How does being/feeling guilty translate into wanting a death penalty for someone else?

Harry, I think the crazed hatred of some Muslims for homosexuals may come from their own guilt feelings. Just a guess.

Tammy’s great. A clear thinker. I also like Camille Paglia, very incisive. She calls herself a “libertarian democrat” but she sounds very much like a social conservative to me. Or at least someone who appreciates the conservative values.

RZ, What George writes is what I conclude from the history as well. While completely awful compared to today’s recognition and value of the human person without degree varying due to any other aspect– Judiasm’s imposing economic obligations upon the husband and legal protections to the wife was a big, big step up. And also as clearly the Jewish culture was the first to emphasize and eventually require that a marraige be only one husband, one wife — and that leaving the wife ‘just because’ was a big problem.

Christianity followed suit and led to more protections and better treatment of the woman, eventually equal political rights as well.

In many ways we see the Islamic effort including Sharia law and the covering-up in public requirements as a push-back against the personhood of the woman, putting on them requirements because of Islam’s fatalistic view that men need not attempt self control.

We see men in the USA who prefer to have lots of sex and little obligation to what happens next favoring ‘their brand’ of Islam. I venture that’s one of the reasons Islamic leadership likes the vagueness of the Koran, whoever has the most pull can, within broad limits, define what ‘is’ means for a season.

I admit to being puzzled a little about why Islam is so crazy murderous about homosexual men. Obviously the straight men couldn’t much care less about other men gay or not, and would think a homosexual man of no competitive interest re: women. If the straight man doesn’t care whether the gay man lives or dies why the revulsion? Plainly in the modern context gay sex might well and truly get you killed, bisexual men might cause babies to be born with a fatal STD.

But back in the day, why should a striaght man interested in accumulating wives think of a gay man as anything but unthreatening labor? Why the requirement to kill them? Maybe because they fear the rape of boys, is that it?

You can see this hatred for normal sexual relations between men and women when you hear those who support gay marriage call heterosexuals, “breeders.” Or when some of them speak about homosexuality as a boon for the environment because we need to stop procreating. I see it as part of the death culture so many secular people embrace.

We must remember that OT times were violent. A lot of what we decry were likewise improvments in the human condition. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” was likewise a more merciful restraint on the innate violence that usually led to mutilation or murder for an insult or trauma.

I agree with Greg Gutfeld, that a gay bar be built next door to the mosque or that gay couples show up demanding to be married.

The best remark came from Rush the other day. He asked what gay couples were going to do now that a federal judge put a stay on the overturning of Prop 8. It’s unfair to ask them to abstain from sex utnil the issue was resolved.

Do you feel that the Old Testament is “pro-woman”? Polygamy was the norm, women were forced to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28) and were even assigned less monetary value than men (Leviticus 27:6). This was not a “pro-gay” culture, though.

A radio commentator here swears gay marriage comes from the salivating divorce attorneys who see missing business.

Next up: polygamy. I think the first legal multi-marriages should be held at the ground zero mosque.

George,

Perhaps you should consider adding to your thinking the results of a major demographic and socioligical shift: Sex with women before 100 or so years ago was a life-threatening event as pregnancy often resulted in the woman’s death. Families intervened to protect their girls with poorer judgement and the more intelligent women knew full well the risks as half of them didn’t make it to their mid 20’s.

There was a fraction of men who, shall we say, ‘acted the part of the male’ with ‘homosexual boys/men’, until they married and could find normal outlet for, well ‘their needs’ shall we call it.

In today’s world where gay sex carries horrific risk of fearsome disease, while normal sex carries (historically comparitively speaking) almost no risk I wonder why there is such fuss really.

Sometimes I think the reason there is support for the Mosque At Ground Zero is that if it is denied it means the society has moved to block an activity on the basis of the optional views held to be unpopular by a supermajority. This sort of energy is a threat to the agenda of acceptance of gay promiscuity.

Noting the enormous promiscuity among gay males (10, 100x the female) I wonder why they are pushing so hard for what appears to defacto amount to mostly a bonanza for divorce attorneys.

Gay “marriage” is NOT marriage. It’s as simple as that. True marriage is what it is… a unique fulfillment of both aspects of humanity. Nothing we do will change the truth that is marriage.

However loving, faithful, intimate and honest the relationship between two men or two women, that relationship is not, and cannot be, marriage. If we drop literally thousands of years of precedent and call such matches “marriages” we will have done nothing to improve the real condition of those involved, but simply shoved a hitherto useful word closer to meaninglessness.

What is at risk is the degradation of our understanding of the truth. By admitting the use of the phrase “gay marriage” we contribute to our own confusion and enslavement to un-truth.

Those of us who wish to speak truth will compensate by using additional qualifiers like ‘real’ or ‘traditional’ or ‘straight’ or ‘Christian’ to designate a one-man-one-woman union. But the net effect of calling any union a marriage will be to reduce precision and increase confusion. In this country, as Fr J. points out, everyone has the right to marry, but NOT the right to change the meaning of the word to something else. Even kids know that would be “so gay.”

Marriage has been (and should continue to be) privileged and endowed by society and the state with special rights and benefits, because of its recognized value and primordial significance. Other unions are not thus privileged because “everybody knows” they are not of similar value.

That is correct, once we do that, then why stop there? I believe the others wont go very far unless supported by the same powerful political and financial forces. To me it is obvious that this is the case with the homosexual movement. They receive money from various “benefactors“.
See Homosexual Media Target Christians

But some aren’t buying. “This is a man-and by the way he is a man; he’s not a woman-who is one of the leaders in crusading for so-called ‘civil rights’ based on gender-confused behavior,” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth was quoted as saying by onenewsnow.com “Gender identity disorder” is “a recognized mental illness that should be treated-not affirmed and protected,” points out Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.