Monday, December 08, 2008

Proposition 8 The Musical

I'm late to the party on this one, but will include it for posterity:

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Jack Black sure does make a cheery Jesus. And I do believe this makes Neil Patrick Harris the official king of cameos.


Fingtree said...

Brilliant! That's funny stuff. Although Jesus was black, Jack Black will suffice. It doesn't hurt having Black as the last name too :-)

Pastor Mike said...


equa yona(Big Bear) said...

Dear Pastor Mike, assuming that was a serious comment, it seems as if this is not aimed at the teachings of Jesus but at the ridiculous proof texting hypocrites who refuse to acknowledge the Christ of Scripture who taught love and forgiveness. Do any of the women in your church wear braided hair or gold wedding rings? Naughty naughty, gotta re-read Peteer's epistles.

Pastor Mike said...

Dear equa yona (Big Bear),

It was a serious comment. The gay rights movement is using hate to smear Christians.

As to your apparent mastery of scripture, I’m sure you are familiar with the difference between cultural practices and moral practices. Temple prostitutes dressed in a certain manner and sometimes this manner of dress came into the worship services and became disruptive. The apostles would address seductive dress. A moral teaching that you could take from this is that women should dress modestly in places of worship.

We’re not hypocritically choosing texts. We are distinguishing between moral and cultural practices. To discount a moral teaching because some of the cultural practices are no longer in place is moronic and the argument falls flat.

Dan S said...

Come on, Mike. That's pretty ridiculous - that gay people are "smearing" Christians. It's exactly the opposite, of course. It's like saying you are being persecuted because people are criticizing you for throwing stones at them.

Condemnation of homosexuality is itself a cultural practice, rather than some kind of eternal moral principle.

Pastor Mike said...

That video showed Christians as not only hypocritical but money starved. It was playing to negative stereotypes of Christianity. Hateful (sorry if you don’t like the tables if there turned).

We disagree about on your last point…and that’s open to discussion and debate. Is all forms of sexuality a matter of cultural practices? I would imagine you could find just about every sexual practice that’s legit in some cultures? Does their practice of it make the behavior right? For example, is being faithful to one’s spouse a cultural issue? In some liberal countries its quite acceptable to have a sex partner on the side. I would argue that just because these countries accept the practice, it doesn’t make the practice morally right. And again, I would argue that morality is determined by the author of life…not its subjects. Notice I stated that without making fun of people.

Dan S said...

Well, Christians do tend to be hypocritical, so that's hardly a smear. But I do see your point about money grubbing. You are right that Christians wouldn't give up opposition to homosexuality for money.

Tim said...

I have to admit that the whole money argument left a bad taste in my mouth.

Gay marriage should be legal because it's the right thing to do. Not because it will make people money.

And Pastor Mike, it's ridiculous to accuse the gays of "using hate to smear Christians." That's like saying the Jews are using hate to smear Nazis. It may be technically true, but look at the context.

You have one group that wants to eradicate another, and another that just wants to be left alone to live their life. Gays aren't forcing Christians to live by their rules, but Christians are doing their damndest to force their rules onto gays.

Fingtree said...

Did everyone see that classic interview with ABC's Cynthia McCFadden and George W. Bush last night about religion? Where he said the Bible isn't literally true and that Musilim's and Christian's pray to the same God and is thoughts on evolution? It makes the evangelicals that supported him and especially his ridiculous war in Iraq look embarrasingly stupid.

Pastor Mike said...


Christians stating that a behavior is immoral according to their religious beliefs is analogous to the Nazis killing millions...please.

PG said...

Christians forcing their sexual model for behavior on others through legislation and criminalization is immoral behavior, PM. You know this. We all know you disapprove of gayness. That's your right. It is not your right to force that model on everyone in the world. And that is what happened with Prop 8. Christians used government to oppress humans and denied them equal rights under the law. Christians had no place doing that. So when you get criticized and mocked and have a silly little musical sketch made about you, well, I thought you had a thicker skin than to respond with such a whimper. A certain breed of Christians LOVE to call themselves victims when they are, in fact, the oppressors.

PG said...

And PM, we've had this discussion before. I checked back through the posts and found that I'd written to you on August 19 and said, "I know how these things go. Even if you have tried to manifest love toward gay people, your heart will again harden. You will again preach against the 'sin' of gayness."

