NOM BLOG

The Bully Pulpit?

 

Email Header Image

Dear Marriage Supporter,

By now you've probably heard about leading gay marriage activist Dan Savage's vile attack on Christian teens during his "anti-bullying" presentation at a student journalism conference in Seattle last month.

But did you know that President Obama has endorsed Dan Savage and his "It Gets Better" campaign as a core part of the official White House campaign against school bullying?

Is this what stands for "anti-bullying" inside the Obama White House?

Please take a moment right now to tell President Obama that Savage's hostility toward Christians has no place in an anti-bullying campaign.

Tolerance and respect for the basic human dignity of each person is core to what we believe at NOM. There is simply no excuse for bullying—in any arena—and the White House is right to encourage a culture of civility and respect in our nation's schools.

But when a key gay marriage spokesman verbally abuses students simply because they are Christians who believe what the Bible teaches about marriage and sexuality...President Obama has to draw a line.

What part of "anti-bullying" does Dan Savage not get?

You can see Savage's unbelievable attack here, but we warn you—this is a profanity laden attack on faith, and not for children's eyes or ears.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time Savage has descended to such lows—including grotesque efforts to infect presidential candidate Gary Bauer with the flu in 2000, and more recently targeting Sen. Rick Santorum and Pastor Rick Warren with verbal abuse and vulgar intimidation tactics.

Dan Savage is one of the leading pro-gay marriage activists in the nation. He regularly appears on national television shows to advocate his peculiar ideas about marriage, including repudiating the idea that marriages should be faithful and monogamous. Though he likes to shroud himself in "anti-bullying" language, Savage is himself a notorious bully, as the video shows. Savage has even said that the media should stop giving coverage to any pro-traditonal marriage voice, likening supporters of marriage to the KKK.

It's time for Savage to go, and I hope you'll join me in calling on President Obama to make it clear that the Obama Administration does not condone Dan Savage's attack's on people of faith.

Please click here to send your message to President Obama today.

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.

71 Comments

  1. Colleen P.
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Savage apologized for the "pansy-@ssed" comment on his blog, which is the only comment in the speech directed at the actions of the kids in the audience, as opposed to discussing the contents of the Bible. You might not like what Mr. Savage has to say about the Bible (most of which was simply descriptive), but that doesn't make it "bullying" anyone to describe and reflect on scripture in ways you find unflattering.

  2. Sammy
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Wow, Brian, spin, spin, spin. How do you not get dizzy?

  3. Liz
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Calling Christians who don't support his raging opinions is totally bullying in my book. Goes to show the man has no tolerance for anyone who doesn't share his OPINION on matters. Same goes for our president. It's no surprise to me that Obama supports an egotistical freak like him.

  4. Christina
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Oh well, since he apologized for *attacking children*, all should be forgotten *sheesh*.

  5. Millard Kinnison
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    So all you "stuck on stupid" libtards worship Dan Savage. Which part of his anatomy would would be? Can't be his brains. He had any, he'd keep his mouth shut. But you feel free....Mr. Savage and you can keep each other company in Hell. Bye bye now.

  6. David Argue
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    I thought he was there to discuss journalism, not rant about a religion he doesn't like.

  7. Ms. Broker
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    This is exactly what we will get if Obama gets back into office. Every pro gay enabler and homosexual advocate in the country feeling as if they have the right to attack Christians. Funny, so far in this entire gay marriage thing in America, the only bullying I see is the gays against anyone who does not believe in the absurd notion of two men being married!

  8. Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    NC is a complete disaster- I mean an utter demolition- of the marriage corruption movement, its tactics, its degenerate figureheads like this incompetent agitprop nincompoop Savage..............

    Go NC!

    Lets demolish these fanatics by 20!

  9. Reformed
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Dan Savage isn't the leader of the marriage equality movement as much as you are trying to make him out to be. How stupid do you think people are? Who is the leader of your movement, George Rekers? Thats closer to the truth.

  10. AW
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    Colleen P: His "apology" is difficult to take seriously given that he was "apologizing" for something that he does on a regular basis. I would add that a big chunk of Savage's speech was an intemperate, obscenity-laced, juvenile diatribe against religions that he personally hates, and his comments about the Bible were just a repetition of all the absurd cliches that gay activists repeat ad nauseam (e.g., the usual "shellfish" remarks), completely ignoring the distinction between Jewish dietary rules and the moral law governing sexuality - two entirely different things. The latter was upheld in the New Testament, whereas the ancient Israelite dietary rules (etc) were specifically overturned. In other words, even the portions of Savage's speech which weren't obscenity-laced vitriol were either intellectually dishonest or ridiculously misinformed.

