Arkansas Blog

Where the heck are?

Pryor
Ross
Lincoln
Berry
Boozeman

Duh.

This is Arkansas; they want to get re-elected.

We need you and Max to beat the drum, dream the impossible dream. Keep it up. But, don't expect a landslide.

or leadership. That bunch is out trying to get in front of the parade.

I didn't have to read but a few lines to know that stacy and others who are adamantly promoting homosexual life for all the world but don't care or understand that they are contrary to the laws of God and man!

We don't care whether homosexuals and lesbians are happy or not we worry that children will be tramatized and acculamated and desensitized to them if they are allowed to adopt children.

No doubt the whole agenda of the homosexuals in the world is to recruit the whole world to become as they are!
If that happened God would set fire to the earth.

And, if you are not a homosexual promoting their lifestyle you are as guilty as they are in sin.

The best argument againt them adopting is the fact many of you who aren't homosexuals are already desensitize to them but you know it is contrary to nature and don't lie saying animals in nature do it. They are not human and humans are not supposed to act like animals.

Don't think I am hard on you because when God turns his wrath against you you won't think of anything but how to stop the pain.

Lets don't punish children by letting these low life people raise them in their homes.

'Don't think I am [hard on] you because when God turns his wrath against you you won't think of anything but how to stop the pain.'
by: chasv

Freudian slip c***v?

Chasv-- Have you gone down to Family Services and volunteered to be foster parent? How many abused and neglected children have you taken into your home? How many abandoned and unloved children have you adopted?

Probably none. I'm sure the good people at Children and Family Serviced don't like to subject innocent children in such a hate-filled atmosphere.

Why do you label as lowlifes people who don't even know?

When God turns His wrath against anyone, what makes you think he won't direct it towards hate-filled morons like yourself? Have a good day.

Chasv-- Have you gone down to Family Services and volunteered to be foster parent? How many abussed and neglected children have you taken into your home? How many abandoned and unloved children have you adopted?

Probably none. I'm sure the good people at Children and Family Serviced don't like to subject reject placing a child in such a hate-filled home.

Why do you label as low lives people who don't even know? When God turns His wrath against anyone, what makes you think he won't direct it towards hate-filled morons like yourself? Have a good day.

"I didn't have to read but a few lines to know that stacy and others who are adamantly promoting homosexual life for all the world but don't care or understand that they are contrary to the laws of God and man!

We don't care whether homosexuals and lesbians are happy or not we worry that children will be tramatized and acculamated and desensitized to them if they are allowed to adopt children.

No doubt the whole agenda of the homosexuals in the world is to recruit the whole world to become as they are!
If that happened God would set fire to the earth.

And, if you are not a homosexual promoting their lifestyle you are as guilty as they are in sin.

The best argument againt them adopting is the fact many of you who aren't homosexuals are already desensitize to them but you know it is contrary to nature and don't lie saying animals in nature do it. They are not human and humans are not supposed to act like animals.

Don't think I am hard on you because when God turns his wrath against you you won't think of anything but how to stop the pain.

Lets don't punish children by letting these low life people raise them in their homes. "

LMAO!!! This post is AWESOME! Recruit? ROTFLMAO!!! Are there official campus visits? Maybe you know which recruits they have "oral" commitments from. Maybe Otis Kirk can start covering whose team is getting what signees.

If there's an academic field in which folks do psychoanalysis of a state, the AR Times blog would provide fertile material for such analysis.

I'm intrigued by the haters who spew out their hate on thread after thread here. What they say about themselves and their underlying psychology is revealing--and scary.

I suspect I'm not the only person reading these threads who notices that people full of hate don't ever confine their hatred to just one "object."

Go from thread to thread, and you'll find that the professional haters who use the blog to try to fuel hatred in others move from target to target: people of color; Muslims; gays and lesbians; cross-dressers or transsexuals; Democrats; liberals; women.

It's all one big parcel of hate, and the string that seems to tie it up is the enraged sense of entitlement of white males who want to convince themselves (and us) that they're the only ones qualified to rule.

Oh, and they also seem intent on convincing themselves and us that they're Christians.

Easy to hate and tear down. Far harder to care and build up.

I'll say it again... Chasv's God is a hell of lot meaner than my devil.

True that, Muddling

My shade tree analysis of these generic haters like our friend Chasv are members of the 8 to 10 percent of the human populous who have the magic combination of genes that make them homosexual. Unfortunately, a repressed upbringing in a less-than accepting social group forces them to tamp down their natural self, causing a whole load of emotional stress. No wonder they are angry at everyone and everything different then them. It's a shame, really.

