A true story of my best abilities rendered.
Haven't you got something better to do then ridicule someone's heartfelt realisms?
Universal story in a way. A pleasure to read, ll.
:-) :-) :-) the pleasure is mine Moby. My pleasure is too see others like what I sometimes prod out of my mind's brain-yards!
Here's one of mine: When I was 15 one of my best friends was a 14 year old girl. We were really close. Her family was from the rich part of town and mine was from the poor. She taught me all kinds of things including manners in restaurants and how to treat girls on dates. (We would go on faux dates so I could practice on her.) Throughout high school our relationship was completely platonic.
When I graduated though, I decided to take it to the next level and we started a physical relationship. 3 months later, I found out she was also having a relationship with a few other guys. It crushed me and taught me that putting all of your trust in people is a sucker's bet.
Later we became even closer friends and she ended up cheating on her boyfriend with me and my girlfriend at the time. Those were some wild and crazy days! We remain close friends to this day.
Why are we sharing our personal stories again?
All that needs to be in Penthouse's Forum is "I couldn't believe it happened to me...", lol.
Yes, people can remain friends with a former lover; indeed, I am still very close with one of mine; my husband plays golf with him.
My husband is aware that he is a former bf of mine. He doesn't care.
I'm very good friends with my ex's gf. She is aware of our our past. She doesn't care.
We're all adults; there wasn't any cheating going on anywhere, however.
Still isn't, lol.
Beats staring away at tv and waiting for someone to post a challenging comment worthy reading or ratcheting away at those who need to be wrenched! Almost 9pm! Time for my nightly meds. BTW, I am a secular recluse who follows the teachings of Christ Jesus and believes wholeheartedly and without doubt that Christ's father's kingdom domains lay upon the insides of all cellular life forms of the celestially terra formed vestiges of Life anywhere feasible upon any planet capable of supporting life essences!
Am I gay? No I am not. Do I care if gays get civilly married? I can take it or leave it. Makes no difference to me what others do with their bodies and their type of marriage decrees. I was once married twice on different occasions. I was around 30 when my last marriage went southbound. Now 57 nearing 8, I am a solitary individual no longer seeking physical exchanges and I will from now on be a recluse needing no one except a screen where others do wrestle in wordage uses as being my highlight in Life. And you? What dare I ask is your life's blood?
@lionlylamb, Man... that's kind of depressing. Anyway, I went through a recluse phase for about 5 years in my late 20s, early 30s. You need to get out and get stimulated to keep the neurons firing. If it makes you feel better, my father is 71 and going on a first date this weekend.
Lifeblood, I guess it's soaking in quiet moments of consciousness and peace.
Wait, so when you were 15 you were hot for a 12 year old? And we're supposed to find this romantic?
I was born a week apart from my lost love. :( We were in high chairs next to each other, we played together as babies, and we grew up together until just around pu berty. We loved each other in a very deep way, and I knew that I wanted to be with her forever.
She was amazingly beautiful and seemed "perfect" in the classic way, and we were torn apart just when we were starting to really appreciate each other as more than just good friends. There were hints in the wind and the whispers of the stars that we both heard and understood. (Her parents moved, and shortly later, mine did, too).
Her name is another word for "love." We never even kissed (except as babies), and although I'm sure we held hands, I don't remember any specific time. I do remember sitting beside her on a large car-sized boulder overlooking a wheat field, just as I remember sharing thousands upon thousands of little insignificant moments in her presence. I remember her face, her look, her smile, her spirit-–somehow I knew that if we had the chance we would stick by each other's side through every hardship and heartache as one being. And I know she felt/feels the same way.
My last words to her were almost three decades ago, and I don't want to go another day without their fulfillment. Too young and full of faith and fear, I looked into her eyes for a long while and then said something neither of us had the courage to either believe or disbelieve: "I'll see you again."
Her reply was a long time coming...