  11. Austin
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    No one attacked Christians. Mr. Savage attacked the notion that it is okay to discriminate, verbally attack, and physically assault members of the LGBT community simply for being gay based on Biblical tradition. Savage merely pointed out that the doctrine the church espouses has changed with culture over time. No longer do we refuse to eat shellfish or kill our non-virgin daughters. We have grown past our infancy as a species and culture.

    It is time to realize that the religious beliefs of our citizens should be protected and respected but also analyzed with some historical context. It is also time to remember that from our founding as a nation (Treaty of Tripoli) we have declared ourselves to be a nation not founded on any religion, but on the notion of freedom and the idea that all men... ALL MEN (and women).... are created equal; not just those of the majority.

  12. Graham
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    How is Dan Savage (who I don't particularly like since he is often quite vulgar), bullying?

    He was denouncing specific parts of a book! Not Christians. He was pointing out how society no longer follows A LOT of things in there that we now consider absurd or immoral.

    If somebody was saying that certain specific parts of a pro-gay book were B.S., then that would not be bullying either.

    The Pansy*** comment was a bit too far I suppose, but he did have a good point to make by it. That is that bullys (and not that any of the kids who left were in fact bullys) often run or slink away when they are stood up to. And of course standing up to a bully is not itself bullying. If he was repeatedly assaulting them on a regular basis for their beliefs, or if multiple people were doing that only occasionally, then THAT would be bullying - and harassment. But Savage was not doing that.

  13. Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Every time Dan Savage moves his lips, marriage wins by another 10,000 votes.

  14. Henrietta Wheeler
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    President Obama...How can you endorse this 'Bully' attacking the Bible and the Christian High School Students in this School Asembly! He is sharing 'HATE' to other students and their reaction is Unaxceptable as well. Obama - You are one of the Leaders of Hate Discrimination in America and you ought to be ashammed of yourself...Thank God, you will not be reelected in November,2912! We Americans need Presidents in the White House that LOVE AMERICA AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  15. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    Doesn't this "guy" have a bedroom somewhere where he can take his immoral philosophy?

  16. Judy
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    I agree that their should not be bullying and I do not agree with it. However, we Christians should not be run down. Their may be some Christians that bully which is wrong and against what Jesus teaches, but likewise there are non-Christians that bully. It seems like you are bullying Christians and that is just as wrong. It is like asking people to be tolerant and inclusive, but then turning around and not showing this to all other people. Jesus accepted all of us as we are and that is what He calls us to do.

  17. Davide
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Personally I don't care how many man sticks Dan Savage puts in his mouth, I just wish he keep one in long enough to keep his mouth spewing hatred periodically.

  18. Good News
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    @ Rick Delano
    Nicely put.

  19. AD
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Speaking out against religion is not the same as bullying.

  20. Colleen P.
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    AW, what New Testament passage explains which Old Testament laws get dumped and which ones stick around? Good old famous Leviticus 18:22 comes just two verses after the command against sleeping with a woman who is on her period, which I've never heard a modern Christian say remains binding. The chapter before 18 is all stuff that isn't followed anymore and the chapter after it includes those gems about seeds in a field and mixed fabrics. Yes, the New Testament speaks to certain issues from the law directly, but not nearly all of them -- where in the NT is the appendix where God lays out chapter and verse of which OT commands are 'moral' and which are holiness code rules that can be discarded? Moreover, I don't think it's entirely crazy for people to raise their eyebrows at rules telling us to stone people to death in the OT just because those rules supposedly no longer apply. Perhaps people want to consider the implications of these laws for all the generations of folks who were stoned to death prior to the birth of Christ.

    Nor was Savage's commentary restricted to the Old Testament anyway. (He goes into further detail in a recent blog post, as well.)

  21. IL 3L
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    AW: What New Testament passage explains which Old Testament laws get dumped and which ones stick around? Good old famous Leviticus 18:22 comes just two verses after the command against sleeping with a woman who is on her period, which I've never heard a modern Christian say remains binding. The chapter before 18 is all stuff that isn't followed anymore and the chapter after it includes those gems about seeds in a field and mixed fabrics. Yes, the New Testament speaks to certain issues from the law directly, but not nearly all of them -- where in the NT is the appendix where God lays out chapter and verse of which OT commands are 'moral' and which are holiness code rules that can be discarded? Moreover, I don't think it's entirely crazy for people to raise their eyebrows at rules telling us to stone people to death in the OT just because those rules supposedly no longer apply. Perhaps people want to consider the implications of these laws for all the generations of folks who were stoned to death prior to the birth of Christ.