If it weren't wrong why in the hell are you all so mad and stiffnecked about it. Your own words tells how you know damn well it is wrong...
I don't hate the people but me and the majority of people condemns your damn act of beastley behaviour.
CV

Of course I will vote NO, but help me out with the OTHER initiatives we are voting on. I cannot read betwewen the lines well enough. what the heck do the other acts mean? thanss to the county site I could view them but even with a master's degree, I really can't understand them!!

Chasv, are you Schizophrenic or something?

"The best argument againt them adopting is the fact many of you who aren't homosexuals are already desensitize to them but you know it is contrary to nature and don't lie saying animals in nature do it. They are not human and humans are not supposed to act like animals."

So it's un-natural, but it happens in nature, but we're supposed to act above our natural instincts, which aren't natural, but... Talk about a circular argument.

The only "agenda" I have seen from the LGBT crowd is that they want to be treated the same way you and I are, as human beings. While I have been "hit on" by a couple of gay men, I have yet to hear a recruiting pitch. I don't see gay or lesbian folks touting the benefits of a gay lifestyle... but I guess the recruitment pitch would sound something like this...

"Want to be rejected by your friends and ostracised by your family? Do you want to spend the rest of your life watching every comment you make to make sure no one finds out how you feel? How would you like to feel shame every waking moment of your life? Want to become the subject of ridicule on TV, in movies and in crude jokes, not to mention all the Sunday Sermons where you will be a star? Then come on down to Big Gay Al's Big Gay Recruiting Drive! Act now and we'll even throw in a free Tinkie Winkie poster and rainbow manpurse!"

Sorry, I don't buy the "its a choice and a sin" logic. I don't see how someone would choose to live the life of ridicule, rejection, and pain that LGBT men and women face every day, even in our "enlightened" society.

Blessings,

Arkansas Hillbilly

I agree with you, UncleEarl. The hardcore haters are a small minority.

Still, they concern me greatly. It was that 8-10% who seized control in Nazi Germany. When we don't push back against the hate speech and the outright hating, it's too easy for them to gain a foothold--to the peril of all of us.

Chasv, I agree with you, of course, when you say, If it weren't wrong why in the hell are you all so mad and stiffnecked about it. Your own words tells how you know damn well it is wrong...
I don't hate the people but me and the majority of people condemns your damn act of beastley behaviour."

It is wrong and it is beastly.

You are talking about hatred, aren't you?

There it is. Finally somebody brought up Nazi Germany on one of these "Vote Against Initiated Act One" threads. Just because some of your fellow Arkansans (the exact number will be known November 4th) question the wisdom of placing kids from broken homes into the care of unmarried or homosexual grown-ups doesn't mean we march in step with the Third Reich. The state of Arkansas for the past three years has also questioned the wisdom of this practice.

"9,000 children are in the Arkansas foster care system - many of them are hoping to be permanently adopted by loving parents. Over 45,000 unmarried-partner households live in Arkansas (including both same-sex and different-sex couples) - some of them would make great foster or adoptive parents. The ballot initiative would lock children into the temporary, sometimes overcrowded foster system, and lock them out of potentially better situations, for no reason except bias against unmarried people. Children and parents deserve a better chance! Arkansas voters must say no to the Arkansas' Anti-Adoption Act! "

(http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5055/t/1627/tellafriend.jsp?tell_a_friend_KEY=200)

Alternatives to Marriage Project, 501c3 www.unmarried.org

Sad.

http://www.kcra.com/cnn-news/17714619/detail.html

VACAVILLE, Calif. -- A teacher's gender reassignment surgery has caught the attention of some parents who want to know why the school district didn't notify them ahead of time about the change.A music teacher at Foxboro Elementary School, who was formerly a woman, returned to school as a man at the beginning of the school year.The teacher, who was not identified by KCRA 3, is now being addressed as "Mister."

Some parents told Travis Unified School District that they feel like their rights to know were violated.

"All the information came straight from our kids and didn't come from the school board or the teachers ... this has all been second-hand information," parent Melissa Oiland said.

The district said it has to respect privacy and personal issues, and that it must preserve privacy rights of the teachers.The school board said such disclosure would violate HIPAA privacy rules."I understand what parents are saying, but we have a right as an employer, we have a legal obligation as an employer to protect our employees," Superintendent Kate Wren Gavlak said.

Gavlak said the district consulted with lawyers and determined that legally, it could not disclose any information about the teacher's gender change.

"We will not be discussing personal matters with either the students, or the parents or the community at large ... because we cannot," Gavlak said.

Parent Angela Weinzinger, who has three children at the school, said she has since transferred her children out of the class.

"I wasn't given the opportunity to make a choice on what I wanted to do with the situation," Weinzinger said.

So far, 23 students from 15 different families have transferred their children out of the music class and into a physical education class.

