Enjoys strong bi-partisan support at this time.

Essentially defines 'sexual orientation' as:
heterosexual, or bisexual, or homosexual.

Adds sexual orientation to existing labor, housing and employment non-discrimination laws.

Actual text of the bill here:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/sb0001.dir/sb0002.intro.html

These are confusing. Essentially, anything in brackets with a minus { - like this - } will be stricken from the existing law. Anyting with a plus sign, { + like this + } is an addition to existing law.

Plain text is unchanged and should match the statutes and administrative rules verbatim.

A nice blurb on the progress of this particular legislation.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march212007/oregonequalityact_032107.php

It's about damn time that we as a society recognize the basic rights of gays, lesbians and bisexual folks to be the same as our own.

I'm not here to criticize anyone from the right or anyone else who doesn't agree with gay marriage ... you have your views, and that is fine, I can live with that. However, the fact that there are still people who are being discriminated against in the workplace, in their housing, in their government subsidies, in obtaining health care, because of who they are, is wrong. I am SO glad to see a lot of Republicans seeing the light here.

Me too.

I liked the focus of this bill. Gets some equality done, without hitting all the hot button issues.

Also, the definition of sexual orientation does set the stage for properly crafted marriage laws. Multi-sexual, beast-sexual(whatever the word is for that!), etc are not on the list, thus confining the issue to two people.

We are not there yet, but at least the statutes will contain fundemental language that will properly constrain marriage, if and when the matter gets addressed.

There is also the implication that ones sexual orientation is derived from the same immutable physical factors the other identifiers are. To me, seeing bi-partisan support for this is an extremely encouraging development, if for this realization alone.

Your basing rights on how someone acts.
Under this law, if a guy applies at a catholic school wearing a miniskirt and a halter top, he can sue if hes not hired.
Or an active member of NAMBLA can sue the boy scouts if he isnt hired.

That's what they want, Nwokie. A blurring of all boundaries. Or even better, no boundaries at all.

This is Oregon, remember?

Herb

Nwokie writes:
Your basing rights on how someone acts.

So are you. You choose to give more rights to people who behave as hetrosexuals. How is that fair?

Under this law, if a guy applies at a catholic school wearing a miniskirt and a halter top, he can sue if hes not hired.
Or an active member of NAMBLA can sue the boy scouts if he isnt hired.

So? Both lawsuits could happen today, too. You can sue anyone for anything if you like - doesn't mean you will win or that your suit won't be thrown right out of court.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how recognizing gay rights has any effect on either hypothetical lawsuit. It's just right-wing radio scare claptrap.

Andrew

Herb writes:
That's what they want, Nwokie. A blurring of all boundaries. Or even better, no boundaries at all.

Not true, Herb, and I resent you for making such a suggestion. I insist on one clear moral boundary: that kittens should not be allowed to marry big rocks. I will fight any attempt to legalize such blasphemous behavior by civil disobedience, even getting myself arrested if need be. Just TRY ME!

Andrew

Sure, but "kittens" indicates that they are underage.

What about mature cats?

LOL!!!

Yep. Read it and weep guys. The Oregon Legislature clearly understands that GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.

Fucking love this state sometimes. Right now is one of those times.

Bi-Partisan support too! There is hope for the GOP yet. All we've really gotta get done is cycle out the hosers as quickly as is possible, then we will have a perfectly reasonable and valuable GOP to work with again!

Yep, at least this gives us a lot of ammunition to use in the red states, to make sure we keep the presidency and take back congress in the next election, so we can appoint some more sensible members to the US supreme court.

Actually Herb, I personally want the proper boundaries.

The growing body of scientifc evidence for gay not being a choice, clearly justifies this kind of legislation. It follows then, we are establishing a proper boundary where fundemental rights are concerned.

Where our equality under the law is concerned, denying somebody this requires some authoritative justification beyond, "I think God says so."

Sorry buddy.

Its so easy for old fat hetrosexual white guys to be bigots in our society. I'll just call them selfish pigs.

Herb said - "That's what they want, Nwokie. A blurring of all boundaries. Or even better, no boundaries at all."

OK - let's get into this one. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your statement is true. Name your biggest fear as a result of that happening. What's your #1 fear?

For 1, the red cross will no longer be able to ask if beople are gay when donating blood.

and religious organizations will have to hire prople whos conduct violate the tenents of their beliefs.

The boy scouts will have to hire gay scoutmasters.

Very bad law, and it will cost the state of Oregon a lot.

"For 1, the red cross will no longer be able to ask if beople are gay when donating blood."

So? What happens now when they can ask? What will happen when they can't? WAIT - lemme guess - AIDS.

"and religious organizations will have to hire prople whos conduct violate the tenents of their beliefs."

Like who, exactly? Specifically.

"The boy scouts will have to hire gay scoutmasters."

They already DO hire gay scoutmasters!

As a long-time frequent blood donater (is that a word?) I can say that they DO NOT ask if you are gay, and never have. They ask the exact same questions to men and women.

They DO ask about your actions and if you have been, or currently are involved in any risky behaviors. Not your sexuality, not your beliefs, not if you like movies about gladiators. I had to wait to donate many years ago after getting a tattoo, and that was 1978, very pre-HIV/AIDS.

And they still test all blood that is collected. Duh.

And as far as the Boy Scouts, which mormons are very heavily involved with, at least in UT, it seemed like there was an arrest in the paper at least once a week of a (straight dad) mormon scout leader being arrested on child sex abuse charges.

Finally, Okie made me laugh out loud with this one:

"...and religious organizations will have to hire prople whos conduct violate the tenents of their beliefs."

CK then asks "Like who, exactly? Specifically."

Oooooh, Ooooh, I know the answer, Mr. Kotter!!!

Ted Haggard!!!!

"Hmmmm, your resume looks pretty good so far, uh, wait a minute, what happened here in 2006, you seem to have been terminated for lying about drug use and anal sex with a male hooker and cheating on and humiliating your family.

Blood is blood. Test it, distribute it, done.

"and religious organizations will have to hire prople whos conduct violate the tenents of their beliefs."

You did not read the proposed law Nwokie. Check out the parts related to bona-fide churches. There are exceptions carved out for this, that are reasonable and just.

Read the whole bill. That IS why I posted it. Listening to a bunch of radio blather, from both sides, will often do you more harm than good, if you don't actually dig in and see for yourself.

------------------------------------

However, Nothing in this chapter prohibits a bona fide church or sectarian religious institution, including but not limited to a school, hospital or church camp, from referring an employee or applicant for employment of one religious sect or persuasion over another when:

(a) That religious sect or persuasion to which the employee or applicant belongs is the same as that of the church or institution;

(b) In the opinion of the church or institution, such a preference will best serve the purposes of the church or institution; and

(c) The employment involved is closely connected with or related to the primary purposes of the church or institution and is not connected with a commercial or business activity that has no necessary relationship to the church or institution, or to its primary purposes.