    Nor was Savage's commentary restricted to the Old Testament anyway. (He goes into further detail in a recent blog post, as well.)

  22. Pete
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Lucy and Ethel, all is forgiven. Finally a harebrained scheme that makes the two of you look sane.

  23. Jane
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    I'm with you Davide. Hopefully he'll choke to death on one of those "sticks" one day soon.

  24. Paul McMichael
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Dan doesn't speak for some generic marriage equality campaign as the post makes out. He's a writer, journalist. If a book is being used incorrectly to attack your very being then anyone has the right to call out such incorrect interpretations. As he did wrt slavery.

    @AW - always a get-out clause isn't there. Some way, some hermaneutic contortion that allows you to sleep at night whilst some kid in Idaho hangs himself because his pastor says that the gay shield be beat out of him. Like Ghandi said, Christianity is a great idea. Would love to meet some someday.

  25. The Truth
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    Here's good copy to replace NOM's when writing letter to Obama:

    I am grateful for the White House’s emphasis on creating a safe and civil school environment for children of all ethnic, social and religious backgrounds. This is a goal that we all can share.

    But I was elated by the eloquent pro-tolerant speech recently addressed at a Southern California high school by Dan Savage, founder of the “It Gets Better” campaign.

    I see that Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign is prominently recognized on the White House website as a model for anti-bullying programs across the nation. This is truly the sort of example that your administration wants to hold up for a model to the nation!

    It was all so great as Savage rationally critiqued the Bible despite an obviously staged walked-out to inflame controversy where there is none. His is the sort of “bully pulpit” our nation needs.

    I urge you to publicly accredit Dan Savage, making it clear that your administration does indeed support this sort of rational thinking, and that respect and civility extend to people of all backgrounds and beliefs.

    I've sent three!

  26. Schnebsy
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Remember, people, that this "speaker" was chosen by the conveners and they should be held responsible for allowing this irresponsible "lecturer" to use their convention as bully pulpit for his bullying. I'll bet they were hijacked by some whiner/manipulator/extortionist who forced the committee's hands to include him on the rostrum, against their better judgment. This is how groups bully their way into events or exclude others that have an opposing view (threat of some sort). This is just not exclusive to the left-wing, but it is a danger for democracies from both sides of the aisle (why do you think there are so many Independents that distance themselves from the fray?). The Black Shirts,, it seems, are making a comeback (for those from a younger generation and hamstrung by our public school system, Google it with the additional term, fascism)!

  27. QueerNE
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    http://i.imgur.com/PfwuS.jpg

  28. M. Jones
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Marriage corruption supporters will go to any extreme to attack marriage and 1st Amendment religious liberty protections. They need to be kept away from our schools, and our children where the preach their vile hate of the bible and try to talk our children into their lifestyle.

  29. QueerNE
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    "I'm with you Davide. Hopefully he'll choke to death on one of those "sticks" one day soon."

    People are ACTUALLY (and I mean more than the socially-obligated offense that a lot of people display) surprised by his remarks?

  30. Carlos
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Aside from the foul language, what did he say that was inappropriate. The things he says are in the bible are in the bible. Some people selectively choose to ignore some things in the bible but use other to calssify others as imorral.

    That is the real point here.

  31. Reformed
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Jane,

    So you want anyone that supports marriage equality to be kept out of schools and away from children? Isn't that one of your groups main pieces of propaganda, that you are being shut out of the public square?

    So, you are hoping for the choking death of Dan Savage? Isn't that a little hateful?

  32. AW
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    Paul McMichael: Which pastors are claiming that people should be "beaten" for sin? What Christianity actually says is that certain actions are sinful, and we all commit sin. Are you claiming that our opposition to incest, adultery, pre-marital sex, etc, also causes people to hang themselves, or are you just adopting that argument as a convenient excuse to attack Christianity over our opposition to this one particular sin? I would add that studies have shown that the most pro-sodomy regions often have the highest rates of homosexual suicide (e.g., in pro-gay-marriage Massachusetts, 33% of gay teens have attempted suicide, versus 20% in pro-traditional-marriage Wisconsin), hence you can hardly blame the problem on "those evil Christians".
    And we are not "misinterpreting" the Bible's points about homosexual sex. There are a number of passages which clearly condemn the practice (unless you rewrite the language) as well as many writings by the mystic-saints which contain even more blunt condemnations from God on that subject - e.g., St. Hildegard's revelations in which God denounces "sex between two men or between two women". In this case there is even less excuse for semantic manipulation by gay activists, since the passage uses only very basic Latin words - the Latin word for "man", the word for "woman", the word for "and", etc - and states the principle as an absolute prohibition.
    Finally, you seem to be implying (as gay activists often do) that the Bible supports slavery. The Bible lays down rules which effectively made slavery unfeasible, in fact when the Jews later worked out a treaty with the Romans requiring the latter to adopt Jewish rules for Jewish slaves owned by Roman masters, the Romans found the new rules so untenable that they adopted the saying "He who buys a Hebrew slave buys a master for himself", since the Biblical rules made slavery unworkable.