"Chasv, are you Schizophrenic or something?"
Ark Hillbilly

Yes it's true, he is. Not only that he is crazy to boot. chasv is a rage-aholic

Ask OdaMae. She has seen him act it out .
To the credit of churches in Crosset, AR chasv has been kicked out .

But I'm sure he fits in with Jerry Cox and Debbie Pelley.

.

Sorry, but you missed my point, KnockKnock. It was to note that a small group of haters can tip a society in the direction of mass insanity--as in Nazi Germany.

In any case, I find the argument that because a majority of people promote a cause, that cause is honorable, a weak argument. I well remember in the 1950s that the vast majority of my fellow citizens in Arkansas (the white ones) did all we could to resist the rights of African Americans.

Did that make our resistance right? Or honorable?

Hardly. Human rights should not be up for a vote, in a decent or humane society bound together by a social contract that believes every human being has inalienable rights.

And please note: I am not saying that adoption is an inalienable right. I am challenging your repeated argument that the tendency of Arkansas voters to uphold your prejudice legitimates that prejudice. In my view, it is no more legitimate than was the legally sanctioned prejudice against African Americans, prior to 1957 and 1964, a prejudice that was widely endorsed by Arkansas citizens.

I think if we had nothing better to do we might find the real author of chasv's first post on this thread. Too many big words, the spelling is too good....he lifted it from someone else.....bet on it.

We will be fighting like this for the rest of time unless we figure out how to educate the haters about homosexuality. Not convert, not advertise, just educate. These wingnuts are imagining monsters....yet I bet every single one of them has a gay friend or relative. But NO.....cousin Bruce....well....he's just not like those other raping, stealing, child touching homos.

Yeah....we got to educate that idea plumb out of their pea brains.

Ok Inquiring minds have asked -

WHAT IS THE "GAY AGENDA?"

none other that our own chasv does the deed of responding.

>>No doubt the whole agenda of the homosexuals in the world is to recruit the whole world to become as they are!
If that happened God would set fire to the earth.<<

Thus by our own chasv's definition the GAY AGENDA it to

set fire to the Earth.*

(*chasv, Earth is a proper name for a planet, as is Jupiter, Venus, etc so, it's capitalized.)

BUT WAIT!

Isn't that what God intends to do to Earth anyway? Doesn't the Bible say it's to be destroyed by a fire 7 times hotter than any known to man?

So, what's the problem chasv, Debbie, Jerry?

Seems the GAY AGENDA is only hastening the prophecy, fulfilling the Lord's promise and hence doing the Lord's work.

.

hummn huh, elwood don' t rejoyce.
I have been cutting, spitting, hauling and stacking firewood for the last several days. But most of you know nothing of real work.
I am still a member of my church in good standing, elwood, something you may know nothing about..
Hell enlarges' itself.
Jesus said the way to heaven is narrow and there will be very few to find it.
But the way to hell is a wide road where the majority of people travel on.

I wonder about all the straight people that read here but are too shy to comment with their opinions... I say don't be afraid go to it.

DBI, you make a great point about the issue that keeps popping up: education.

While haters are in the minority, I suspect, those who resist gay people and gay rights out of ignorance are pretty prevalent, I suspect. There is a link between ignorance and hatred, in that we can be easily led to hate something we don't understand or know a lot about.

But I suspect that the ignorance of many folks about gay folks is more benign than downright hateful, even when that ignorance has hateful consequences.

How to educate? I've asked myself this for years, and I can't help coming back, in the Arkansas context, to the churches. They play such a dominant role in promoting the ignorance (and also the hatred), and could play such a dominant role in educating.

But the first and essential step, it seems to me, is for the churches to be willing to be honest. To admit that gay people exist. That churches themselves have gay members. That families of people sitting in the pews and hearing anti-gay sermons have gay members.

And with that honest admission, to develop the courage (and the charity) to be willing to face gay human beings openly and honestly, without asking gay folks to put on some kind of disguise when they enter the doors of a church (i.e., to "repent").

Until the majority of those who are frightfully ignorant of the presence of gay persons all around them is challenged--and where better than in churches, in Arkansas--not much is going to change. Until good church-going Arkansans learn that they have gay sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, parents, waiters in restaurants, doctors, nurses, florists, hair dressers, coaches, teachers, preachers, teachers and on and on, we're going to continue to massage our ignorance until we are even more of a laughingstock to the rest of the nation than we already are.

Ok, now I am starting to get offended...

"But most of you know nothing of real work.
I am still a member of my church in good standing, elwood, something you may know nothing about.. "

First to give my credentials to Mr. Chasv...

I served 7 years in the US Navy as a Hospital Corpsman, three of which were with a Marine Infantry unit. I grew up in North Central Arkansas on a small patch of land in a trailer heated by wood heat that we kids cut and stacked in the winter, mowed 5 acres with a push mower, fed hogs and helped butcher them in the summer and fall... and...