----------------------------------------

I applied the changes for clarity. The excerpt here is the new legislation as it is likely to read after having passed the house.

Religious interests are preserved nicely here.


**The legislature uses ASCII for all it's legislation, rendered in a non-porportional font for max clarity and compatability with all printing devices.

"Very bad law, and it will cost the state of Oregon a lot."

Prove it.

I'm particularly interested in which parts of the law are bad, and what effect they will have.

Nwokie, you have the actual proposed legislation in front of you, why not post your concerns with some precision? You get three things for doing this:

-some much needed credence on the forum
-clarity in your own thoughts

(It's damn nice to know that your worries are based in reality)

-ammo for advocacy that your representatives might actually be able to use and or consider.

eg: if some element of the proposed legislation happens to be worrysome, suggest a change!

This will be debated in committee, along with others concerns, resulting in better law, or perhaps the law being shelved.

Bitching out your ass only makes you feel better.

Seriously, why bother if you are not willing to improve? I've been doing this a long time, and I gotta tell you, actually engaging with people, taking the challenges, digging for facts, improving your ability to reason, get along, etc... does you some real good.

It's completely worth it, but it comes with a price; namely, those things you hold true, or just need to be true, just might not be true, or accepted in the same fashion you are used to. On that latter point, coming to some acceptance of these things and that others defensible beliefs can co-exist with your own, is very helpful in building your own and feeling good about it for your own reasons, not from fear, social pressure, dogma, etc...

Hah SB2 would not have anything to do with private groups, clubs or organizations. Just like the Civil Rights Act doesn't mandate that the Ku Klux Klan MUST admit African-Americans. Many country clubs bar women and/or minorities from being members. It isn't right in my eyes, but it IS their right as a private club with its own rules. Churches have a right to bar certain sects of society from their congregation ... again, they are a private entity. Private schools bar lots of kids from being students.

The law doesn't mean the end of the world for everyone who doesn't agree with the rights of homosexuals. Y'all can still find sanctuary in places of your choosing, where your types are welcome and they aren't. So don't give us this crap about how religious organizations would have to allow people whose conduct violates the tenents of their core beliefs.

Lets take a minute to salute the visionary supporters of the 1973 sexual non-discriminary bill (which failed to get approval from the House then).

Vera Katz, Steve Kafoury, Earl Blumenauer, Barbara Roberts, Norma Paulus (a Republican), Les AuCoin, and Gov. Tom McCall (also a Republican). (Source: WW)

Like the people that opposed the bill then, those narrow-minded and selfish people that opposed this bill today will simply drop off into oblivion.

This passed today!

http://basicrights.blogspot.com/

Another nail in the coffin for Oregon's business's.

And a slap at Oregon voters who clearly stated they did not want special rights given to people based on their conduct!

This oughta rally the base.

Herb

21-9

Is there some confusion among members of the GOP?

It did rally the base. Just not your base.

"Another nail in the coffin for Oregon's business's."

Lie.

"Just not your base."

The voters have spoken before-throughout the nation-and don't like their will misinterpreted. You haven't seen anything yet.

Herb

yup, its funny how the majority of Oregon businesses are located around the Portland area -- the most liberal part of the state. I believe we've a case of people just making things up again.

OK Herb, plainly, tell me how this will effect me personally. I mean, that's the fear, right? It will have unintended consequences? I will regret seeing this pass.

How so? Specifically.

And if the threat is " The Republican base will NOW really start to vote Republican." Then, you know, ok. I'm ok with that.

"OK Herb, plainly, tell me how this will effect me personally."

I won't pretend to comment on how it will effect you personally, yet a clear majority across the country has voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Redefining alternative lifestyles is simply a step by the left to normalize same-sex unions. Part of this redefinition has been to demonize people of faith who hold a biblical view.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html

Laws like this are seen by many as a slippery slope. And in spite the tragedy of divorce, the vast majority of Americans also believe kids deserve to have a mother and father.

Herb

That was a different point than I thought we were talking about.

Nevermind.

The arguments made against gay marriages or gay unions today are almost EXACTLY the same ones made against interracial marriages a century ago.

"As Reconstruction collapsed in the late 1870s, legislators, policymakers, and, above all, judges began to marshal the arguments they needed to justify the reinstatement--and subsequent expansion--of miscegenation (interrracial marriage) law.

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

And they lost.

I'm Presbyterian and my wife is Baptist. We're going to hell for sure.

"The arguments made against gay marriages or gay unions today are almost EXACTLY the same ones made against interracial marriages a century ago."

One major difference is that inter-racial marriage is actually biblical. Moses had an Ethiopian wife. Show us in the Bible where same-sex marriage is supported.

Herb

Herb,

The entire point of the post was that ALL of these arguments are refutable regarding interracial marriage! (yet you refute only one...hmmm, very interesting...do you agree with the rest?)

Also, this is reasoning that the vast majority of Americans accepted and embraced for decades, but today it is seen as silly, narrow-minded and unfounded.

What does the history of miscegenation tell us about how Americans might regard gay relationships and gay marriages in 50-100 years?

"Show us in the Bible where same-sex marriage is supported."

Interracial marriage isn't endorsed or supported - it simply isn't prohibited. I'm sure that endorsement of same-sex marriage also is not to be found in the Bible, but is it explicitly prohibited?

Please show us where same sex marriage is prohibited.

troll sez: "Show us in the Bible where same-sex marriage is supported."

If the troll is gonna make a jr HS debate club gaffe like that, I wanna know where in the Bible it says its okay for a president to mislead people into a war?

While you're at it, show me where busting illegal immigrants is supported in the Bible

Ahhh yes. The Religious Right is once again using the Bible to justify bigotry and discrimination based on something people cannot help. They WANT gay people to be second-class citizens, to not have the same rights as they do, to not be able to be immune to job discrimination, housing discrimination, medical care discrimination ... the things us straight people take for granted. Hide behind your Bible loud and proud, folks, and don't dare think for yourselves!

Nowhere in this bill does it state that it will make marriage legal for homosexuals. It just states that they will be able to not be discriminated against for basic things that nobody else is discriminated against for.

I suppose you would like to revert back to pre-Civil War times, the "3/5" law, where only three fifths of black people were actually counted as people, and the ONLY reason why the Southerners agreed to that was to boost up their population base so they had more Congressional seats. Imagine that, people were actually debating over whether black people were actually PEOPLE! Is THAT what you want to do here, discount gay people as actual PEOPLE? Just because **YOU** don't like their lifestyle and find it perverse?

Here's a clue, boys: If you think gay relationships are gross, don't have one. End of bleepin' story.

"Please show us where same sex marriage is prohibited."

Since you asked:

Leviticus 20:13
Romans 1:27

And if you don't like it, I'm not the author.