To fix ambiguous wording: We did not grow up in the same household and did spend some periods of time apart (parents living in different parts of the world for a while).
To me depression is but the cargo one carries around with them while sojourning out one's Life here upon the celestial shorelines of terra firma. I am content and have found Life to but a sentimentalists mirage of the submissive tendencies whereupon one activates their own emotional fields of felt thoughts in tirades of sinew latencies made ready for ones unwanted clairvoyance tattered preamble. I have become likened to being as a watchtower waiting for this world's ever to change finality beforehand in that change becomes an inevitability.
I pray in the reclusive residents of my humble abode awaiting my soon coming departure from this behooved land that only recently in my Life did I receive the bounty of a federalist helping hand in my harbored and docile abutment giving rise to my being a complacency of sorts. I am happy in the issues I partake of. That is all that truly does matter is it not?
To me depression is but the cargo one carries around with them while sojourning out one's Life here upon the celestial shorelines of terra firma. I am content and have found Life to but a sentimentalists mirage of the submissive tendencies whereupon one activates their own emotional fields of felt thoughts in tirades of sinew latencies made ready for ones unwanted clairvoyance preamble. I have become likened to being as a watchtower waiting for this world's ever to change finality beforehand in that change becomes an enduring holdout.
Sorry about double post,,, didn't think the blogosphere posted the first try,,,, LoL
In heightened remembrances does one never truly forget the sparks of yesteryears.
Wow, Moby, that is deep...and I mean that.
I have no lost love...alas, I found the best kind of love 25 years ago and was luck enough to have married him 20 years ago.
Everyone I felt that young love twinge for didn't reciprocate, but that's fine...I have what I need now.
@Moby Schtick, That's a great one. Maybe she'll happen upon this post. But what if it's Chad? :)
@lionlylamb, Well, it's not surprising why you would turn to religion. Your story is familiar to me though from my own perspective on life and that of my father's as well. None of us are getting out of this alive and that is a sobering and humbling thing to accept. However I hope you can find joy in the living experience for whatever time you have left. Life is precious and each new day is something to be thankful for. The good times and hard times are all a beautiful kaleidoscope of experiences, lessons, emotions and interpersonal connections.
You keep posting and we'll keep challenging you.
The bottom line:
1. If you are Christian, you believe God is infallible. Therefore if God made homosexuals it must be good. Otherwise, you don't trust in your God.
2. If you are an atheist, you believe in the random nature of the universe
I cannot speak as to if people are created gay, or brought up that way. I seriously dont know. As a Christian though, I don't want the gay community to think that Christians love thm any less. I know there are some fanatics, but it is not up to any person to condemn another. The Bible never really says that gays go to hell any more than anyone else who is a sinner. I am a Christian, and I am a sinner. I know some people do not believe in Christianity, but I just want for people to communicate. We should all be tolerant of others beliefs.
God gave you a fucking brainl What do YOU think?
" I don't want the gay community to think that Christians love thm any less. " You haven't read the comments section to many stories on this blog, then.
People deserve toleration and respect, at least until they prove otherwise....beliefs do not.
Truth absolute GOD created them perfect human, but hindu gay's, filthy hind lovers abused gift of Good lord, CHOICE to follow hindu filthy animals to satisfy their hindu soul, filthy lust, than truth absolute GOD. HE has nothing to do with their hinduism, illegality of hindu gay ism, filthy hind love ism.
god made hermaphrodites too.
While your model is basically correct, it is way too simple. Atheists believe there are no gods (or the probability of there being any gods is very, VERY small) and that are processes (proposed, reviewed, accepted and/or rejected under the rigorous scientific method) some of which are more random than others, that determined how the universe formed and how it is evolving. Non-atheists believe in some unsupported mystical being and randomly chose to believe, or not, in scientific matters.
Yes, the above is too simple too.