I am a regular attending member of my local church as well as a member of the Vestry...

So don't you DARE presume to tell me I know nothing about work or that I know nothing of church life. I'd be more than willing to put my Bible knowledge against yours any day of the week...and...

I am a heterosexual male who is happily married. I am also not afraid of my LGBT brothers and sisters, and want to do my part to heal the wounds that our Church has inflicted upon them and that people like you and your ilk still want to cause.

My over all point is that regardless of your religious convictions, we are a nation that says it believes that All are equal. Not that all white, "God fearing", straight (?) Christians are equal. I'll plug a movie once. Chasv, go watch "For the Bible Tells Me So". It will either give you food for thought or make you blow a gasket, but either way, it will challenge you to THINK before you speak.

"Freud's theory of a universal bisexual potential represented a profound challenge not only to right-wing moralists, but also to the biologism of his contemporary liberal sexologists and campaigners for homosexual rights, such as Karl Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfield, who insisted that lesbians and gay men were 'born that way'. Rejecting their view of homosexuality as a fixed biological condition affecting only a minority of the population, Freud argued: "All human beings are capable of making a homosexual object-choice and, in fact, have made one in their unconscious. Indeed, libidinal attachments to persons of the same sex play no less a part as factors in normal mental life...than do similar attachments to the opposite sex' (Three essays on Sexuality)."

...

"'We surely ought not to forget that ... the sensual love of a man for a man, was not only tolerated by a people so far our superiors in cultivation as were the Greeks, but was actually entrusted by them with important social functions' (Fragments Of An Analysis Of A Case Of Hysteria)."

[CLICK]

Caution Adult Content...C***V, Adult theory of sexual conformity and social control...my cause your head to explode!

Arkansas Hillbilly,

We have a special place where people talk to him! [CLICK]

Relatively--perhaps very--minor point here, prompted by this from MuddlingThrough: "But the first and essential step, it seems to me, is for the churches to be willing to be honest. To admit that gay people exist. That churches themselves have gay members. That families of people sitting in the pews and hearing anti-gay sermons have gay members."

I'm just thinking about people in those categories sitting there in church while the preacher rails on about people with same-gender sexual orintations.

Would the preacher rail so if he took that into consideration--if he didn't assume that all of his listeners were "straight"?

Suppose there were a family with a Down Syndrome child in that congregation. Suppose there were a Down Syndrome adult. Suppose there were people sitting there with Down Syndrome relatives or friends. Would the preacher rail against Down Syndrome?

I've never heard of anyone's CHOOSING her/his sexual orientation. People are attracted to people to whom they're attracted. I didn't CHOOSE to be attracted to girls/women; I just was/am.

Freud makes a fascile argument: "All human beings are capable of making a homosexual object-choice and, in fact, have made one in their unconscious."

Oh, I made a choice. But I didn't KNOW I made a choice. It wasn't a CONSCIOUS choice. It was an UNCONSCIOUS choice.

Isn't that neat?!

Am I responsible for my choices made while I was unconscious?

If that were true, then Christians could not classify homosexuality as "sin," because sin requires knowledge of the behavior and the conscious decision to perform it.

So, if Down Syndrome is not a choice, and homosexuality is not a choice, would preachers rail against Down Syndrome the way they do homosexuality with people involved with the "condition" sitting there in the congregation?

"Oh, I made a choice. But I didn't KNOW I made a choice. It wasn't a CONSCIOUS choice. It was an UNCONSCIOUS choice.

Isn't that neat?!"

by: SkyPilot

Spoken like a true "neo-Freudian."

Father booked in incest, rape
Girl, 10, molested several times, cops say
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Kenner bureau

A New Orleans man has been booked with aggravated incest and rape in connection with the molestation of his 10-year-old daughter, according to a Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office arrest report.

The man, 33, is not being identified by The Times-Picayune to protect the identity of the girl.

He surrendered at the Kenner jail Friday on a warrant after the girl told investigators about the incidents that happened in several locations in 2007 and 2008, the report said.

Kenner police arrested the man in connection with two incidents the girl remembers at her apartment in Kenner, according to the arrest report. The attacks happened while the two were alone in the residence, the report said.

The abuse came to light after a family member brought the girl to the hospital, McInnis said. The girl is now living with an aunt, he said.

The father was in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center on Monday in lieu of $601,500

bejeeus: OK. A "neo-Freudian" is what, precisely?

And your point is what, precisely?

And did I consciously choose to become one, or is that another choice I made unconsciously?