  33. John Noe
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Okay Brian I did this as asked but feel it is a worthless effort. Electing Mitt in November will change things for the better.

  34. AW
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Colleen (and an identical note from "IL 3L" who is clearly the same person): Since you're focusing entirely on Leviticus, you seem to be under the impression that Leviticus is the only section of the Bible that prohibits homosexual sex and the only section that outlines any moral or legal codes, although even the Ten Commandments themselves are given in Exodus and Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) and there are a number of passages in the New Testament which condemn homosexual sex, as well as in the writings of the mystic-saints (outside the Bible) which were accepted by the Catholic Church and I believe some other major denominations. This alone would indicate that homosexual sex is still forbidden, hence it doesn't come down to "which portions of Leviticus are still valid". I would add that Leviticus contains sections dealing with such diverse topics as the civil laws of the early Israelites; rules for offering animal sacrifice; hygienic, health-related and dietary rules; as well as general moral laws. Hence the only way to answer your specific question is to point out that the rest of the Bible clarifies what the moral law is - Leviticus is not the only book in the Bible! In general, the New Testament says that Christ's sacrifice has meant that the old covenant with the early Israelites is no longer binding, except of course for those tenets that are part of the general moral law. For example, adultery, pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, incest, and other sexual sins are still forbidden as they are defined as sinful at various points throughout the Bible.

  35. AW
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    To the guy calling himself "The Truth": you've personally sent three copies of your letter to Obama ? Presumably using different names and email addresses each time I assume?

  36. mg67
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Why is scum like him allowed to speak anywhere in public anyway? Oh, it's because gays wanted their rights and to never be heard form again. So much for that. We have a president with a complete liberal mind and lack of morals and has opened his arms to the gays. What can you expect form a non- American person? What a disgrace to our country and the White house. Satan comes in many forms and the face of that savage beast Dan is one of them. Obamanation is close to Abomination and that's what's moving across our country. Go back to the closet and keep your lib-tard lives to yourselves. No, not everyone wants to see it. This country was based on biblical beliefs, read the constitution and study the history of our country and our founding fathers and stop wrecking it.

  37. QueerNE
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

    mg67

    So... keep our not-necessarily-religious-based views out of the public square, and only let your clearly-and-overtly religious views be heard? Haven't we been hearing complaints about certain opinions not being let in the public square?

  38. AM
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Bullying is caused by non conformity. And that includes lack of gender conformity. Kids can be cruel to those who don't fit in. Whether you are fat, skinny, ugly, geeky, dumb, too smart, a sissy, can't throw a ball, wear the wrong clothes...the list is endless.
    None of this has to do with the bible.

  39. QueerNe
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    AM

    That is simply false. The Bible used to justify bullying all the time, and LGBT people and their supporters (who are often treated as unfairly as queer people themselves) suffer from it. What world are you living in?

  40. AM
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Queer NE
    1) What I said is false? Kids are not bullied for those reasons I mentioned? Please.
    2) Can you tell me how the bible is used to justify bullying?
    This is not a rhetorical question. I truly want to know.

  41. AW
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    QueerNE: Only if you define "bullying" to include any criticism of certain sexual acts.

  42. QueerNe
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    I was falsifying the claim that the Bible has nothing to do with it.

    Secondly, how is it used? http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/05/video-amendment1-pastor-gives-parents-special-dispensation-to-use-violence-against-lgbt-kids-4marriagenc.html

    Except, I guess that's child-abuse, not bullying.

  43. eliasasm
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    "It's time for Savage to go, and I hope you'll join me in calling on President Obama to make it clear that the Obama Administration does not condone Dan Savage's attack's on people of faith"

    It's time for NOM to go, and I hope you'll join me in calling on President Obama to make it clear that the Obama Administration does not condone NOM's attack's on people who do not share the same faith and are not part of the same faith and do not belong to the same faith.