I am a Christian and no God is not infallible. I forgot the where in the KJVB but there was one or two verses where God himself id repent for a deed he so did do. I am going to go right after I post this and search at http://www.blueletterbible.com for the root word "repent" and go thru perhaps hundreds of verses to find the ones where God did repent. See all in a short bit!
You all are such hypocrites. I actually agree with a premise, yet mention I am a Christian, and you attack. Look in the mirror. Atheist are EVERYTHING that they hate about Christians.
@jarhead, I agree that you shouldn't be attacked (albeit mildly) but if you'll reread you comment you managed to work into your agreement a line that called gay people sinners as though that was an assumption. As a point of debate etiquette this is the equivalent of the underhanded compliment and should be assumed to ruffle feathers.
Hey Akira, if you have any questions about the web let me know. I am well qualified to help. I think you would enrjoy it.
Thanks, Apple, I'll keep that in mind! :)
Okay, Apple, how do I make an eyeroll emoticon?
Oh. Well my dear Akira, I don't know. I am more web sites and scripting and e-commerce etc. Sorry!
Let's see if we can think this thriugh:
1. Normal adults orient naturally to three things: food, danger, se.x (although not necessarily in that order).
1, (a) Any religion that tries to repress se.xu.ality, as by requiring a celibate priesthood, is unnatural.
2. Most adults are attracted se.xu.ally to the complementary gender, some are attracted to the same gender, and yet others are attracted, apparently equally, to both genders.
2. (a) Laws that repress or punish such se.xual attractions are unnatural and unjust.
3. The societies throughout history have established some form of marriage to establish lasting relationships between members of the complementary gender.
3. (a) Same-gender marriages were limited to a few apparently unbalanced tyrants, such as a few Roman emperors, who nevertheless were highly conservative when it came to addressing issues of marriage, divorce, adultery, and so on among their subjects.
4. In societies such as ancient Sparta, hom.ose.xuality became the primary form of se.xu.al orientation by nurture - boys were turned over to mentors to raise them from a young age into men; in return the boys were expected to se.xu.ally service their mentors. This made complementary-gender se,xual relations for the purpose of procreation unpleasant to many in their mature years.
4. (a) Even in primarily hom.ose.xual societies such as ancient Sparta, marriage was reserved for male-female unions.
5. Same-gender couples and society in general would benefit from formal recognition of their unions but there is nothing to be gained, and perhaps much to be lost, by confusing such unions with marriage.
Ancient cultural practices in defunct civilizations have zero to do with civil rights and equality being denied in America today.
It has to do with consenting adults choosing whom they will marry, not this or that definition of something having to do with procreation. We can procreate now without s3x, so that union for that purpose is irrelevant. If you're against h0m0s3xuals being able to marry then own up to the fact that you want privileges that you don't want others to have because you don't like their preferences. Just because you don't want to buy a blue car doesn't mean that you get together with other people who don't like to buy blue cars and make it illegal to own blue cars. You CHOOSE to not buy a blue car, but you CHOOSE to buy a red one; let those alone who want to make their own choice of what color car to buy.
I think your point #4, although an interesting historical oddity, is irrelevant to the issues ot today.
And your summary point, if that's what #5 is, is not specific enough because it doesn't speak to the kind of equality that gay couples are seeking. Also, why would there be confusion?
"5. Same-gender couples and society in general would benefit from formal recognition of their unions but there is nothing to be gained, and perhaps much to be lost, by confusing such unions with marriage."
So, you're hung up on the word?
The pendulum has swung, Akira, from one absurdity (hom.ose.xuality being a serious, perhaps capital, crime) to the equally unnecessary, and somewhat preposterous, promotion of same-gender marriage. Why can't the politicians ever find the golden mean?
In an ironic way, Moby, you've hit the nail on the head. The definition of marriage is now completely open. If marriage is simply a contract between consenting adults, it must be made available to siblings or parent-and-child since if it is to be a contract without any se.xual implication and they have civil rights too. (And, please, I am not promoting incest; merely pointing out consequences.)