Personally, I don't think I'm ANY KIND of Freudian. I have always rejected Freud's arrogant notion that he could tell us things about ourselves that we don't know, because we are unconsious of them. But he, with his superior wisdom, can look inside our heads and see them, and tell us about them. But when we disagree, he tells us that, of course, he's right and we're wrong because we're not conscious of them.

How would that kind of reasoning stand up in a logic class?

These kinds of Legal Acts and bigoted attitudes are exactly why I will be leaving Arkansas once I decide better what to do with my life. It's sad my family has lived here since the 1820's and helped found this state but I'm tired of having to fight for basic human rights against a bunch of people who base their bigotry on bronze age myths. I still don't understand how people can pass laws that violate my human rights based on their religious beliefs in a country that is not supposed to have laws that favor one religious belief over another. I have never heard of a legitimate reason to prevent me from marrying who I love, if I ever get lucky enough to find him.

Everything I have heard has to do with someone's opinions that originate from a book that is supposed to be perfect but has errors in it that I recognized at the age of 9 and that has to rely on "apologetics" to make up excuses for its contradictions. A perfect book does not need literature called apologetics to make up for its imperfections. I am not a Christian so please stop trying to shove your religion down my throat using the guns and force of government to do so. If I could have a private contract that was enforceable and not in anyway recognized by the state except for enforcing the provisions of said contract in a court of law then that would be fine with me. I don't care if the state or anyone else approves of my relationships or the contractual agreements I make with others but I do not like having my rights to contract and association arbitrarily limited due to someone's religious bigotry. My family fought in the Revolutionary War for basic rights and freedoms and yet nearly 250 years later we are still fighting against tyranny from government and others.

Also I grew up in the Timberlands of South AR. I chopped firewood, I had lots and lots of crappy jobs, but I escaped due to my hard work in school and I got a scholarship and got out of my dying hometown. Do you know why my hometown is dying? Because everyone is too wrapped up in everyone else's morality and business while ignoring their own and the condition of the town they live in. I would like to stay in Arkansas but not at the expense of not being able to have a family. It's not worth it.

So you can have your anti-family legislation and let Arkansas continue to rank near the bottom in almost every way compared to the other states in the Union. You're just running out the very people, like me, who can help make Arkansas a better place to live. Also, don't give me that love the sinner hate the sin crap. For starters there is no evidence for anything supernatural and therefore no such supernatural concepts as sin, ghosts, and other superstitious non-sense. I do believe in right and wrong and morality. Not in a morality based on arbitrary rules out of an old book but observation and evidence. A morality that recognizes mutual cooperation, kindness, and love as ultimate goods and violence toward one another as the ultimate evil. I only have one life and all that will survive of me when I die is how people remember me and the ideas I spread while I was alive. I plan to die being remembered well and as a loving, good, kind-hearted person; what kind of legacy are you leaving behind?

"A "neo-Freudian" is what, precisely?"

Answer...'one who rejects Freud's arrogant notion that he could tell us things about ourselves that we don't know...'

"And your point is what, precisely?"

Answer...That you believe there is a point and that it always requires a cure?

"And did I consciously choose to become one, or is that another choice I made unconsciously?"

Anwser...AFCAQTWCA!

"How would that kind of reasoning stand up in a logic class?"

Answer...What!??!?!? By being a defence of gay's and by challenging sexual ignorance? I 'ain't' posting in no 'logic class.'

'Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness' -- Sigmund Freud

I believe that is logical.

Equating homosexuality with Down Syndrome. Wow. It matters not to Christians whether a person is attracted to someone of the same sex by choice or because it is imbedded in one's DNA. A Christian believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. What does scripture say about homosexuality? About Down Syndrome? That is what drives the church's position on moral and social issues. To expect the church to condone homosexuality would require condoning adultry, stealing, using the Lord's name in vain and a host of other sins. Of course we realize we have gay people in the pews. We have adulters and thieves too. Church is for sinners, not saints. To expect the clergy to oppose Initiated Act One is akin to expecting liberal blogs to endorse it. It ain't gonna happen.

ARK. BLOG: A number of clergy already have opposed it and you'll be hearing from more. Perhaps not of your flavor.
Why? This isn't a referendm on homosexuality. It's a referendum on making it harder for ALL people -- gay and straight -- to be foster parents and adopt.

Not ALL people. Initiated Act One, when passed, will impact unmarried adults and gay adults who want to become foster parents. Married adults or single, non-cohabitating adults are not impacted by the measure.

And there are disenting clergy just like their are disenting democrats (often Pryor, Lincoln). U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln nominated The CALL for a national award for its work on behalf of foster children the week before The Times railed against the non-profit, Christian organization.

There is always disent, but majority rules.

Don't forget to vote!

ARK. BLOG: All people. We are all our brothers' keepers. When this policy hurts the least of us and our relatives and friends, it hurts us all.