Herb

Once again Herb has translated something completely out of context. Get some historical perspective on the scripture's you provided and you'll find little to back up your claim.

I have provided it over and over again. I tire of your misinterpretation and bastardizing of scriptures.

I tire of your waving away the clear intent of God's Word.

Herb

And show the clear intent where Jesus says anything about this subject. I'll help you out. Jesus says nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality or even sex. Jesus stays vague on this issue because there are more important and pressing spiritual issues.

There are 2000-3000 verses in the Bible that talk about poverty that never get posted by you because you are so caught up in your self serving, self-righteous pomp. You are the very type of religious Pharisee that Jesus detested.

I'm tired of people discriminating against other people, without solid justification for doing so.

eg: The matter of gay being a choice is not resolved. In fact, the growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. SB2 reflects that reality.

I've realized a coupla things about conservative views:

*there has to be somebody to teach a lesson to, or discriminate against; otherwise, there is essentially zero incentive to move forward on a very high percentage of issues.

Dealing with the bad people, essentially. With this, comes the assumption that people are bad, and must work to become good.

However, this view builds considerable demand for approval, acceptance, etc... In a nutshell, conservatives need somebody to tell them they are doing good, are good, etc... That authority defines their value, station in life, etc...

Frankly, I reject that. I was born good, my peers were born good.

Over the years, it's been women, black people, now it's gay people, in the future it will be somebody... (taking bets on that)

We are equal beings here in this place where we all need to get along. This legislation reaffirms that equality. Equality means we don't have to seek approval from others, we define our own value, make our own judgements and build our own lives as we see fit. If you need dogma to define yourself, that's your right, but in this we all choose our path.

If you are not for this bill, then you've got issues period. It's either your religious authority is more important than others, or maybe gay people bother you and that needs justification, lack understanding, etc...

It's something, and it's about you and your needs. It's totally not about the gay people.

Frankly, it's embarrasing to actually have to write such a law in the first place. Being Americans in a free society, one would think core matters of freedom would be of paramount importance to us all, but that appears to be not the case.

So we get a law. Think about that when you discriminate against others. Why are you doing it, what justification do you have, etc...?

Get it wrong and we get more laws. None of us want that do we?

Better to engage in your freedoms, while respecting that of others as well.

Don't want controversy?

Then don't bring up controversial topics.

Not everyone thinks like a PC liberal.

Herb

Sadly, they have to come up!

Why?

Because there is a significant fraction of people, here in the United States, that are bent on declaring this nation to be theirs somehow and in doing so, declare their religious authorities to be authoritative for all of us.

And so it goes...

Yep. Not everyone has issues. It's proving out to be about a quarter to a third of us at any one time. Could be worse I suppose. Could be a lot better.

Again, the only reason this law bothers you, or anyone, is if you have some personal issue, character flaw, etc...

I found this story profound.

One evening, an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, “My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all. One is Evil. It is anger, fear, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other one is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.”

The grandson thought about this for few minutes and then he looked up at his grandfather and asked: “Which wolf wins?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed. The one you feed.”

Hear, Hear!

I like that story.

Troll sez: Clear intent.

So, does the troll approach women during their periods or not? The Bible's intent is quite CLEAR.

"Because there is a significant fraction of people, here in the United States, that are bent on declaring this nation to be theirs somehow and in doing so, declare their anti-God, anti-faith secular progressive authorities to be authoritative for all of us."

No, it does not work that way.

The default is freedom to handle this matter how you will. Have an authority you want to live by? Great! You are free to do that, with the law being permissive enough to allow that to happen.

Heck, if it's so great, you can advocate for others to share your view of things too! Thus, your church is all legal, as is the church down the street and the guy, who just wants to do his own thing.

We live in a nation that is built upon the idea of multiple faiths. At the time of it's founding, there were multiple faiths. Today there are multple faiths and tomorrow there will be multiple faiths.

That's a lot of faith!

What we don't have is one of those faiths in particular held above the others. The people are equal and their beliefs are equal and their freedom is equal.

Gotta love equality Herb. It means you can live the life you want to live, worship how you feel best serves you and god, talk about it and share it with others, assemble and do it with other like minded people, all with no fear or worries.

That's valuable!

The only thing you can't do, that none of us can, is establish your beliefs as being the "right" ones for everyone.

As a people, we don't know enough to make this judgement. The simple contradiction on this thread about clear meaning and periods is enough to warrant what I just wrote. If it was good enough for those great people who founded this great nation, surely it's good enough for you right?

Or isn't it?

Are you special somehow? Do you have some entitlement the rest of us don't, that warrants your beliefs be given additional consideration over ours?

I know I'm not. I don't know anybody who possesses these things.

So, here we are again. It's all faith Herb. You believe, I don't, the guy down the street believes differently, his neighbor is not sure, etc...

Heck, we can't even get consensus among people, who self identify as having the same beliefs surrounding the same authority! Until we get at least that sorted out, there is no justification for doing anything other than what our law calls for; namely, freedom for all of us to believe as we will --whatever that may be.

It's not anti-faith! In fact, it's actually a value statement as to the importance our faith and beliefs have to all of us! Being able to hold them as we see them is among the highest of values we hold here. It's these kinds of values that people have died for, over and over and over!

Much of the world is not so privliged!

Every time I've ever written on this topic, I've reaffirmed the value faith has for all of us, the need for the discourse and it's importance where establishing greater truths is. None of that has changed!

I do not agree with much of your faith, but I will be right there beside you fighting, when it comes time to prevent you fron holding it. That's important stuff --American stuff, powerful stuff.

Please do not attach the words "anti-faith" to strong and ongoing efforts aimed at preserving our religious freedom. That's not the goal, never was, never will be.

Live well, knowing you are completely free to live by your faith Herb. Just don't expect others to live by your faith, unless they choose to. The truth is, if your faith is just and true, others will come to share it on their own terms. No law is required for this, only shared understanding and advocacy.

To do otherwise is to ask your peers here to live lies and nobody wants that.

Which is what this law is about. Living lies.

Gay is not a choice. That's not been established in a peer reviewed way. Therefore, those having to endure that condition deserve the same affirmation of their rights as all of us enjoy. We've been through it with women, black people, gay people, and I'm sure others before it's all over with.

At the end of the day, having a problem with this legislation comes down to your needs and your issues, whatever they are.

You need your religious authority to be the right one. You need gay people to correct their behavior according to your vision of what correct behavior is. You need the laws to reflect your beliefs, etc...

This isn't about them. It's about you and that's why we have the law! If so many people didn't have these kinds of issues, then we wouldn't need these kinds of laws!

Law exists to address matters of harm and property.

We passed this one because harm is being done to gay people and it's not getting better over time.

One more time. If you have a problem with this law, then you've got an issue. It's about you, not anyone else period.