I do not think it is a *promotion* of same s.ex marriage; I think they want has been consistently and unfairly denied them: the right *to* marry.
Other than the word used, what are you saying would be the difference between a union and a marriage?
If none, why would you have different words?
And no, changing the definition to allow same se x couples does not cchange anything. Previously there were a list of exclusions; One restriction (that based on gender) was simply removed.
Okay, Why would you have different wordds for man and woman. Shouldn't they - don't they - have equal civil rights?
Arv: " If marriage is simply a contract between consenting adults, it must be made available to siblings or parent-and-child since if it is to be a contract without any se.xual implication and they have civil rights too."
You're making some leaps here that don't make sense. But I understand why you might wind up at that conclusion. What it's about is taking our current definition and relaxing it enough to allow same-gender marriages. By only changing it in that way, the other constraints remain in place (re: incest, unlawful age minimums, pluralities, etc.) That's what the current push is for. And many people are finding that fight justifiable. If it meant a push for incestuous relationships, you would hear and know that's what people were pushing for. And it's quite obvious, that's not what people are pushing for.
And although it may seem foreign to you, to many already, the consenting gay couples are seen as the heads of households in the same way that straight couples are the heads of households, so why shouldn't they be afforded the same benefits and civil rank as their straight counterparts?
@Arvo, I'll answer your question when you answer mine. You can't answer a question with another question which fails to answer the first.
@Arvo, as mama points out this doesn't follow. You had an available legal arrangements with a listing of restrictions, removing one restriction doesn't remove the others.
To use an example in another sphere, if state or nation allows public adoptions they will usually have restrictions. Perhaps the list says you can't adopt if you have commited a felony, misdemeanor, are morbidly obese, have intractibe schizophrenia or are terminally ill. The government of appropriate agency removes one of these restriction. None of the others are touched. Because you can now adopt even if you wee arrested in a political protest at 18 does not suddenly mean that all child molesters and murderers can adopt. It sjust not how the law works.
Arv: "Okay, Why would you have different wordds for man and woman. Shouldn't they – don't they – have equal civil rights?"
We have those different words because they describe a gender and a physical being (and indicate a level of maturity for those beings). But marriage is not a being – it's just a concept that has been historically applied and has legal ramifications. So true, gay marriage advocates want that term redefined when used as a civic definition in their state of residence so that they can as couples be included and received the same benefits as their straight counterparts. This has no bearing on what churches choose to do.
The issue goes beyond mere semantics. Same-gender couples claim a right to marriage although there seems to be no basis, no compelling reason, for such a claim. However, if marriage is considered a right between consenting adults, then it must be a right available to all consenting adults.
Consensual-isms of same gender marriages may well lead to other consensual variations such as the marrying of ones first cousins and also group marriages as the series "Caprica" made in a rather alluring visionary episodic mainstay but alas, no more Caprica to watch. Why, I do wonder has this series been taken down? The proverbial Pandora's box of many variations of s e x u a l I s m s will become tomorrow's fruits to be as vestures continuations onward marching should the USA mind its secularisms ever to be climbing toward wayward sakes of the melancholy abbess of womanly hierarchies in a once was manly supremacy.
if you think there's nothing to be gained, you are ignoring a whole lot. the happiness and well being of approximately 8% of the population. good will of anyone that is a friend, family member or colleague of anyone g.ay. more jobs would be created and the economy boosted when g.ays got married - florists, tux rentals, bridal gown makers, caterers, and even churches that rent marriage space. there a lot more, too. you don't seem stupid, so i have to think you are purposely ignoring the benefits to society of g.ay marriage.
Before marriage was "invented", as it were, for straight couples, what was it called?
It didn't exist yet.
Using history as a deciding factor in today's world is disingenuous, as there is no compelling reason NOT to allow gay marriages.
@arvo and lionly
Fine by me. The Amish marry their cousins legally and witness all their f'ed up genetic defects. Anybody pushing to make their marriages illegal? I don't think so.