CALL, by the way, is free to be discriminatory in its work. But the state should not promote actions that it is prohibited from pursuing itself by law. I didn't rail against CALL. I railed against the state. But I do think CALL has been disingenuous about its work here and its interest includes providing a way for the state to institutionalize discrimination through a proxy.

Bejeeus: So a "neo-Freudian" is one who REJECTS Freud. That sounds more like an "anti-Freudian" than a "new" Freudian. But if that floats your boat, that's OK with me. But just don't try to stick that label on me.

I asked your point about "spoken like a neo-Freudian" and this is your answer? "That you believe there is a point and that it always requires a cure?"

I assumed there was some point to your remark. I was curious about what it might be. But that a point "always requires a cure"? Just what is the relationship between "point" and "cure"? You've left me even more in the dark with that response.

"Anwser...AFCAQTWCA!" I assume you meant "answer," but please don't jump on me for assuming. And if the rest of what you wrote there is an answer, either it is gibberish or you are speaking in tongues.

bejeeus, I would NEVER accuse you of posting in a logic class! But I just made the mistake of assuming that you intended to be logical. Please forgive me of assuming too much of you.

Your last quotation of Freud's sounds logical enough. But THAT was not the statement whose logic I questioned. I'm not sure why you chose to ignore the one I questioned and substitute another.

I don't think there's much to be gained by attempting to discuss under these circumstances.

Your responses are about as solid as Jello.

KnockKnock, you ask, "What does scripture say about homosexuality?"

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

It couldn't.

The term was not coined until the late 1800s. The scripture writers couldn't possibly have used a term that was entirely unknown to them, as were the psychological findings on which the term was based.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that your reading of what you consider scripture is a preoccupation you are imposing on the scriptures, into which you're reading your own prejudices.

Now if you had asked what the scriptures say about love, mercy, treating others as you would like to be treated yourself, I could point you to a whole lot of material.

Homosexuality? Nothing there. The concept and the term used to identify it did not even exist for the biblical writers.

KnockKnock: I DID NOT equate Down Syndrome with homosexuality!

I drew the comparison of a preacher's pronouncements.

A preacher would not begin to speak in any unkind, untactful way about a Down Syndrome person with involved people in the congregation. One would carefully avoid such negative, insensitive, or even derogatory terms such as Mongoloid, retard, etc.

Perhaps I should have chosen another condition: alcoholism, drug addiction, AIDS . . . .

By the same token, if a preacher KNEW (and cared) that there are homosexual people, or related people, in the congregation, would he speak in the same critical, derogatory, judgmental, denunciatory terms that he uses when he assumes (or doesn't consider one way or the other) that there are no such people present?

I'm not trying to make a case for right or wrong on homosexuality here. What I'm addressing is how preachers speak about such things. I don't think the typical preacher gives a moment's thought to the circumstance that he may be assaulting the feelings of people in his congregation. I think he is being absolutely insensitive and perhaps even disrespectful--not exactly appealing or applaudable characteristics.

The only connection I had in mind between Down Syndrome and homosexuality is that NEITHER is the result of choice.

Preachers may justifiable preach against chosen behaviors which they consider violate the moral values of their persuasion. But how does one responsibly denounce conditions that are not the result of CHOICE?

Even Max knows the Bible is a'gin homosexuality. You don't have to like it or agree with it but it is there in black and white, whether that word was around back then or not. To say scripture does not address homosexuality is just silly semantics. Possibly delusional.
And as far as the job of a preacher, it is his (or her) job to speak Biblical truth (in the case of a Christian leader) whether it hurts somebody's feelings or not.

KnockKnock: Are you suggestng that a mother and son living in the same household should not be allowed to provide foster care?

And, for sake of discussion, substitute father and son, or father and daughter, or two or more brothers, or siblings of whatever gender, or cousins of the same gender.

And should two cousins of the same gender living in the same household not be permitted to adopt a niece or nephew?

It appears to me that the Arkansas Family Council is focused TOTALLY on gays and that their effort is an attempt to limit the civil rights of a targeted segment of the citizenry.

Typically, the U.S. Constitution is designed to PROTECT the rights of citizens, not limit or remove them.

Cohabitating ADULTS!

And fostering a child it not a right. For anybody. Gay or straight. There are restrictions. For example, you can't smoke. When will the pro-smoking lobby rise up?

Initiated Act One has been, albeit unofficially, state policy since 2005. If there are that many homosexuals interested in fostering our state's children why weren't objections to this policy made a long time ago? The first request for a hearing was what, last month? The dent that the gay community will put in the foster/adoption backlog in this state given the chance is, I believe, highly exaggerated.

But it sure is fun to debate.