Gotta love equality, Missing.
And if you actually believe no single belief system is better than another, then you are in the minority.
So spin all you want.
Democracy based on Christian principals is what our founding fathers based this country upon.

Herb

There is no belief system that is authoritative in that it is worthy of government endorsement.

That is a fact. That's in the law. That's the founders intent. That is reality today.

That means my beliefs are not worthy, nor are yours or anybody elses.

Herb you will never known as the "ugly American"- you're overqualified.

Chris-

General Patton, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther and even our Lord were all decidedly un-PC.

I'll go with them.

You wanna go with Neville Chamberlain, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Barney Frank, that's your call.

Herb

Well aren't we in an ASSuming mood.

Here's who I go with. Jesus Christ. Everyone else is a distant second.

He's in there.

Herb

The difference Herb is you put others in your list. I did not.

Whether or not you include them, you still appear to buy into their ideology.

I hope I'm wrong.

Herb

I don't buy into ideologies. I prefer solid theology from Bonhoeffer, Phil Yancy, Paul Tillich, Walter Bruggemann, Jim Wallis and the like.

And I do need to apologize for my "ugly American" comment. Totally out line and disrespectful.

No problem.
Sorry. I shouldn't have been ham-fisted, but was.

Herb

One evening, an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, “My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all. One is Evil. It is pursuing your lusts and prurient interests to your own peril.

The other one is Good. It is doing what is morally right and ethical.

The grandson thought about this for few minutes and then he looked up at his grandfather and asked: “Which wolf wins?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed. The one you feed.”

Herb-
We have a good problem. We are passionate. My bad problem is I allow my emotions to overreact from time to time. It's easy here in a forum where we are all faceless so our inhibitions don't hold us back.

I'd still buy you a beer and share my woes about my Detroit Lions and Baltimore Orioles.

And Digitaldextor...didn't I already post that story just a slightly different version?

Chris, my version is the real conflict of good and evil inside us. Disagree?

To be honest DD your version, which is fine on many levels, is a bit too stark for me. The version I posted was taken from a speech as part of the commencement ceremony at Goshen College in Indiana.

(Great stuff KSKD, Chris, Skep, Edsel, Andrew and others!)

What this law does is allow the real Christians, who follow the compassionate lead of their Lord Jesus Christ to consider all folks equally.

Because this is America, it also allows the false Christians, who follow the centuries old standards of ancient Jewish nomads, to continue to operate their weekly bigot clubs.

So, now it is official. People are people. Shocking. A brilliant bill with a smart compromise. I am so grateful that once again Oregon is a leader in Civil Rights after such dark periods in our past.

God sure has a whole lot of different opinions about us as a species, don't he? It seems that members of the First Church of Edgar Bergen put new words into his mouth every day.

troll sez: "Democracy based on Christian principals is what our founding fathers based this country upon.

But the the founding fathers distrusted Christians enough to specificly exclude religion from having any place in the government of this country.

Skeptical is correct. Many people have drifted into the notion that the intent was to protect religion from government, but it was more to protect government from religion. It was a wise decision. Look at the mess religion based governments have on their hands in the Middle East (if they haven't been chopped off for masturbating).

And the result is a *lot* of religion! Despite how I may come off here, I'm completely for that. It's a good, healthy and necessary thing.

Our stats here for people who identify as being religious are among the highest, if not the highest. From what I've seen, the norm for people is to want to be religious. The whys are all over the map, but the want is there. Here, we get to do that however we want. That's really cool guys. It's something to be very proud of, distinctive even.

Our squabbles are likely highest too, but for me that's perfectly ok. That's how it is supposed to be. If we are not poking and prodding one anothers belief systems, we are not learning anything are we?

I'm suing this forum for picking on me for using the word dude.

I'm preparing a lawyer to come after this site and you all.

All kidding aside, we have opened a can of worms. What constitutes immorality to you and your children Andrew? If someone came up to your kids and exposed themselves if you called the cops would you be discriminating against their body?

Missing, reality is that we have more sex clubs per capita in Portland than any other city. So why don't we just follow the norms here and open up sex in public because its the status quo? I mean how ludicrous do we need to take this discussion for everyone to understand this sets a bad precedent? Just because the governor and a few lawmakers accept it does not mean its right.

That in mind, the government made a mistake in my opinion by combining church and state with respect to marriage. Marriage had always been a religious ceremony until the government decided it was to be a state value as well. This argument is always going to be huge for both sides, those on the religious aspect who view marriage as a religious aspect and those pursuing civil unions who see things from a state angle. You have to see from a religious angle that civil unions are unacceptable and people like Herb need to see that on the state side it cannot discriminate.

Missing you state that things are clearly defined in the law about civil unions. What about 2 brothers who live together most of their life? Do they have to become gay to share in the luxuries that 2 women or two men are enjoying now and does it have to become incestuous? What about roommates who want to share in reduced taxes? I mean now you are discriminating at people who live together and share a lot of stuff together but don't want to be known as homosexual. I really feel like this is an unfair burden on society to fulfill the needs of some and not all. I mean we all agree what the connotation of a civil union is right?

I will be helping in the petition gathering to push this to voters. It should be for us to decide as a constitutional issue, not for a few lawmakers to push through. The voters said no to measure 36 when we had a republican house and senate. When the checks and balances were removed, a simple bill was pushed through.

Hopefully you understand my views, and if it passes by a majority of voters so be it. I will accept it and live with it, but you cannot force feed me this crap based on a legislature hell bent on circumventing something that belongs in the hands of voters.

If the city simply voted to change the style of government so the mayor had absolute control would you have wanted to vote on it? People are way more passionate about this than any issue before voters in this spring election.

"...people like Herb need to see that on the state side it cannot discriminate...."

Poppycock.

The discrimination-with all the power of the state-has simply been re-framed. Instead of honouring the beliefs of people of faith, the left now insists that we worship at their altar of secular humanism.

Discrimination is directed against those who believe the Bible. Never mind that your child has been raised in a Bible-believing household. All of a sudden now, it's becoming a crime to teach, believe and act accordingly.

Perhaps most bizarre is that by merely declaring one's sexual preference, you are suddendly in a 'protected' class.

And if homosexual marriage is not only ok, but also sanctioned by the state, then polygamy and other presently questionable unions can also be sanctioned. In fact, why stop at marriage?

It's a slippery slope, folks. And with secular progressives in charge, it's only going to get much, much, worse.

Herb

God created all of us to accept each other. He did not write the Bible; men did, just as men wrote the Koran and the Talmud. Those document are mere words; God is a man of action. I accept him over the books and believe is is a just and caring individual who wants all to have happy lives. God makes us straight or gay, depending on how he thinks we should be.

Why do the conservatives dare to questions of an individual they try to claim as only their own?

the troll sez: "Perhaps most bizarre is that by merely declaring one's sexual preference, you are suddendly in a 'protected' class."

