I'm not sure if Kuttner is activiely supporting Howard Dean (v. 2003) for the DNC chairmanship, but if he is, it certainly would be fun to see him go on Meet the Press using the Prospect's talking points to sway Middle America back to the Democrats' side.

"Surely the erudite Will must know ..."
Obviously not comprehending Will's criticism, the obnoxious Mr. Kuttner extends his habit of condescension to include conservative journalists.

This is a perfect example of the hubris of the left. They understand very well that sin is not the same thing as race, only they think that the rest of us are so stupid that we will acquiesce in their manipulation of the symbol system.

It is very much like their attempt to deceive others by calling thenselves "progressives."

Tell me again why homosexuality is a sin.

Frameone

Sin is a difficult concept, isn't it. I've stumbled over it, my whole life. Maybe these posters think men and women have physical attributes that would lead a rational person to think their nature was to mate with the opposite sex.

Of course others think they just as well spend their lives mating with the same sex or with chickens and goats.

So I guess OJ may be saying that "nature" or god is sending us a message to act in accordance with our nature as humans and forego the idea that we should have sex in a different manner.

But in a sense I suppose their are people who think they just HAVE TO HAVE SEX WITH GOATS REGARDLESS OF WHAT NATURE OR G*d says.

h-man:

If that is true, why did God create gays?

If there is no sin attending consensual sex between a heterosexual married couple, why should there be with a homosexual married couple?

Ignoring, for the moment, marriage is forbidden to them.

For the same reason He created evil people. One of the challenges and obligations of people qua human beings is to transcend our bad & evil impulses, and do good dispite our inclinations to do bad.

Marriage is no more "fobidden" to gays that flight is "forbidden" to mankind. That is, the concept does not apply, due to the nature of the species.

Jeff

why did God create gays?

I don't know.

You are probably correct that there is a consistent segment of the population that is homosexual, but unfortunately I'm afraid that the number of homosexuals does vary up and down in relation to their acceptance in society.

For that reason I can see practical and beneficial reasons to NOT treat homosexuality as "normal" or acceptable. Yes it is "normal" that it occurs, but so does the "flu virus".

Marriage issue.

Stolen concept. An institution that has meaning in terms of raising a family, has no meaning in one that isn't capable of that. (yes I know there are non-fertile couples etc, but at least there is potential.) bye argue with OJ.

frameone:

It degrades both participants.

Jeff:

God didn't make them gay--they did.

If your only argument against homosexuality is that its a sin, and its a sin becuase God or the Bible says its a sin, you have no legal justification for discriminating against homosexuals.
I hate to break it to you all but if homosexuality is a choice and a lifestyle then so is religious faith.

.. and we don;t go running around discriminating against religious faiths do we?

frameone:

The fact something is a sin has always been legal justification for banning it, never mind discriminating against those who contin ue to engage in the sin. Of course they're both choices--one is good and one evil.

frameone:

Sure we do.

Disobeying your parents is a sin right in the Ten Commandments, right? Worshiping a God other than the God of Abraham is a sin, right?
Where then are the laws against teenage rebellion and Hinduism?

But we don't make laws banning religious faiths, right?
Look, I respect your faith but I disagree that you have a right to legislate it so far as you want to deny other American citizens certain rights just because your faith says they've sinned.
As I see it, you're picking and choosing from the Bible which sins should be legislated against and which not: homosexuality gets legislated against but not, say, adultery which while wrong is not against the law. If you can do that then why is the Bible to be considered authoritative at all? Isn't a sin a sin? No one greater or lesser in the eyes of God?

And as to the "it degrades both participates" argument, let me ask there are any sexual positions that consenting heterosexuals can practice but which inherently degrade both participants? If so, why disallow those people from marrying?

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

It is a sin unquestionably. Should it be against the law? No, but if you think I need to find it to be acceptable behavior, think again. Like most Americans, I tolerate it but do not accept it.

frameone:

Yes, thus sodomy laws were never directed only at gays.

frame:

That's the difference--religion is universally respected, sodomy universally reviled.

What, exactly, is the difference between "sin" and race?