    It's baffleing that anyone is incapable of seeing what is going on here.

  44. eliasasm
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

    There is a world out there that exists far and away, above and beyond what you people don't seem to be aware of. You see the world in the way you choose to see it. And you choose what not to see. That's fine, that's your choice and there is absolutely no one telling you that you cannot have that choice, as you choose to see that that is what is happening. It isn't from another perspective like the bigger picture. Those that choose to see the bigger picture understand this. Having a bigger perspective allows one to see how things work in the grander scale of things and what is actually happening in the world around us. That is not a threat to you as much as you choose to believe it is. We all are part of the grander scale of which you choose not to see. That does not make you wrong nor does it make you right either. What you choose to see is what is right for you. From a bigger perspective you might see that where your anger is mis-directed. It seems that from a religious perspective, if you have a problem with some aspect of Life, that logically you would take that issue up with the one you say is the creator of all things, not with the creation itself. Could that maybe why it is said do not judge cause by doing so you have judged the creator?
    The point is, that you will choose not to see, is that you can live in your world and others can live in theirs. How ever you choose to see YOUR world, live in it and live your life accordingly along with all the others that actually are in your world and allow others that do not live in YOUR world to live their lives according to how they choose to see their world. A bigger perspective would allow you to see that your world is not the only one. It's the only one to YOU.

  45. AM
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    QueerNE
    Hopefully no one followed that pastor's advice.
    That pastor is wrong. He is advocating child abuse for children who are not gender conformative.
    Wrong. And if he is trying to justify that abuse using Christian ethics? He is doubly wrong.

  46. Davide
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    @ Jane I don't want Savage "dead" I want him to get better..he clearly has some deep seated daddy issues.

  47. nothingbutlove
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

    to quote you "Tolerance and respect for the basic human dignity of each person is core to what we believe at NOM. There is simply no excuse for bullying—in any arena..." yet your group and supporters continue to tell people like me that I have no right to human dignity, that I have to tell my children who are community leaders and scholars and tax paying law abiding good citizens, that I cannot marry their mother. I feel bullied by you, and you bully people on the fence into believing my loving committed 18 year relationship means nothing. That the act of making our LOVING COMMITTED 18 YEAR RELATIONSHIP legal will somehow turn your Marriage into something less than. I want you to go to church, to learn the lessons of Jesus Christ. Because if you are a true believer you will read and understand Christ's Love will overcome YOU. You will understand that Jesus loves me and my wife as much or more than you because our love is pure, it is not marred by the hatred of the heterosexual couple across the street. I hope one day that Christ will rise and finally tell you people to shut your mouths and understand that GOD would not have made my love possible if it was against his plan.

  48. Posted May 2, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    The facts are, that all these perverts want support, so they don't feel the remorse of there actions. Alcoholics go to bars, dope users go to dope users for support. The gays are never going to be excepted as normal citizens regardless of there status or positions. Disgust is disgusting in any book. God loves the gay person but not the sin they live in, and that is what angers them, the fact of non acceptance only in their circles and communities. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Being in a homosexual relationship is non productive in all perspectives accept for perversion. Figure it out. Don't go away mad just go away, stay in your little closets.

  49. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 2, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

    elias - Not sure what you mean about a world above and beyond what we seem to be aware of: do you mean a Heaven-like place, or are you talking about on this planet?

    In any case, it is a common misperception that if we would only let everyone do what they want to do, if we could only get rid of religion and all those rules about morality, that everything would improve in the world. And the fact of the matter is that religion and rules are what make us civilized; it's what makes us better than the dogs who go around screwing anything because of their sex drive.

    Same-sex attraction has been around for as long as civilization, and yet virtually no civilization has accepted same-sex behavior as acceptable or moral, Those that have, eventually put homosexuality back in the closet. So what has changed such that homosexual behavior should be deemed moral and harmless to society? Nothing.

    Yes, there's a big world out there and perhaps there are worlds beyond; and yet, certain behaviors should be deemed immoral and discouraged; or, even, in the case of homosexuality, the moral thing to do is to seek a cure for it.

  50. TC Matthews
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    "if you are a true believer you will read and understand Christ's Love will overcome YOU. You will understand that Jesus loves me and my wife as much or more than you because our love is pure, it is not marred by the hatred of the heterosexual couple across the street."

    I hope you've found happiness in your life nbl, but I must disagree with you on one point. God loves us all. Equally.