Sort of like how merely declaring you're a Bush Loyalist you're suddenly in a 'protected' class?

Hey Drchaps, been a while...

Yeah, we do have a lot of sex clubs. It's not the same status quo issue however.

Comes down to this:

Is being gay a choice or not?

We don't have solid proof that it is, and that's the core foundation of the bill that passed. I think we all can agree that discrimination on things we've no control over is wrong. That's what this law expands on.

Using the word 'Dude', going to a sex club, etc... are all choices.

Gay people are just gay. Just as people are either white, black, etc... these are not choices we get to make, and again, that's the core difference.

I'm completely with you on marriage getting mixed in with state. Frankly, we should just undo that. The state allows people to form two person unions, with out incest and let those that want to further commit to marriage be completely free to do so in the church they consider authoritative.

We've got a lotta churches too.

I don't think we agree on what the connotation of a civil union is! Haven't thought about it in that way.

The two brothers living together are not really life partners in the same way two people in love are right? That's incest. So that really isn't a problem with the bill then.

Let's say two roommates marry to gain an advantage. This is an abuse of marriage, gay or straight right? Nobody wants to condone making that kind of commitment, only to break it later when it makes sense. So that one is not really an issue either.

People could have done that before. Some probably have!

SB 2 does not change that.

If one is unwilling to accept that gay is not a choice, then the scenarios above would be troubling. So, where is the support for gay not being a choice?

That's the key right there. Prove that, and this law becomes unjust. Don't and it really makes sense.

Herb talked about believing in the Bible being criminal. Any of us are completely free to choose to follow whatever book we want to follow in life. Nothing has changed.

The bibles are still there, people still believe in them --or ideally in the god told therein.

What has changed is that it is no longer legal to discriminate against someone for being gay. There is no justification for it, in that we've not established choice being a factor.

If you have a problem with this law, you believe that acting gay is immoral. You do not believe in being gay, only the acting part. It then is a choice.

Ok. That's valid.

Show us where the proof of choice is, and you've got a case for reform.

SB2 recognizes that gay people have the right to not be discriminated against in basic walks of life based on who they are, much like the Civil Rights act.

I hear all this crap about how it's "gay marriage" being forced down our throats, and how the religious right is quick to thump that Bible. How does a law mandating that a gay person cannot be denied housing or health care constitute gay marriage? How does a law mandating that a gay person cannot be fired from their job based on sexual orientation constitute gay marriage? How does a law recognizing the same basic rights and liberties we granted to all ethnic minorities in 1964 constitute gay marriage?

Does allowing two people who love each other and want to live together forever in a form recognized by law, entitling them to the same benefits that us straight folks have with our spouses, REALLY lead to a slippery slope where we will have to legalize bestiality and other things? Are you KIDDING ME?!?!?!? That's so ... sixth grade. C'mon, my nine year old uses better logic than that, folks!

As I've said before, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. It is flat-out WRONG to deny the basic rights to gay people that everyone else enjoys because of WHO THEY ARE, and if you think that being homosexual is a CHOICE, you have your damn head in the sand.

Flame away.

This law will allow my sister and her partner the type of rights our family recently experienced with the death of my mother nearly 6 months ago. My dad signed papers and gave permission to allow my mom, who suffered a massive stroke, to be given drugs to keep her comfortable until she died.

If this were to happen to my sister's partner we would have to get in touch with family members which could delay any decisions that need to be made faster. If her medical situation were different where a life saving proceedure was needed, my sister could sign off on it if her partner were unable too.

Missing...

I'm not advocating that people have their sexual orientation based on their choices. I'm simply saying that we as a society are giving advantages to people who are living together for extended periods of time that shouldn't receive them. Who decides love? I love my sister as a person, I don't make out or sleep with her but if I lived with her for 4 or 5 years and she was a single mother, I would want to take in that kid under my health plan so she had coverage. Why am I now somehow discriminated but two girls or two guys are not?

So what about those homosexual people who go back into a straight relationship after going gay? Is that now a choice? Is that what they were meant to be in the first place? Your argument has one large hole in that if someone goes one way, then goes another was that some divine plan by some religion that we don't even know exists? Which sexual orientation was the ordained one where the other was simply a choice? Studies say people are born with their sexual orientation in tact, I fully believe that. But you can't make a blaket statement about everyone and how its never a choice. If we did and people somehow wanted to become homosexual again after trying out a straight relationship then they would be banned to become a heterosexual for the rest of their lives.

I think you and I are on two different pages when it comes to what is and isn't a right. I fully feel it should be illegal to discriminate in almost every situation (except a union) based on sexual orientation. I won't nor want to debate that (except for unions) with any of you. Whether my religious beliefs come into this or not, we as a state and country believe everyone should not be discriminated against in the workplace, out in public, or in their private lifestyle.

Where I have a problem: Are we as a society discriminating against 2 people for not letting them get married? I feel we aren't. Marriage has always been described as a union between a man and a woman and we affirmed that with measure 36. So what happened last week, we simply changed the phrasing so now they aren't a married couple, just a union? What's the difference? Can you tell me there is one? I can't aside from the wording. All this government did was just go around the voters and changed the term. That doesn't appease me nor should it appease the populous which is why I want to help.

What do you feel is the main reason for the state integrating marriage into its laws? Personally, I think its for the benefits of children. Did you know that two men or two women can't have a child without some divine intervention, a sperm container, or an adoption agent? I know I just posed the most redundant question you've seen in this forum in a long time, but it needs to be said to make my point. I would be willing to bet my life savings that there would be more married couples with children, than union couples with children if there were an equal amount of civil unions and marriages. A marriage credit was made to help subsidize some costs in raising our children IMO, not to make it for 2 people to get married and share the breaks without the burden.

Take Chris' point above... If a will was created stating that someone had power of attorney and guardianship then we wouldn't even need the above situation. Why do we need a civil union then? This example surely was fixed with our existing laws. I don't see any other advantage to a civil union other than the fact that couples get fiscal benefits originally awarded to couples who create kids.

Scratch that, I do see the insurance side being an issue... So just create a common law indicating individuals are listed as a domestic partner with so much time living together for insurance purposes only. Case closed.

No offense Chris, but people are never prepared and thus create this crap for everyone to absorb. Yet we need same sex unions because your sister and her partner were not smart enough to create a document stating what was to take place in time of need or illness.

For years the one thing I've found redeeming about marriage is that while the state has taken this over as an issue, religion has always had some influential factor. Religion no longer has that with this new civil union law. Sure, many people get married without church involvement but counseling and almost every major fascet of a support base is religion based.

What now? Religions and faith based organizations are allowed to discriminate and I know many will only offer counseling services if someone wishes to go straight and will not support any civil union. So you've alienated the church and divorce rates conversly go up with a lack of help and consultation.