ARK. BLOG: So wrong. State policy did not apply to adoptions. This law will. There's been ample testimony about the problems created for straight couples and relatives of kids in need of homes by this policy and this law. Objections were made to this policy. It is a rewrite of a policy struck down by the courts and it has been opposed repeatedly, but when the HUckabee religionists were in charge, the testimony of professionals didn't hold much sway. The law will limit placements, by whatever amount. That's a negative for kids. It's a negative in every respect.

By the way, the folks who brought us this policy made a mess of running family services. A report is coming from the feds about just how bad things got. That's why Beebe is now moving to rebuild the agency. If the folks in charge had worried more about kids and less about gay people, things perhaps would have been different.

KnockKnock: Let's accept your assessment as accurate, for the sake of discussion:

"And as far as the job of a preacher, it is his (or her) job to speak Biblical truth (in the case of a Christian leader) whether it hurts somebody's feelings or not."

What about when s/he goes BEYOND Biblical truth?

If same-gender sexual orientation is NOT a decision, but simply the result of gene wiring, DNA wiring, body chemistry, or something else beyond the individual's control, is that a sin?

Is sexual orientation, which is NOT A CHOICE, a proper topic for a preacher's sermon?

Do preachers rail against ANY behaviors that are not based on choice? Do they rail against blue-eyed or red-haired or freckle-faced people? Do they rail against people whose skin color does not match their own? Do they rail against people on the basis of where or when they were born, or into whose family they were born? Do they blame people for conditions beyond their control? Do they blame children who are born out of wedlock? Do they blame women who are raped? Do they blame children who are the victims of pedophiles?

I'm raising questions about how a preacher behaves in his pulpit.

My basic question: How is a condition that is NOT the result of a decision a proper sermon topic? And how is denouncing people who have that condition a proper behavior on the part of clergy?

KnockKnock: If fostering and adopting is not considered a right, then why is this organization proposing a statute that must conform to the provisions of the State and U.S. Constitutions?

Of course, that question ultimately must be answered by the Arkansas or U.S. Supreme Court.

But it appears to me that the Family Council is targeting a specific segment of citizens based upon the criterion of sexual orientation with a statute that will have an impact on a LOT of people who DO NOT have that sexual orientation.

Does the Family Council SERIOUSLY object to two same-gender adult cousins fostering or adopting a child of that gender, even if that child should happen to be related?

ARK. BLOG: Nobody ever argued foster parenting and adoption was a right. A child's interest must be paramount. But you are correct that, particularly in the case of adoption, this law is about creating a bar to placement of children in stable homes if the nature of the relationship there doesn't suit the Family Council, particularly gay people, who can't marry or enter a civil union even though they'd like to do that. That's the center, I think, of a certain constitutioal challenge to this law should it pass. Election results will be interesting. This act will be beaten in Pulaski County for certain. There may be many other surprises.

NO CHILD should ever, EVER, be made to live with a homosexual!
Hey, sky, homosexual do not exist and therefore are only ghost of a human being.
Sky, you said,
A child's interest must be paramount.
You are so right a child must not ever be subjected to anyone who lifestyle is in the toliet.

A child has the right to never ever know what homosexuals do.

It would be toooooooooooooo much punishment. It would scar them for life, oh, yeah, that is exactly what you homosexual want, ain't it! You want to raise them to accept anything that your kind of people do: well I don't see it happening in your life time.

OK, who's moonlighting on this blog as Chasv?

There is no way that he has gotten a semblance of an education during his recent hiatus from the Blog (I say "semblance" because the impersonator still has many, many imperfections in their usage of the language).

Whover it is, STOP IT! Go home, quit using his handle. If you are a relative (you're probably a cousin who is married to him), get a life and let him do his own dirty work.

By Richard Just of The New Republic.

Not for soundbite fans. This one's too long and requires too much, uh, thought.

Gets to the heart of the problem, though.

"I don't think there's much to be gained by attempting to discuss under these circumstances.

Your responses are about as solid as Jello." by: SkyPilot

You're so right...if you had bother to read the Ref. [LINK] I would not have assumed your questions were acerbic!

AFCAQTWCA

Here's a clue [CLICK]

What a mind-boggling response, KnockKnock.

You say, "You don't have to like it or agree with it but it is there in black and white, whether that word was around back then or not. To say scripture does not address homosexuality is just silly semantics."

Where to begin? First, notice that you're actually agreeing with me that "that word" was not around "back then."

In which case, how can a text that supposedly addresses homosexuality possibly do so, when "that word" didn't exist? Which is to say the concept--the well-documented psychological finding that a certain proportion of human beings everywhere in the world throughout history are oriented towards same-sex attraction--didn't exist.