    "I hope one day that Christ will rise and finally tell you people to shut your mouths and understand that GOD would not have made my love possible if it was against his plan."

    How do you explain all the other possible choices God allows that are contrary to his will?

  51. Colleen P.
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    Not that I should be surprised anymore what all the "Christian love" around here can look like, but Jane saying she hopes a man chokes to death? Lovely. I'm also a fan of AW's "I am allowed to withhold forgiveness from someone if I think they're a real jerk." This obviously stems from AW's hordes of Biblical knowledge (or his exceeding comfort with deciding the Bible means whatever most suits him). I love how these hermaneutics work: Bible says something that sounds off-putting and unpalatable? Just look at the context or deeper underlying lesson and you'll find it means something completely different than what it appears to! Bible says something about a group of people I'm not a part of and don't care about? Take it at face value and move along!

    But here's a bigger question I have about the Dan Savage speech: If you think you can love the sinner even if you hate the sin then why is it impossible for you to accept that others can hate Christianity and the Bible but not hate Christians?*

    * I don't think Dan Savage actually hates the Bible, just the parts of the Bible that are used as weapons and the doctrine that insists this is the only way to be a Christian. But that's plenty enough criticism of the Bible for some people so please answer my question.

  52. Posted May 3, 2012 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    Colleen:

    Please. The entire Dan Savage Kabuki Theatre show has about as much to do with the content of the Bible as an Orthodox rabbi has to do with selling pork chops.

    It is utterly futile...please hear me very well...it is completely and utterly futile to imagine, to conceive, toallow yourself to be persuaded for a single instant, that we who revere the Scriptures as the word of God, will ever be moved, or shaken, or deterred, or diverted, or changed, or altered, or intimidated, or in any way rendered more amenable to you who despise it.

    We will simply continue to defeat the homosexualist marriage corruption movement- which is, as we see from the vile filth spewed out by this poor disoriented Savage- merely the antichrist movement in its most recent public manifestation.

    And we will continue to pray for those who persecute us, even if some of our allies do not.

  53. AW
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    Collen: You said: "I'm also a fan of AW's "I am allowed to withhold forgiveness from someone if I think they're a real jerk." You know perfectly well that I never said that, nor anything remotely similar to it; in fact I never mentioned the subject of forgiveness at all. The rest of your comments consisted of vague claims that I interpret the Bible selectively, but you didn't provide any specific refutation of my arguments (nor any specific points at all, for that matter). In what sense am I guilty of selectively interpreting the Bible? If that were genuinely the case, you could refute my individual arguments.

  54. AW
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 2:51 am | Permalink

    Nothingbutlove: you argue that Christ supports your homosexual relationship because you claim your relationship is based on "pure" love. Does Christ also support cases of incest, adultery, pedophilia, pre-marital sex (etc) if someone claims it's based on "pure love", or does the fact that the relationship involves forbidden sex acts indicate that: 1) Christ would still oppose the sin, and 2) perhaps the "pure love" isn't as pristine as the person claims it is? In any event, your argument is a classic case of shifting the debate: the issue is whether certain sex acts are defined as sinful, not whether you self-define your relationship as "pure love". After all, everyone thinks that their relationships are good and wholesome at the time.

  55. AW
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    Some of my comments are showing up immediately while others only show up hours later (e.g., one of my responses to Colleen about Leviticus still hasn't appeared after many hours). I've asked NOM to look into this problem, since the random delay for some messages makes it almost impossible to have a coherent debate.

  56. Colleen P.
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    I have been having posts show up with a delay, too, which has been confusing -- I figured they just weren't getting through.

    AW, the subject of forgiveness is implicated by your refusal to accept Dan Savage's apology for his comment. Evidently you believe you are the arbiter of whose apologies are worthy and whose are not. I don't recall such a stipulation in the imperative to forgive.