Well Arv – you're the one who brought up semantics. Regardless, if you still don't see what is to be gained, then you skipped past my last couple of posts.
akira, that is a logical fallacy called appeal to tradition. because something has always been one way, it should stay that way. bad thinking. by your logic, blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, in fact, there should still be slavery, since that's how it was at the beginning of this country. bad logic. if something is wrong - change it. that you've been following a bad rule/law/tradition doesn't mean you should keep doing it.
sorry, Akira, didn't mean that @ you, but @ the people you're talking about. :)
Of course, Booty, but I think Akira's point was more towards people generalizing historical claims. (At least that's what I thought.)
Glad you cleared that up, booty :)
@Avro, I and others I know who are concerned in this area claim that allowing same se x marriages is "right" as defined by helping to bring about the greatest conscious happiness of the greatest number. There is plenty of basis for the argument that allowing people to be with the partner of their choice does that, and a legal arrangement is necessary to allow this in conditions where the partners live in different countries (and to support inheretance laws etc.)
On the flip side, having same se x marriage doesn't hurt anyone. I live in a state where same se x marriage is allowed, and not one bad thing has happened to the opposite se x marriages because I married my partner. The folks on one side of us are still happily married, and on the other the hetero husband still cheat ed on his wife (as he was doing before my partner and I married).
Here's a true story:
I moved into my house in 1995.
Three houses down, there is a gay couple; they are wonderful neighbors and delightful people.
In that same amount of time, I have seen 5 straight couples move into my neighborhood, get a divorce, and move right back out.
The gay couple are still together; I suspect they always will be.
Of course, this proves nothing one way or another, but my point is this:
Tell me WHY they shouldn't be allowed to get married?
They bother no one. It affects me not one way or another if they DO get married, just like it didn't affect me when the straight couples divorced and moved out.
Or any of the straight couples who are married still; like my next-door neighbor.
It doesn't affect anyone but the couple who wants to get married...jeez, fvcking get over yourselves and LET THEM!
Furthermore, the last thing we need is thousands of extra pages of docu ments handling separately same se x and opposite se x marriages and all the legal and time costs of maintaining those.
And, we know that separate but equal has not worked in the past. That's why we don't have separate "black" and "white" marriage codes.
Good points, Saraswati.
By way of disclosure, I must admit that I have never had a proclivity toward the hom.ose.xual lifestyle, however, I was around when the gays and lesbians began 'coming out of the closet' (and quite a few people were expecting me to do so too). Thus, I find considerable comfort in the fact that a number of gay and lesbian people do not support gay-marriage either. I am not against same-gender unions nor formalizing them but they have a uniqueness that deserves to make them distinct.
Arv: "I find considerable comfort in the fact that a number of gay and lesbian people do not support gay-marriage either." Well hopefully they do support laws for same-sex unions, and hopefully they support changes to state and the federal government to extend tax privileges, health and death benefits to gay couples in exactly the same way they are afforded to married couples. Otherwise they are just somehow financially out of touch with reality.
Arv, I am confused...are you saying you're gay and decided not to let yourself have s.ex?
I suspect your friends who do not support gay marriage do not support marriage at all; they want to remain single.
Some straight people don't believe in marriage either.
Doesn't mean the right to get married should be taken away from straight couples that do want to get married, or that gay couples who wish to get married should be denied that right.
" there is nothing to be gained, and perhaps much to be lost, by confusing such unions with marriage"
And what, pray tell, is to be "lost" by expanding the definition of marriage? This is same, sad, tired, bigoted argument people used in the 50's to justify laws against interracial marriage. It's time to grow up and stop trying to prevent the spread of equality over nothing more than the "traditional definition" of a word.
"to the equally unnecessary, and somewhat preposterous, promotion of same-gender marriage"
How is it either unnecessary or preposterous? Because you don't like it? Tough. Your personal distastes and bigotries do not make a thing "preposterous."