Not a whole lot. Both are culturally relative and socially constructed.

frame: Sodomy is far from "universally reviled." In parts of highland New Guinea, for example, ritual homosexuality is traditionally a part of attaining manhood. And female-female marriages were quite common among the Igbo in Africa.

jg:

Race is a birthright--sin a choice.

Highland New Guinea is well-known as a center of modern civilzation, and where would we be without the scientific contributions of the Igbo?

"Yes, thus sodomy laws were never directed only at gays."

So anyone who engages in sodomy should be denied the right to marry?

Yes, scientology, as a religion, is and should universally respected. I'm sure you'd agree with that. So to every religious cult and sect we can think of. All religion, wherever, universally respected by you and everyone.

Scientology isn't a religion and shouldn't be treated as one.

Anal sodomy should remain illegal.

While I have no doubt that every Scientologist is in need of significant psychiatric help, I do not know what kind of test one can use to differentiate it from a religion, other than longevity. If a weird cult hangs around long enough, it becomes a religion. Mormonism and Hasidism come to mind.

Why should sodomy be illegal? I would agree with you about bestiality, as the animal cannot consent. But non-coital copulation between adults of the opposite sex? When did that become your business?

Bart:

Mormonism is not necessarily a protected religion either--only monotheism is and there's some question about whether Mormonism is monotheistic.

OJ:

How is it that monotheism is "a protected religion?"

Beware passive voice. By whom? Against what?

Also, perhaps you could clearly explain precisely why Scientology isn't a religion, but Jehovah's Witnesses are.

Only those religions need be protected by the Constitution which undergird it.

Isn't it easier just to say that the Constitution doesn't protect religion, as well as correct?

No.

"Anal sodomy should remain illegal."

So again I ask you, should we deny the right to marry to heterosexuals who practice it?

And BTW I'm sure the Scientologists would disagree with you that it isn't a religion. They are after all legally a religion for tax purposes.

frame:

I don't understand why you are linking sexual practices with marriage rights. Marriage isn't a reward for clean living. Many on this site believe gays shouldn't marry because they believe the whole purpose of marriage is to encourage and protect, materially, psychologically and spiritually, children and those who care for them. If you think it is a just a celebration of love and sexual attraction, then you are very modern and may reflect majority thinking, but if that is the case, I've yet to see anyone answer the question of what the heck the state is doing defining how we honour and celebrate love. (BTW, the quaint notion that marriage is a vehicle for ongoing, lifelong sexual fulfillment is amusing, or would be if it didn't contribute to such a high divorce rate.)

Your sense of being discriminated against sexually is also very modern, in that you seem to hold the view that prohibiting or discouraging any sexual practice is irrational, cruel and illegitimate (and maybe unhealthy). Your best argument is that the hetero world dropped all its rules and constraints about forty years ago and decided to party, so why do they all suddenly discover the beauty of traditional constraints when gays want to do the same. You'll get sympathy and respect for that line here, but not much more because most of us are equal opportunity prudes and positively energized by the challenge of turning back the clock.

oj,

Idolators like you should not claim that the only religions that are protected in America are monotheistic.

frameone:

Yes, if a couple stands before a judge or clergyman and says the purpose of their relationship is anal sodomy they should not be married.

Who cares what Scientologists think their cult should be considered?

OJ:

I for one could not possibly care what Scientologists think, but I am mightily curious as to what criteria you use that separates Scientology from religion.

Just as curious in fact, as I am to discover what in the text of the Constitution allows you to negate David's assertion above

It has none of the qualities of what the Founders considered religion to be and can not form the basis of the American Republic. The Constitution establishing said Republic obviously isn't intended to protect anything that subverts it.

So, in other words, you are making it up.

Unless you can specify what about Scientology subverts the republic, or what the Founders specifically said that differentiates Scientology from religion.

Which sounds an awful lot to me like separating black from the pot. And it also seems to, like Mormonism, give the very uncomfortable notion to some that religions are invented out of whole cloth.

But I fully admit to knowing not the first thing about Scientology, other than spelling. So I am willing to be educated.

Jeff:

Yes, Scientology was invented out of whole cloth as a hoax by L. Ron Hubbard. It's not a religion.