So I know I touched on children a little earlier. Here is a little more of my thinking... Civil union couples CANNOT procreate. Having children on a purely anatomical level is between a man and a woman. So those who buy sperm can have kids and others who don't adopt. Great. Awesome. I'm all for adoption.

However... with increased rates of divorce without some sort of help from consultation services, now children have to go through another trauma by losing the two mommies they started living with? Sure, this can happen in an anatomically correct family too who adopts, but I'm willing to stake my life on the fact that more same sex couples as a percentage adopt than married couples. To me this is all related. To many of you it may be hogwash, but put the puzzle together. There are no studies showing divorce rates, but if its conversly related to marriage dissolution rates, that's above 50%. Imagine the families going through a second trauma and the new disorders and dysfunctionality we have fostered.

Flamer, let me give you a link to an article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270078,00.html

So if this passes and it happened here, I'm going to find someone who will love a monkey and pay them to make out in front of you. Looks like a slippery slope to me. My monkey says its so.

"So what about those homosexual people who go back into a straight relationship after going gay?"

in the first place, the statement is incorrect. one doesn't "go gay". One is either gay or not. If one tries a "straight relationship" they're still gay.

Indeed, gays in straight relationships are one of reasons we see a lot of gay porn and gay prosititutes.

"Imagine the families going through a second trauma"

A bit selfish aren't you? How the "family" feels is SECONDARY to a person's self identity. If "families" come first, then you might as well hand a gun to troubled individuals and tell them to blow their heads off now.

A SELFISH family member will have a "trauma" problem. A non-predjuced family member will be accepting.

Hey Herb?

I want you to do me a favor... Look up the term civil religion in Google and do some research on it. I think you will be more than surprised at what you find.

On your poppycock argument read the constitution. Specifically the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress will never have an official religion but it will allow its citizens to practice whatever religion they choose. Often the articles of government I read uses the term God, but it does not say which God. Could be Christianity, could be Catholicism, could be Islamic?

Then check out the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Dabury Baptists.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

So are you saying the left leaning democrats started this tom foolery back in 1802? Say it ain't so?

I'll only listen to facts mate, so hopefully you have something up your sleeve I've never heard before.

Touche', Dr. Chaps.

A slippery slope, indeed. For if it's fine to make laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference, there is simply no reason why virtually every other area of our lives cannot be re-ordered by the state.

I'm fine with live and let live. But by blatantly subverting the will of a large majority of Oregon voters opposed to same-sex relationships, this issue is far from dead. Before January, you will see a re-energized conservative groundswell to reverse this bill foisted onto Oregon voters.

First it's measure 36 which Oregon lawmakers try to reverse the will of a majority of Oregon voters. Now it's measure 37. There's a clear trend here that Oregon democrats are out of touch with the will of the people. These issues will come in handy come 2008.

Herb

Herb -

Once again, WHERE in this bill does it say ANYTHING about gay marriage?

If you're against gay marriage, fine. Don't use it as an excuse to be against gay people having the same rights as the rest of us though when it's nowhere on the bill. Stop ASSUMING.

Skep,

Ok, in my long rant I didn't become PC enough for you. (PS PC or Politcally Correct is defined by Urban Dictionary as: "Minimally offensive to all people." Not using Mikekolb's philosophy or definition here.)

One is gay, fair enough. If one is straight but tries a gay relationship and goes back to being straight then they did make a choice did they not?

How can a person not be a bit selfish going through a traumatic experience such as a divorce? Are you telling me that its not traumatic to grow up in a foster home only to be pulled into what seems to be a good situation and thrown into disarray again? Where is your proof? Oh yeah just more of the same pick holes in 2 minor statements instead of having an actual opinion and a paragraph.

It's been a while since I saw the 2 sentence skep.

Hey Brian... A civil union is a bond between two people of the same sex.

I'm not specifically saying its the same as gay marriage, but its awfully close and grants many of the same protections married couples hold. That isn't ASSUMING either.

http://basicrights.blogspot.com/

This really touches a nerve with me too...

The blog describes this bill as being in favor of Oregon families. So if I am against any homosexual person in this state as long as they aren't in a family its ok? Some of these blogs are the most idiotic pieces of garbage.

The Oregon Supreme court should throw out this law, as it goes against their ruling upholding the defense of marrige act. In that ruling they said is was against the interest of the state, to give gays the same benefits of marrige.

dr chaps, generally, if one is in a straight relationship and something is wrong about it to the point that they want to try a gay relationship, it would APPEAR they're making a "choice", and if they return to a straight relationship later, they are only doing what some would call experimentation.

I would even suggest there are are some that are between straight and gay, comfortable with neither.

A true gay person KNOWS they're gay, even if they CHOOSE to live a straight life. Or if they've been living a straight life and finally come out of the closet -- they KNOW they're gay. They've only chosen to keep it a secret, or come out in the open with it.


If a straight person "misues" a gay right to their advantage, well, they'll soon find that being openly gay in our society is no bed of roses and may soon second guess the decision to do so.

ps: couples that don't want to be married shouldn't be, even for the sake of the kids. They're not fooling anyone. The kids usually know.

Chaps: People can choose to live lies. That's about all that needs to be said about the gay - straight - gay shuffle you mentioned above.

If you have a problem with this law, it's about you, not the gay people.

Sorry, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of crap that surrounds people not accepting, or wanting to justify bigotry.

Herb, Chaps, et al...

Hmmm.. elections do indeed matter. You guys got your abortion law. That first strike on Roe was made. We got some equality legislated. Funny how all of that works.

Don't want controversy?

Then don't bring up controversial topics.

Not everyone thinks like a neo-CONer.

"Funny how all of that works."

Yep, and I believe our troll hasn't finished up eating all his crow yet.

I have waited and watched, but I still have heard no mention of a certain nickname in a certain context, so I have to ask.

How the hell does a straight man get a nickname like Drchaps?

Sorry for interrupting, but it had to be asked.

I know Herb isn't a pot farmer.

It's a lot to eat!!

There is however, plenty of time!

I can't speak for the good Dr., but you've got it right on me. My herbs are totally legal and tend more toward garlic and onions.

Herb

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/117919773264540.xm l&coll=7

It will probably be delayed a year, and theres a good chance he voters will overturn it.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/117919773264540.xm l&coll=7

Interesting that both bills are being challenged.

The debate here on the marriage aspect is clearly different than the more basic senate bill, posted here.

Constitution party = bigots then?

I sure think so.

More name calling, the people of Oregon made it plain, they dont want same sex marriage, and the Oregon legislature granted gays marriage just called it something else.

Most people have no problem with gays doing whatever they want, but they draw the line at giving them special privliges, based on their conduct.

The State Supreme court has already ruled, its not in the states interest to give the benefits of marriage to gays.

At one time MOST voters thought black people should sit in the back of the bus, MOST voters thought women should not vote . . .

me thinks you're just a bigot.