As for your comments here, you wrote, "The gay rights movement is using hate to smear Christians." One problem with that statement is that most of the people in that video are not part of a "gay rights movement" or even gay. They are interested in human rights, not gay rights. And, more than that, probably a LOT of them call themselves Christians. From your statements, it would seem you believe Christians can't promote human rights and gay rights. So you are in fact criticizing and smearing many, many people who are themselves Christian.

PG said...

I'm kind of flying by the seat of my pants these days. I'm not sure my logic in the last two comments worked exactly. Certainly it wasn't up to Wittgenstein. Anyway, PM, didn't mean to alienate you all over again. There is a gay rights movement.

In fact, today is "Day without a Gay" Day. Everybody is supposed to call in gay at work.

brownie said...

He opened his eyes to the swaying roof of leaves overhead, the report still ringing in his ears. A warm smear of blood tickled his ribs as it trickled under his clothes; in ironic contrast to the searing agony of the puncture wound in his chest. He tried to laugh, but it hurt too damn much. And as his vision faded, the light grew dim, and the peace of rest came to him like an afternoon nap in his hammock on a summer day. All life's worries were gone and all that remained was a sense of wholeness, and surprisingly, not solitude, but unity. He was all and all was him. Then he was gone. From the stars that he'd emerged, he'd returned.

PG said...

Now I understand.

Brownie is Jesus.

The gay Jesus.

PG said...

"Zooey" begins the morning following Franny's collapse. She is home in New York City, where her worried mother Bessie and her older brother Zooey, a celebrated television actor, attend to her. Later, a dialogue
Franny and Zooey J. D. Salinger
occurs between Zooey and Franny, in which Zooey alternately soothes and attacks Franny for her self-centeredness and inability to understand the true meaning of the Jesus prayer. Franny remains mired in her depression and asks to speak with Seymour, the oldest Glass sibling whose suicide left the family without its spiritual leader. Zooey enters Seymour's old room where he calls Franny on the telephone, pretending unsuccessfully to be their older brother Buddy. Zooey explains to her that she must disregard the phonies of the world and stick to her own high standards; she must believe, as Seymour had once told them when they starred regularly on a famous radio quiz show featuring child prodigies, that they are performing for the Fat Lady. Zooey suddenly realizes that the Fat Lady, Seymour's metaphor for the ugly and vulgar person in the audience, is Jesus Christ. Consoled, Franny falls peacefully asleep."

Dan S said...

OK, new policy on MMM: Comments should only be submitted if they are in story form.

PG said...

Salinger's Franny and Zooey had a profound impact on me when I read it at age 18 or so. The fact that Salinger (ostensibly Buddhist in outlook) saw the Fat Lady as Jesus shocked me. But I have carried it with me ever since. Today, how we see and love the "the least" of humanity -- the unloved and the unwashed and, especially now, gay people -- we are doing it to Jesus. That's why I said earlier to Robert that he only loves God as much as he loves gay people. For me, the challenge is usually seeing Jesus in right-wing evangelical fundamentalists. I try, though.

Fingtree said...

Jesus never married and was supposedly only just 'friends' w/ Mary Magdelena. Where is the proof that he wasn't gay?

Pastor Mike said...


PG said...

Well, you certainly wouldn't say Jesus was a big old hetero now, would you, PM? Casting his holy eye on the fine female form?

The last time someone tried to show that in a movie -- The Last Temptation of Christ -- there were protests all over the country.

No, evangelicals like Pastor Mike are intent on keeping Jesus sexless and nonhuman, or as Sarah Silverman put it, "Jesus is MAGIC!"

Dan S said...

If Jesus were WMD in Iraq, then it would be the responsibility of Christians to prove he wasn't homosexual... :)

Fingtree said...

As well versed as so many here are, along with the way they throw them around to prove their version of their beliefs, I would think there should be a bible verse somewhere that would prove if Jesus is or is not a WMD. I would go out on a limb and say Jesus was; A colored Gay Fat Lady, analogous Nazi fundamental evangelical from a Liberal Country (Iraq)with Magical powers. Now that George W. Bush (Right Wing Savior)has stated on the record; "The bible is not literally true", I doubt that any of those clever bible verses have any impact anymore or could prove otherwise.

Pastor Mike said...

Well I must say you win. Discourse is not possible and I must kindly take my leave. I will miss this site. For the most part, truly good discussions and, Dan, you are quite the intelligent man. I pray your writing career goes far my friend.