Akira, you're reading things into my comments that aren't there. I just think same-gender marriage will prove a mistake but I understand that it is probably the coming thing since there seems to be a gender divide in favor of it. It's bedtime; over and out.
One of the best recent love stories on screen, Prince Arthur and the servant Guinevere in the second season of "The Adventures of Merlin". Season 2: Ep. 2. Their first kiss. Netflix. I am a softy for Arthurian taless and the actress who plays Gwen melts my heart and gives me a simi. You are welcome.
semi..lol...I know, TMI
And here is another story, quite true. I once hired a young lady, a friend of my wife's family. Her name was Guinevere. She was the most beautiful girl I have ever seen, even now. I was married and she was a only 18. Nothing to be done, but even now I think of her. I assumed the affection was one way. I let it go.
Several years later, an even more beautiful Guinevere came to see me in my office. Everyone who worked for me was astounded at her beauty and gave me the business. I was dumbfounded and did not know what to say. We made small talk and I think she left disappointed. She was so lovely. If only.
Well, Apple, that way touching.
In a weird sort of way.
Leave the semi alone; you'll go blind, lol!
Akira, we all have moments in this life, you know?
That was one of two I really have to wonder about....
Oh, have you watched the Merlin series?
I am a big fantasy guy, which I think you know....
Apple, you wouldn't be human if you didn't wonder "what if", and anyone who says they haven't had a few of those moments is a lying sack of sh!t.
No, I haven't watched the Merlin series, although I have heard it was very good.
I like the whole King Arthur scene, but I will admit that I don't know all that mush about it.
I mean, I know the basics, but little more than that.
What network is it on?
My introduction to King Arthur was the musical “Camelot”. It was later that I began to understand the legends and their connections to the fantasy universe that included the Norse legends, Lord of the Rings, Oz, Harry Potter and so on and so on…
My second introduction to Arthurian legend was Tolkien’s translation of the Green Knight.
My passion for fairy tales is lifelong.
The legend of Jesus and the Christian God and so forth comes from those very stories. That is why religious people deserve no mercy for being stupid. They ARE stupid.
I think I shall have to read the Lord Of The Rings series; I never have.
Have you read Geoffrey MacGuire's other two OZ books, "A Lion Among Men" and his latest, (and I think the last, not sure) "Back To OZ"?
I haven't read "BTO" yet; I'm on the list.
Enjoyed the "Potter" series tremendously.
akira, maybe get your feet wet with The Hobbit before reading LORings.
Thanks, ER, I will!
Akira, agree with ER. I have read the Hobbit and the LOTR six times. I have also read the Silmarillion and all of the other Tolkien children's books and fantasy books published by him and by his son. J.R.R. was huge influence on my life.
Does God have semi-nude dancing minions like Heat Miser and Snow Miser?
He has the Dallas Cheerleaders.
but it's heaven, so no naughty thoughts allowed - everyone live in celibate "bliss."
Celibate bliss? Isn't that an oxymoron?
The God of Israel has a same-sex partner and a son produced through a surrogate biological mother. The God of Israel is an inspiration to gay couples. And a caution: keep your children away from conservative religious folks or things might end badly for them.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
Don't forget that Eve was supposedly formed from one of Adam's ribs. That makes her a biological male and transgender. According to christian lore, the entire human race was started with a same-sex and trans-gender union.
And a generous amount of insest.
Life in the OT: Incest & Incense. A new comedy series for next fall. (hmm – maybe I should talk to some of my producer friends)
I think it's high time that people in favor of gay marriages flip the script and start demanding the reverse of what they demand. ONLY h0m0s3xual marriages-–no other marriages allowed. That'll teach the hetero fvcktards what they're REALLY doing, here.
I'm hetero, and am in favor of gay marriage; what should I do?
I'm already married; am I grandfathered in? Lol
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.