    Nor do I need to demonstrate that your Biblical exegesis on the old law or slavery is 'good' or 'bad' in order to make my point -- frankly, the exhausting exercise of pointing out how these explanations strain credulity is not worth my time when speaking to a person whose freedom from cognitive dissonance rides on making themselves believe it. My point is that your exegesis just happens to result in such a convenient (for certain people) conclusion about 'difficult' scripture as to raise the suspicion of any reasonable person. Your selective interpretation is evident in the fact that you are willing to take all measures to examine the context and effects of certain passages -- which on the surface are quite alarming in their apparent comfort with the notion of owning humans, or perplexingly inconsistent with modern Christianity in the practices they prohibit (I think anyone who has ever tried reading the Bible prior to having these passages explained away for them has experienced that moment of initial distress at discovering this stuff) -- and find an explanation in that context for why any given passage would either horrify or inconvenience a modern Christian on plain reading -actually- means something different than what it appears. Or is meant to teach a different lesson than what it appears to say. Or doesn't apply. For passages that would seem to cause a problem for you, there is always something in the context or a hidden meaning or reframing-in-light-of-other-scripture that provides an alternate meaning. But when a casual glance could read the passage to burden no one but an unpopular minority? Must be clearly condemning gay sex, move along, next! If you try to bring context into that you're just trying to ignore what God plainly says! Unlike all the other things God plainly says but doesn't really mean! Awfully convenient, isn't it? (Your invocation of mystic saints is irrelevant -- Savage was discussing the content of the Bible.)

    Rick DeLano, I'm not even entirely sure what you're trying to argue because you don't really refer to the content of anything I've said, but I can tell you I don't have the least interest in whether or not someone wants to be Christian or explain away the slavery bits and all the other unpalatable stuff to make themselves feel better -- good for them. I'd certainly rather they do that than try to defend slavery and other repugnant ideas. But if they are going to apply that scriptural approach in a hypocritical manner as an excuse to attack innocent people, I'm going to point out that hypocrisy for everyone to see. Some people are more attached to maintaining the ideas they're used to than they are attached to reason or the pursuit of knowledge, and those people wouldn't change their mind that the Earth is flat if you took them into space and showed them that it's round for yourself. Those people don't matter. Everyone else, who gets to look at those people and see how foolish they are, matters. Moreover, for a speech that you claim was not at all about the Bible, an awfully high percentage of it was mere quoting or description of the Bible itself.

  57. AW
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    Since my note to Colleen about Leviticus (from yesterday) still hasn't appeared, I'm reposting it:
    Colleen (and an identical note from "IL 3L" who is clearly the same person): Since you're focusing entirely on Leviticus, you seem to be under the impression that Leviticus is the only section of the Bible that prohibits homosexual sex and the only section that outlines any moral or legal codes, although even the Ten Commandments themselves are given in Exodus and Deuteronomy (not Leviticus) and there are a number of passages in the New Testament which condemn homosexual sex, as well as in the writings of the mystic-saints (outside the Bible) which were accepted by the Catholic Church and I believe some other major denominations. This alone would indicate that homosexual sex is still forbidden, hence it doesn't come down to "which portions of Leviticus are still valid". I would add that Leviticus contains sections dealing with such diverse topics as the civil laws of the early Israelites; rules for offering animal sacrifice; hygienic, health-related and dietary rules; as well as general moral laws. Hence the only way to answer your specific question is to point out that the rest of the Bible clarifies what the moral law is - Leviticus is not the only book in the Bible! In general, the New Testament says that Christ's sacrifice has meant that the old covenant with the early Israelites is no longer binding, except of course for those tenets that are part of the general moral law. For example, adultery, pre-marital sex, homosexual sex, incest, and other sexual sins are still forbidden as they are defined as sinful at various points throughout the Bible.

  58. eliasasm
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Overcame,

    "Not sure what you mean about a world above and beyond what we seem to be aware of:"

    Of course you don't know what I mean, you see the world from your chosen subjective point of view. You obviously don't have an objective point of view. The rest of your reply has nothing to do with what I am saying. You NOMulans just keep repeating things that you think support your view and completely disregard anything that does not fit into your view of the world.

  59. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:03 am | Permalink

    elias - I f you're talking about the world of homosexuality, I know a lot more than you think I know; I've lived it.

    What, are you an anthropologist who has traveled the world over and who has some objective perspective that I am incapable of having?

    Don't kid yourself, elias, we all have subjective perspectives of our worlds. You're the same as the rest of us.

  60. eliasasm
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Overcame, you just keep proving my point that you are incapable of a thought outside of your own perspective. You have yet to respond to what I am actually saying. In fact, no one here has and no one here has shown that any of you guys have any thoughts or conciderations for anything outside of your own chosen perspective. I'm an here to get an understanding of you guy's pov and I'll I am getting is that your pov is the only pov that exists. That you are intolerant of anything other than your pov. That your mind is made up and don't want to be confused by reality. You all consistently proved that your view and only your view is the one and only pov of to have and that anything else is an attack on you. You all consistently prove that what you attack others for doing is exactly what you are doing. You all consistently prove to yourselves that you are the victim so as not to acknowledge who the real victims are. To prove this even further, my comments will be seen as an attack when they are not. It's merely an observation of how you present yourselves.