So, we're supposed to stake our lives on a text that doesn't even say what we want to maintain it says. And we're supposed to take hateful action against others on the basis of a text that is silent about others.

While it is NOT silent about hating others.

Silly semantics is right. Don't confuse me with the facts, when I choose to hate.

Off topic, but have you ever noticed that the same folks who drag out the "clobber passages" in the Bible are the same ones who rail agianst immigration? Funny thing is, in between Lev 18 and Lev 20 is a set of verses in Lev 19 that say:
"33 When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt:"

So doesn't that make for a biblical mandate to support undoccumented workers? But most CONSERVATIVE *snort* Christian groups ignore this handy dandy little piece of scripture and instead focus on the "evil Gays".

SO Chasv, Knock-Knock and all of the other "Bible-Thumpers" out there... until you live up to ALL of the OT laws, you have no business judging another on those same laws. I seem to remember something in the NT where this guy named Jesus said something about removing a beam from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from someone else's?

Sky says,
If same-gender sexual orientation is NOT a decision, but simply the result of gene wiring, DNA wiring, body chemistry, or something else beyond the individual's control, is that a sin?

That is the biggest lie homosexuals want everyboby to think is.

Homosexualism comes from the brain not your sex organs.

LUST, which is in the mind of all homos! Deviated mentality...

Not off topic at all to my way of thinking, AR Hillbilly.

It's amazing what those who claim to take every word of the bible literally ignore, while they fixate on what's not even there.

I once heard Rev. Criswell, the influential preacher of First Baptist Church in Dallas, interviewed by a BBC reporter. The reporter asked him if he believed the bible literally.

Criswell drew himself up and shook his wattles and fumed: "Of course I do!"

The reporter then asked him about that passage where Jesus says that if we want to follow him, we should give all we have to the poor and come follow him. Or the one about the rich man and the camel and the needle's eye.

Turned out Rev. Criswell doesn't believe those are to be taken literally . . . .

We're great at ignoring what's there, while we rant and rave about what we'd prefer to put there, even when it's not there.

Chasv,

Now you're really confusing me. I thought LUST came from the sex organs, since it's sexual attraction. Of course my wife always said my brains weren't in my head...

*Warning: Science content below. If you still believe the Earth is flat and the sky is a dome above our heads, your head may explode after reading. You have been warned*

Did you know that the female body actually sees a male fetus as a foriegn object and produces antibodies against it? This is why the more male children a woman has, the more likely at least one will be gay. Her body adds female hormones to the male fetus to "mask" it from her immune system.

Did you know that in cased of identical twins, if one twin was gay, the majority of the time the other twin is gay too?

Did you know that since the 1970's the AMA and the APA have removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders?

Did you know that recent studies in Sweeden suggest that brain development may have something to do with sexual orientation? It showed that in the sections associated with sexuality that are NOT AFFECTED by outside factors, male homosexuals and female heterosexuals had the same sizes. The same held true with homosexual females and heterosexual males.

Want to tell me again that there is no scientific data suggesting homosexuality isn't a choice?

For those interested, most of this data came from the doccumentary I listed in a previous posting called "For the Bible Tells Me So". It talks about homosexuality from the viewpoint of 5 families that are coping with finding out a family member is gay. I HIGHLY reccomend it for any church group.

homosexuals will dig a hole to China trying to convince people they are born that way...
lies is all it is...
God said not to lean unto your own understanding!
We are not buying that hogwash...
God said, Woman was made for man not man for the woman!
shut up lying now we will not accept all your lies.

U earl asked,
Chasv-- Have you gone down to Family Services and volunteered to be foster parent? How many abused and neglected children have you taken into your home? How many abandoned and unloved children have you adopted?

earl, notice no capital letter there, this is a big part of the problem we are facing and it should not be one. I have address it before now but here's something.

Girls are screwing around getting pregnant having babies that they have to give up because they are not capable of providing.
That must be stopped and when it is it will aleviate the problem of unwanted babies ...thus less babies needing adopting. Don't tell me is can't be accomplished, either, I know can be we just need to work on it 'till it is not a problem. It begins with the parents of the girls that are screwing around.

I am real late getting in on this post but if anyone is still listening Deathbyinches brought up education, he needs to educate the haters if I recall correctly. I am not too old to be educated, so why doesn't one of the lovers help me out and educate me on homosexuality? Also, just to get this out up front, I am not the sharpest needle in the haystack so I will most likely misspell something or use grammar in the wrong way but this AIN'T (lol) no English paper and I don't have time to care if every "I" is dotted or every "T" is crossed. If GOD wanted me to be smart he would have given an IQ of 140. I could use the excuse that GOD made me this way and just get a disability check every month or I could put forth more effort than most and learn or better yet be educated.