Adios mis amigos.

Dan S said...

I'm truly sorry to hear that PM. As much as we disagree, I've enjoyed the exchanges. Sorry if we've gone too far here.

You are always welcome back if you feel the urge to engage again.

Robert Sievers said...

There isn't much point.

People here are the most narrow minded I have ever encountered, and I have run in many different circles.

PG said...

I always knew you ran around in circles, Robert.

brownie said...

I'm not narrow-minded. I measured it and it's 11.8 centimeters across. Anything skinnier than 10 cm is officially "narrow."

PG said...

I presume you have seen the Newsweek cover story on gay marriage, right?

brownie said...

You tahlkin' t'me?

Robert Sievers said...

Wow,. That article was off base on practically every point.

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? 6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

PG said...

Robert. Buddy. You're such a bully. Or worse. Heartless and cruel.

I don't do Biblical nitpicking.

But I think you should keep out of the conversation on gay marriage until you can come up with a solution for gay people, to make their lives fully whole, before you start throwing shoes at them again.

On the other hand, I am thinking that shoe throwing has become my new favorite political tactic. People should have thrown shoes instead of duelling in the 18th century. I'm still a pacifist, but I believe shoe throwing does not qualify as violence. Jesus overturned the moneychangers tables after all. And then I think he threw his sandals at them, if I read my Bible correctly.

brownie said...

We've already driven off one person (PM), so can we be a little more civil and stop the name calling, and just argue the points?? PLEASE!!??!?!

PG said...

That's completely bogus, Brownie. What you call "arguing the points" is just text-proofing and bottomless banter. As Lao-tse said, of arguing there is no end.

No, the ball has been in Robert's court for some time. He has no humane solution for homosexual people, so he just keeps calling for them to disappear.

And I was trying to be humorous anyway. Guess I failed.

PG said...

But if you really want to argue what the Bible means, I am pretty sure the verse Robert quoted does NOT refer to same-sex marriages. It refers to the solemnity and permanence of marriage and, in fact, Robert should be up in arms that the state and churches so easily and so readily rend asunder "holy" unions as though they were nothing more than last year's favorite brand labels, now out of favor.

brownie said...

Perhaps you can explain to me what's bogus about being civil...

Fingtree said...

Brownie; Noone has driven anyone off. This blog is considered a "free market". Capitalistic in nature, it is the people's choice to dodge shoe's thrown at them or not.

PG said...

I called Robert a bully. Is that what you're referring to? I also called him "buddy" in the same letter. I think I was pretty civil. Are you deflecting attention away from the fact that he would consign all gay people to isolation and maybe even oblivion?

Fingtree said...

I guess I should have asked Dan first. Dan, is this a socialist blog or a capitalist blog?

Dan S said...

This is a pro-freedom and apple pie and jazz and baseball blog. It's a universalistism blog. It's a bloggy blog.

Fingtree said...

So it's a blog eat blog. We're all fair game. Shoot thy neighbor in the face.

Robert Sievers said...


Yes, I am alarmed at how the church treats marriage these days. Thanks for point that out.

And yes, there is no human solution for homosexuality, just as there is no human solution for adultery, or addictions. You think the ball is in my court, but I think it is in yours. You deny God's power, the question why is still on the table for you.

brownie said...

Why is it that "liberals" are all touchy-feely and opposed to offending every type of person except Christians and conservatives? Don't ALL people deserve respect?

Forgive me, I shouldn't call y'all cuss names like "Liberal".

But I'm a little off my own base I guess. I AM a believer in "if you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen," but then again, maybe I'm expecting too much from people. I don't know.

Whatever the problem is, I'll take the blame. I'm strong. I can take it. I've taken everything else life has thrown at me, so go ahead and jump on the pile.

PG said...

Robert, I said that you had no "humane" solution for homosexuality. Not human. You misread.

Your religion has nothing to offer gay people. You condemn them to lives of loneliness and death. That is why I called you a bully. I would do so again.

To be gay is not the same as committing adultery or being addicted -- I am so weary of hearing this over and over, and hearing your condemnation over and over, and hearing you condemn so glibly, assuming everyone agrees that gayness is an inferior defect or sin or flaw. It is not.

It is your assumptions that are hateful. I'm not saying you are a hateful person. I am saying you (and brownie, I think, best as I can understand) perpetuate hatefulness with your evil assumptions about gay people.