My thinking is, it's going to happen eventually so get used to it.

Yep, and that is only a good thing.

I would much rather see people grow tolerant on their own, but if it must be legislated, it must.

Either way, we as a people are better off.

Look at how IGNORANT the south was for SOOOOOO long..... They have had to change their ways over the last 50 years.....
Black couldn't vote, Women couldn't vote, and Blacks couldn't drink or use the same bathrooms as white's....
Me think's that Nwokie would like to go back to that......

"My thinking is, it's going to happen eventually so get used to it."

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

C'mon Herb. Quit that passive aggressive crap.

Just come right out and say it. Where is the evil exactly?

Nwokie:"The State Supreme court has already ruled, its not in the states interest to give the benefits of marriage to gays."

Courts do not make such judgements. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. If they made any judgement, it was that a law passed by citizens to deny the status of "marriage" to gay couples passed constitutional muster.

What is in the "state's interest" is purely a matter of personal, individual opinion.

Jesus said "Let me give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I love you, you love one another. This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples-when they see the love you have for each other."

Herb if this is what Jesus commands you and I have a long ways to go before we pass judgment on those Jesus loves so dearly.

"Where is the evil exactly?"

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I'm not judging anyone. That's up to God. But if he doesn't do something, some have noted then he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah. Thankfully, God loves us and is slow to anger.

Herb

"I'm not judging anyone"

Bullshit.

Exactly!

Hiding behind God, is just more passive aggressive BS.

At least be honest about it. God needs to support your bigotry --otherwise it's just your bigotry isn't it?

Hmmm...

I didn't write the book. You wanna make it say something else, that's your deal.

Herb

Herb- You love quoting that old Lev. scripture to justify that God through Moses was condemning gays. It would be interesting if you would actually post the entire passage because there are many unusual "offerings" that Moses writes about. I would also suggest reading some biblical scholars theological understanding on the book of Lev. It's rather fascinating and not as cut and dry as you make it appear.

Remember your dealing with very old language and many interpretations have been handed down over the centuries. To me that is where your conservative views on scripture fall short.

Ok, Chris.

Do you care to help explain Sodom & Gomorrah, then?

Herb

Hospitality issue.

Good grief.

You know Herb, it is a known and documented fact that God, nor Jesus wrote even one word in that book.

Not one.

So, what you are reading is the less than perfect voices of men, who are passing along their experiences to you --second hand. In a court of law, this is nothing more than hearsay. It is not authoritative, where matters of law, are concerned. In this nation, we follow the rule of law. This rule is absolute, or it is meaningless. It therefore applies to all or none.

That includes you, no matter what your book happens to say on the matter. Christ! I learned this stuff both in grade school and sunday school, for that matter! Just who have you been listening to all these years? They've done you great harm.

Discrimination is a matter of law. It is a known harm, identified as being wrong according to the law of our land, and is being remedied according to the process, also codified into our law, in a just way.

So, if you hide behind that book to justify ongoing discrimination, you are in fact, and in deed, being passive aggressive, in that you cannot surrender your bigotry, despite clear evidence it's not warranted, and are not honest about that fact, holding yourself blameless, pointing to the book instead of your own bent self.

It's BS. It's not even good BS.

At least have the strength of character to admit you are a bigot, and choose to lie to your self and others about the matter.

Edit: Here, I'll lead by example.

I think mixed race marriage is a bad thing. Always have, despite it being biologically ok. Somewhere deep inside I think we will all end up losing our unique qualities as the gene pool becomes more unified.

I know science has largely disproven this fear, yet I still cringe when I see starkly different races married!

It sucks, but I stay quiet about it and give those people their due and treat them as I do my own because the law of the land, plus the rational body of knowledge we have accumulated says I'm in the wrong. It's my issue and mine alone. To this day, I grapple with it. It makes me uncomfortable personally. It's hard to relate, it seems internally wrong.

It's likely the same way with you and gay people. Know you are not alone and that you do not have to hide behind some book to feel better about it.

So I deal and that's that. You can do. It's not so hard as to be impossible.

This is a necessary thing if we are to get along in this place. We've no where to go at the moment you know. It's this planet with these people forever.

You won't ever hear one word about it from me, other than by way of this example. My own choice is to not marry and have familes this way, but that's where it ends. Others are free to choose and that's the price I pay for my own freedom.

Grow the fuck up and start acting like one of the adults here.

(And I'll step away from this topic now. I've likely done enough. But it has to be said by somebody, somewhere dammit!)

Actually, only certain types of discrimination is against the law. IE Race, sex, age, vietnam veterans.

I have no problem with mixed marriages, I have several examples in my family. One of my daughters is engaged to a black man. My great grandmother was black, one of my grandmothers was a full cherokee.

Every marriage is mixed in my opinion.

When I find myself in a hotel room, reading Leviticus from the Gideons bible is always good for a laugh.

Herb, do you also believe that blasphemers should be stoned to death? What about children who disrespect their parents? Should prostitutes be burned alive? etc, etc, etc?

If not, why do you pick and choose which of God's laws to follow?

Let the record show that I was asked a question regarding the Bible and am responding as requested.

The information below is from the web. I did not author it, but it addresses your question. Whatever the sin-pride, greed, lust, envy...God is not some cosmic killjoy. He loves us and instructs through His Word.

Herb

--------------------------------------------
I believe in the WHOLE Bible.... You can try to spin any way you want, but here are Bible quotes and you can be sure beyond a doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality as immoral.

Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Mark 7:20
He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

Timothy 1:9-11
realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching

1 Kings 14:24
There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

Romans 1:26-27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.



Homosexuality
1. Is wicked and sinful (Gen.13:13; 18:20).
2. Is an abomination (Le. 18:22; De. 23:17-18; I Ki. 14:24).
3. Is a capital crime that deserved capital punishment in Old Testament times(Lev. 20:13; Rom. 7:32).
4. Is of the Devil or Satanic (Judg. 19:22 ).
5. Is folly or foolish to get involved in (Judg. 19:23).
6. Is condemned by God (I Ki. 14:24; Col. 3:4-6; II Pe. 2:6; Jude 7).
7. Is to be eliminated by government officials, not tolerated or encouraged (I Ki. 15:11-12; 22:46; II Ki. 23:7).
8. Is common in proud, prosperous, materialistic, self-sufficient societies (Ez. 16:49-50; Ec.10:18).
9. Is characteristic of a society that has rejected or turned its back on God (Rom. 1:24-32).
10. Is characteristic of a society in which the creature is worshipped more than the creator; an
idolatrous, man-centered society instead of God-centered society (Rom. 1:25).
11. Is a sin that keeps people out of heaven (I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21).
12. Is a sin from which one can be delivered (I Cor. 6:11).
13. Is contrary to sound doctrine (I Ti. 1:9-10).
14. Is just as wicked as witchcraft, hatred, heresy, idolatry, adultery, thievery, covetousness, drunkenness, extortion, murder, prostitution, kidnapping, lying, perjury, sorcery, or any other sin (I Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; I Ti. 1:9-10; Rev. 22:15).
15. Is fornication (Mt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21; Acts 15:20,29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; I Cor. 6:9, 13, 18; 7:2; 10:8; II Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; I Thes. 4:3; Rev. 2:14, 20-21; 9:21).
16. Is based on a selfish misunderstanding of sex (I Cor. 7:2-5).
17. Can be overcome through salvation and a Biblical marital relationship (I Cor. 7:2-5).
18. Results from man's depravity (Mt. 15:19; Mk. 7:21).
19. Dishonors the human body (I Cor. 6:13 ).
20. Is to be avoided at all costs (I Cor. 5:18; 10:8; Eph. 5:3; II Th. 4:3).
21. Is a work of the flesh (Gal 5:19).
22. Is contrary to God's will (I Th. 4:3).
23. Is unseemly or improper (Rom. 1:27).
24. Is against nature and is vile (Rom. 1:26).
25. Is unclean and dishonorable (Rom. 1:24).