  61. AW
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Eliasasm: Repeatedly reciting vague accusations that the rest of us are blind to anything except our own subjective point of view (but you aren't?) does not prove the matter. You haven't presented any evidence or substance to back up your claims, hence your accusations might seem to be more applicable to yourself.

  62. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    elias - You might not hear from us the fact that we've considered the homosexual perspective of so-called SS"M," but that does not mean we have not considered it. Yes, we all know that there are people who have developed close friendships with people fo the same sex, Yes, we know some of those people have adopted children. Yes, we know that all those people want is to be just like heterosexual couples, except that they're NOT.

    So they cry "Boo-hoo," poor us and our poor adopted children aren't the same as heterosexual families, and we're supposed to bend over backwards and dismantle a thousands-year-old social institution because, awwww, the poor same-sex couples feel bad? Emotion is no way to govern a country. This isn't just about the poor same-sex couples; this about the very basis of society, the building block of civliization.

    So, sorry, elias, all sides have been considered; please, give us some credit for being pretty bright people who actually have open minds.

  63. eliasasm
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    AW, again my point has been proven, proven because you can't hear what I am saying.

  64. eliasasm
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Overcame, you might be bright people who actually have open minds, but when it comes to your chosen views on homosexuality and what is actually going on, you are not.

  65. AW
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    Eliasasm, it's especially ironic to see you claiming that OvercameSSA is "close-minded", since he has made it plain that he once engaged in homosexual sex himself but eventually decided to reject it and marry a woman (based on his posts in other discussions on this site). In any event, your method in this debate has been to repeat the same vacuous accusations and then when someone asks for evidence, you declare that this request itself proves your point, somehow.

  66. Nancy
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    This is tragic. Savage ridiculed Christianity, bullied the students that are of that faith, behaved in a totally unprofessional way, and some defend him.

    Wonder if he'd do that with Muslims and the Koran. Nah, I thought not. I rather imagine he's fond of his head.

    Christians are tolerant. However, today's society seems to have changed the definition into meaning something akin to " promotion and advocacy".

  67. Nancy
    Posted May 4, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    Rick Delano, I'm with you!

  68. Carlyle Castle
    Posted May 10, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Savage is representative of the hatred and double standard of the homosexual activists. Thank God for the students who walked out exercising their freedoms.

  69. AW
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Colleen: I didn't say I would never forgive Dan Savage; I merely pointed out that there are objective reasons to question the sincerity of his apology given the fact that he's apologizing for something that was (and still is, as far as I know) his standard routine. Has he changed what he's doing? If not, then his apology is not sincere. I'm addressing your Biblical comments in a separate note since longer notes seem to be delayed.

  70. AW
    Posted May 12, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    Colleen: Concerning your comments about the Bible: your response consisted of little more than ad hominem attacks while declaring that addressing my points is "not worth my time". In other words, you can't refute my arguments. Then you accuse me of "selectively interpreting" the Bible -- while engaging in that very act yourself when it comes to the subject of sodomy. You haven't demonstrated that there is any reason to doubt or reinterpret the several passages about homosexual sex in the New Testament - you have merely brought up the tired "slavery and shellfish" type of argument while ignoring the differences in context. But if you truly believe that the Bible "doesn't really" prohibit homosexual sex or that the prohibition is now irrelevant despite being confirmed in several New Testament passages, then you need to present a proof of that. So far, you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever. I would also ask whether you likewise claim that adultery, premarital sex, and incest are not actually condemned by the Bible, or just sodomy? Here's the bottom line: certain principles are part of a moral law that was upheld in the New Testament, whereas other things in the Bible are historical health rules, secular law codes, and the like, which were never part of the moral law to begin with, just as much of the Old Testament deals with battles, sieges, and other mundane historical events rather than moral theology.
    My comments on Leviticus are finally showing up (currently listed as notes 34 and 57 although the numbering can change as other older notes finally appear).

  71. AW
    Posted May 13, 2012 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    Colleen: Concerning your comments about the Bible: your response consisted of little more than ad hominem attacks while declaring that addressing my points is "not worth my time". In other words, you can't refute my arguments. Then you accuse me of "selectively interpreting" the Bible -- while engaging in that very act yourself when it comes to the subject of sodomy. You haven't demonstrated that there is any reason to doubt or reinterpret the several passages about homosexual sex in the New Testament - you have merely brought up the tired "slavery and shellfish" type of argument while ignoring the differences in context. [Continued in next note]