I do have a solution on how we can treat gay people. I have a lot of ideas on the subject. But I was waiting for you, someone who says he "loves" gay people, to say how you would have them live in society in a way that demonstrated that love you say you have, that offers gay people fullness of life, abundance, and the richness of human relationships that you claim your religion offers.

Gayness is not a choice. That much we know for sure.

So, in real terms, what would you have a 13-year-old do who, coming into his sexuality, realizes he is gay? That's what Barney Frank talked about on 60 Minutes on Sunday. He repressed it, hid it, tried to deny it, responded pretty much the way all gay people do during their formative years. Then, with nothing offered to him by the anti-gay forces such as yourselves, he finally developed the courage and the honesty to come one and celebrate himself for being as God made him.

PG said...

Does anyone know what Brownie is referring to? My calling Robert a bully? I don't think I was knocking Christians or conservatives at all.

Or are Christians and conservatives just exempt from criticism by the very nature of them being Christians and conservatives? Should I respect someone for calling gay people the equivalent of "adulterers" and "addicts"? Because Robert is a conservative and a Christian, do I have to back away and say, OK, I respect your right to call gay people the same as drug addicts. That's your right, to call gay people names, because you are a Christian and a conservative and I wholly respect that and your right to call other people names as much as you like. Cool.

brownie the bad said...


I am not: a christian, a conservative, a gay name-caller or hater, (I'm not totally sure whether you were talking about me or Robert).

I just call 'em like I see 'em. And it seems to me that venom is venom no matter who it is spouted at.

I suppose since I'm a faithless moralist, I shouldn't be standing up for Robert (he seems quite able to defend himself. GO BOB!) but I do see plenty of difference between the things he says and the spin you put on them.

Q. What's the diffence between a gay-hater and a christian-hater?
A. Nothing. Hate is hate. And it is bad. Bad because it destroys the hater as much or more than the hated.

PG said...

I don't know what or who you are, brownie. It seems Dan called you "Mike," so that's a clue.

I still don't see that calling someone a bully -- for disparaging consistently a certain kind of people, stereotyping and scapegoating them -- is all that uncivil or venomous. Maybe "I" calls em like I sees em.

Robert Sievers said...


You have no clue how chemically binding addictions can be. What makes that person who has to rob and steal to buy drugs to keep himself from feeling excruciating pain of withdrawl any less deserving of a freedom of lifestyle than a homosexual.

Cause you say so? I don't think so.

All you have to offer people is a denial of God's ability to deal with our own sin nature.

Fingtree said...

What makes homosexuality a sin, cause you say so?

PG said...


I am fascinated by the way your mind works.

You continue to assume gayness is sin (and -- probably rightly so -- think everyone else thinks so, too). So you get away with your illogical and cruel comparisons to addictions, adultery, and who knows what all.

It is offensive. It is cruel. And you ARE a bully.

You similarly assume I know nothing about addiction. You have no idea how much and how intimately I know about addiction.

You write: All you have to offer people is a denial of God's ability to deal with our own sin nature.

I don't deny God anything. But I know God is not going to change someone's sexual orientation. Addictions can be overcome. Being gay is wholly different from addiction.

And as for staying on task, Brownie Whoever You Are, why don't you comment on the subject at hand instead of decided who and who doesn't call people names? Are gay people entitled to full equality under the law in their choices of love and relationships? Why or why not?


I've stopped being nice. I've become a (nonviolent) Malcolm X or a Larry Kramer in this fight. I've thrown off the gloves.

Robert Sievers said...


What about pepole who want to marry their siblings? What about people who want to marry their pets? What about groups of 3 or more?

Why don't you go fight for those people's rights too. You know, I bet their is a group in Utah that wasns polygamy to be made legal. For that matter, why not prostitution. After all, who am I to suggest it might be wrong for two consenting adults to enter a mutual transaction. And it's all about love; one person loves the sex; the other loves the money they get for providing sex.

You are such a hypocrite for not fighting for legalized prositution.

PG said...

This again.

Incest, polygamy, pedophilia, zoophilia (however you spell it), prostitution...

Completely. Apples. And. Oranges.

And a much worse and false condemnation and judgment of gay people than calling someone a "bully."

For one thing, all your comparisons are to CRIMES.