Thank you Herb for your efforts I do appreciate them.

Whatever web site you got this from has done it's own spinning. Corinthians 6:9 "Nor homosexuals." The word homosexual was not even around in the first century so they have perverted your opening scripture.

Your other comment that you believe in the WHOLE bible indicates to me that you read it literally. Not even Bonhoeffer did that.

Contemporary theologian Eugene Peterson makes note that the language in the New Testament is done in the "street language" or “informal language” of its day. There are subtle nuances in the Hebrew and Greek language that don’t translate directly into American English. Plus the scribes who were translating these ancient writings were also making their own changes to scripture to make it fit better for the culture they were intended.

Does this make scripture any less relevant? Of course not. The Bible is relevant if read in context with a historical and metaphorical understanding.

I am not watering down scripture. I feel I am translating and interpreting it better. I have a brain trust of several outstanding clergy whom have given me some great information over the years and have guided me through some of the tough scriptures. And sometimes their comments are …”we really don’t know what this means but here’s our best theological understanding given the context.”

What saddens me Herb is by simply accepting scripture at face value you miss the deeper meaning. Not ALL scripture should be read from a metaphorical perspective, but even Jesus used it in his teachings.

My suggestion is to read scripture with your thinking cap on. See out concordances that will help expand the passages that seem to say one thing but mean something different. By reading scripture with this kind of integrity your walk with our Lord and Savior grows even deeper.

Blessings to you on this journey.

"Your other comment that you believe in the WHOLE bible indicates to me that you read it literally."

Sorry for the confusion. For clarity, the comments below the hash marks
---------------- were not mine. But I do indeed take the Bible literally. Here's why:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35


Jesus Himself intended that the Bible, His Word, would be preserved for us as it is written.

Herbert M.

Troll. "I believe in the WHOLE Bible...."

B.S. Have you whipped a disobeying kid today? chew out someone who approached your wife during her period?

B.S. B.S. B.S. Troll. Troll. Troll.

Verily!

And wow, the Earth IS on the fast track to "pass away" much earlier than God intended it to.

HerrB probably chewed out his wife for having a period and/or asking him go to Safeway for the really BIG pads, especially while Eve was on air. Dammit!

Have problems with God's Word? Take it up with Him.

Herb

where will it end?

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/fashion/391792,CST-NWS-size18.article

"Have problems with God's Word?"

Nope, just yours.

(And your warped interpretation of his)

Herb- This comes from a long time pastor friend of mine. I think others will find it interesting:

Many Christians tend to forget that the Scriptures for Jesus -- and for Paul and all the disciples -- were the Hebrew scriptures. I wonder if Jesus had any idea that there would eventually be a "Christian" set of scriptures, and that his sayings would become so hotly debated centuries following his life on earth. I'm fairly positive that the Apostle Paul gave little thought to the idea that his letters would late become part of a sacred canon.

Just because Jesus is quoted in the New Testament doesn't mean they were his actual words -- or that if they were -- the way we modern Western believers interpret them is in the manner he intended them to be understood. Heck, the President, Condi, or others can't even make a comment that is captured on camera, without having a spokesperson say later in the day, "Well, that may have been what s/he said, but what s/he really meant was...." Those following Jesus may or may not have been literate. Anything he said would have been in Aramaic or, possibly, occasionally Hebrew, but certainly not the Greek, the language of the New Testament.

NT scholars are fairly convinced that "sayings of Jesus" circulated verbally initially, and then were at some point written down. Who said, "He said....", and who eventually began circulating the documents is unclear.

In any event, please remember that the writings of Paul transpired some twenty at the least, to maybe fifty or more years at the most, before the gospels. The Gospel writers may, or may not, have had access to Paul's letters. They do not seem to be particularly taken with his theology.

Paul seems to have had little interest in the "historical Jesus." He rarely if ever quotes him, or even says what he did. Paul is fascinated by the implications of the "Crucified and Risen Lord." He is also fascinated by whether the original covenant with the Jews still pertains, and whether or not followers of Christ are freed from -- or still bound by -- the Mosaic Torah. If he indeed did and said the things attributed to him, Jesus himself seemed to sort of use and interpret the Mosaic Law as he saw fit.

Finally, how could Jesus possibly proclaim that writers he didn't know, who would write about him at some point in the future, and whose writings would circulate for some time before a council decided which writings merited inclusion in the canon of the NT, should be taken literally and never questioned?

Established NT scholars -- with the exception of the most conservative -- are fairly unanimous in believing that the writers of the gospels all firmly believed that Jesus was the Messiah. What that meant for each of them differed just as the interpretations given to the same text differ in Sunday morning sermons.

I'm tired, but one is Gay or one is NOT Gay. I am not gay.

Do littlesongs constitute that you are a midget?

mrs m sez: "especially while Eve was on air."

LOL. I didn't catch this the first time so I'm glad drchaps brought this thread back up to the top.

"Every marriage is mixed in my opinion."

Yep. And that's absolutely the way it should be.

Just to be clear, I wrote what I did, from the perspective of one who has some personal issue. I've dealt with it, and do not worry about mixed anything these days. Heck, my adopted kids are mixed race and at least one of them is going to marry that way too.

To get there however, does mean letting go and finding ways to move forward past the matter. Recognizing it's a personal thing is step one, dealing with it is step two, freedom then is step three in that it's no longer an issue and a worry.

I'm there today, and I'm not sure I was clear on that score! I don't care who marries, so long as it's just two people.

Ideally this thread can die now. Sorry for bringing it topside again. I just wanted to live by my own harsh words and demonstrate I've been through the cycle, that it's possible, and it's not that big of a deal, once done. That's all.

The End. Amen.