As I said to my friend Pastor Mike recently, you can compare gayness to adultery or polygamy if you want, but you have a reasonable solution for the heterosexual people -- you will accept that they can live whole lives, with single partners, in loving relationships, companionship, and community. For gay people, however, you offer nothing. Isolation. Solitude. Exile. Hatred.

You have nothing to offer gay people but your hatred and bigotry. And, given your comparisons, you probably believe gayness should be re-criminalized, too. Do you?

Robert Sievers said...

Interesting, so since a democracy made them illegal, you think they are wrong? So if we passed a law outlawing homosexual behavior, you would change your stance.


You have not offered a suitable alternative for those men who need more than one woman to keep them satified. You offer an option for them first, and then we will talk.

PG said...

Homosexuality HAS been illegal in the past and it still is illegal many places. That doesn't change the fact that people have no choice in the matter of being gay. Once again, you misattribute my message and do not answer the question at the same time.

Do you think gayness should be made illegal again?

You have to answer my question before you once again try to deflect the issue with another, different, and basically idiotic question, comparing polygamy to homosexuality. Your attitude to gay people is to deny them sexuality altogether. That is unfair and, again, cruel. The polygamist is not denied sexuality altogether.

But, the question was, and I do indeed want to know, do you believe homosexuality should be illegal?

PG said...

Why are we talking about polygamy? I can't answer anything about polygamy. I've never even met a polygamist. I met a prostitute once. Never had sex with a prostitute. I don't think you could pay me to have sex with a prostitute.

I have known and loved lots of gay people, though. There's just really nothing to compare here.

And if you try again to tell me you love gay people and only want what's best for them, I may vomit.

Robert Sievers said...

I love gay people.

PG said...

What? A sense of humor? In Robert?

I don't believe it.

So, should homosexuality be illegal?

PG said...

To recap:
I mention Newsweek story.
Robert quotes Bible to promote anti-gay marriage.
I call him a bully and ask what he would have gay people do.
Brownie chimes in, changing the subject by saying "Stick to the subject."
Robert compares gay people to polygamists.
I ask whether Robert believes homosexuality should be made illegal.
I ask Brownie where he stands on "the subject" of gay marriage.
Brownie and Robert change the subject and do not answer anything, because they cannot.
I win.

brownie said...

Hey, Horton hears a Who, ...I mean...Brownie hears a question! (I do love straight [not hetereo]questions)

Where do I stand on gay marriage? Hmmm....

I don't stand anywhere. I don't care. Live and let live. I don't oppose it. I don't support it. Just live. And do no harm to others.

Is that a straight [not hetereo} enough answer? Or did I change the subject?

Speaking of changing the subject...Did you hear the one about the Buddhist monk who went up to the hot dog vendor and asked: "Could you make me one with Everything?"

Abortion is wrong.


PG said...

Thank you for taking a stand. That is, I think you took a stand.

Or maybe you were the lukewarm water Jesus spat from his mouth.

I think I will take the same position on abortion that you take on gay marriage. Not for it. Not against it. Won't do it myself. Wash my hands of the question. (Hmmm. That seems to be a pro-choice option, doesn't it?)

Would you have refrained from voting on Prop 8 then?

Tim said...

Jesus Christ, the one time I check the "email me follow-up comments" box, I get 15 messages a day.

PG, you're not going to change anyone's mind. Folks like Robert and Pastor Mike believe that homosexuality is a sin, a choice, along the lines of pedophilia.

I, along with the professional psychological community, vehemently disagree with them, but there you have it. If I could go back in time and influence the guys who compiled the Bible (400 years after Jesus died, BTW) I would take out two things: any mention of homosexuality and the bullshit about the world being created in seven days.

It is those two items that keep standing in the way of science and social justice.

Instead we have homophobes and sciencephobes selectively using Bible passages to promote hate and denigrate science.

I've always said Thank God that the Bible doesn't mention anything like "God's love holds us to the Earth" because they you would have a bunch of Christian asshats running around denying the "theory of gravity."

Fingtree said...

"God's love holds us to the Earth"
The was deleted from the book of 'Tim' during the King James alteration. That "Asshat" sentiment or belief, waned about the same time that they figured out the world was not flat.

PG said...

I know it sounded as if I were trying to change someone's mind. I know better. I think, being raised a pacifist, I just enjoy this sublimated form of wrestling, dueling, debate, argument, throwing shoes, or whatever it is.

Robert, Homosexuality -- Legal or Illegal?

brownie said...

"Would you have refrained from voting on Prop 8 then?"

Hadn't really thought about it. Coulda...woulda...shoulda...
I won't really know until it makes it on the ballot in my state the next time I vote.

By the way, God already spit me out of his mouth. Which is why I have no faith.

Robert Sievers said...


I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed anymore than I think adultery should be outlawed. It isn't the government's responsability to outlaw every sinful activity. Human agency isn't the answer.

Tim, I never said people weren't born with certain predispositions. Actually, the fact that people are born with all kinds of sexual abnormalities is my whole point. Why single out gayness as acceptable, and others as not. Pg cited whether something is criminal as his litmus test, then backed away from it.

However, I did appreciate your candor on what you would have done if you were the author of the Bible. Wanting to be God and set the rules is always at the heart of who we are all as humans. Please don't take that as a put-down; I have been there.

PG said...

Robert, Your mind is a thing unto itself. Polygamy is illegal. Adultery is sometimes illegal, in some places and in some situations.
I know you think gayness is immoral, even if it cannot be changed and a person has no choice in the matter of being gay. And this is what I have consistently asked of you and what you have consistently refused to respond to:

What is a gay person to do with his life in order to be OK in your eyes?

What would you have gay people do?

What would you have the teenager who realizes he or she is gay do to plan for the rest of their lives?

Without answering that in a way that is meaningful and true, you are doing nothing more than bullying and oppressing gay people and wishing them harm, which is constantly doled out by people who think nothing of bashing, killing, torturing, and oppressing these "immoral" creatures you so readily consign to hell.


PG said...

I'm accepting the Rick Warren thing with Obama, mostly because as my niece in San Francisco has said when there are protests going outside in the streets: "Gay people are used to being oppressed."

But I though playwright Christopher Durang's comments on the sadness of the situation were also worth reading. Sigh.

Robert Sievers said...


I have answered your question about a half-doezen times now, but I will try again.

Each of us is burdened with something about ourselves that God wants to sanctify. Each of us is different. Some people face issues of temper, others lust for multiple woman, others pride, and countless countless other predispositions.

You think I hate gay people. Personlly, I don't care what you think of me, because I know I care about those who are different a lot more than you do. You are happy to deny them God's power, and think you are so much more righteous than me. Think what you need to to justify yourself, but God will be the judge.

This country is going to feel a lot of pain in the upcoming years, and I will not say I told you so. I will be there to help you when you are ready to listen.

PG said...

So, as best as I can understand, you think gay people should just pray about it and be changed.

I don't think you hate gay people. I think you hate the fact that they are gay.

Ultimately, it's the same thing. Because they can't be expected to change.

So, please confirm if that is your answer. Gay people should change.

PG said...

I heard Terry Gross's interview today with Paul Weyrich, who founded the Heritage Foundation and came up with the name "The Moral Majority." He just died at age 66.

What he said about homosexuality was that, everything was just fine back when gay people kept to themselves and weren't out making noise, when society accepted that there were gay people but didn't have to see them or hear them.

I think that is basically what the religious right today really wants, the return of the closet. They don't want to have to acknowledge gayness at all.

There is a graven image in the heads of the religious right, an image of family, white picket fence Leave it to Beaver that hasn't represented reality in a long time.

If the religious right wants to maintain an idea of gayness as immoral, and keep gay people unequal, well, I think they should keep it to themselves and not be out there fighting to deny gay people equal rights.

In other words, I think antigay forces like Robert should head right back into that closet themselves and shut up.

Equally cryptic to your "solution" for gay people is your statement that we're headed for a world of pain. It's a veiled threat.

I certainly hope Obama mentions gay people in his inaugural address, as he did in his acceptance speech.

Gay people need to be included at the table. Being gay is not any of the horrible things you keep saying about it, Robert. And I will continue to speak out every time you allude to gayness in relation to temper, lust, pride, adultery, and every other thing you so glibly compare it to. You are talking about the basic human sexuality and love that millions of people share or want to share. You are talking about their basic humanity.

I don't know why I have given you a forum for your ignorance in the first place, but now that I have, I don't know how to get out of it. As long as you keep slandering gay people with your blanket condemnations and ignorance, I must reply.

Robert Sievers said...


You haven't a heard a word I have said. I am tired of being mischaracterized by self-righteous apostates.

22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.