DISQUS

Hi Joe. I understand where you are coming from and can appreciate your conclusion. After reading your comment, though, I'm left wondering if the issue of sexual sins being more important or more serious than other sins is a settled issue for you. In reading your response, you single out sexual sins. I wonder if your response would be the same if you took out the word sexual there?

Hi Randy- I love this line, "Yet, again, there is so much more to life, and Christianity, than sexuality. I believe, again humbly submitted opinion alert, both sides need to catch that vision of Life more broadly," and I think it actually ties back in to your idea that one of the two of you (the gay Christian) would be surprised when they got to heaven. The reason being that I think you're right--someone's going to be right and wrong in this situation, but then again, in the grand scheme of things, I think most Christians (gay or not) would be surprised to hear how many other things they were wrong about too.

Lawrence- I see your point and I've certainly heard it before. My question is whether you are looking at your statement that, "In other words, to claim Christ as Lord AND Savior, & to then claim that you choose to participate in something which is antithetical to the teachings of Yeshua" is broad enough. Man, if we had to judge everyone based on people that choose to participate in someting antithetical to the Bible, would anyone be able to make the cut? I'm just worried that your comment is singling out one group, one sin, and not realizing the pass it may imply to those that don't deal with that particular attraction/sexuality/identity.

Thanks Randy. This article: (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...) lists the question a bit differently. It says it got the question from the ED of Cornerstone, but I couldn't find the poll on Conerstone's website. The article says the question was, ""This survey concerns a new law the state Legislature just passed that will affect marriage in New Hampshire. Do you agree that marriage between only one man and one woman should be legal in New Hampshire?''.

The way the word only is set there is pretty odd. In that placement, it makes it sound like they are asking if marriage between a man and a woman should be legal, not if it should be the only legal option. Maybe that's why there was such a difference between this survey and the others that came out around the same time.

Hey Randy. Wow, thanks! Good to see you too!

Hi Randy- obviously not your numbers, but I wonder where CitizenLink came up with the 64% number for New Hampshire residents believing one man and one woman should be the legal definition of marriage. I haven't seen anything close to that. It'd be nice if they'd quote a source for further investigation when bringing up numbers like that. Heck, it'd be nice if all media folks did.

I didn't realize you didn't go to the LWO conferences anymore. I bet that helps make your life a bit more calm. I imagine those things can get very hectic with all the planning and stuff.
Did my own research--it is the San Antonio Express-News. Didn't see the other name. Probably just a small oversight. It happens to the best of us.

Hey Randy. I didn't realize you guys were going to be in Texas this weekend.
Quick comment on the ad--if they are running ads for strip clubs and not for something like this, I think they should at least admit what they are doing (although, do major papers run ads for strip clubs? I thought that was more of the Village Voice type papers.).
On a separate note--I used to live in San Antonio (went to college there). Isn't it called the San Antonio Express-News (not the News-Express?)

Oops, spelled my own name wrong!

Thanks Randy, I knew you'd feel that way, even if you might just have too many friends to know who I am. Well, that and that Brady is just my blog name. I put my real name on my blog once, but I'm one of those people that is scared of pasting my real name on the internet.
Anyway, just so you know who I am, I'll say hi next time I'm on ;-)

Ellie, you're on! If you want to add me, just email me so I can give you my top secret real name. If you want me to add you, just give me yours ;-)

Hey Randy, I'm also still your facebook friend. Although, it's not the AI commentary that I typically disagree with anyway ;-)
First off, let me tell you that I really agree with your AI takes in this post. I especially agree that I see all of the guys you listed as potential winners, with Anoop, Scott, and Lil as having the most to prove. Kris is my favorite. I love that singer-song writer, acoustic thing he has going on.
I will admit, Adam has not been my favorite. I agree with this statement by you, "His androgynous seductive weirdness is immature and might be an interesting study in narcissistic projection. That's the only thing about "him" as a performer that I don't like and actually think is a distraction from the purity of his talent."
I think he's really good, but just a bit over the top for me. However, last night, I found myself saying that I had to see what Adam would do before I stopped watching, so I guess he kind of has me hooked. And then he killed it last night, so maybe he's converting me.

Hey Mike and Randy. Other than the tag-line, I found the article to be fairly even-handed. They talked to Alan and Dr. Throckmorton and both clips from them seemed fair from my viewpoint. Am I just too wrapped up in rabid liberalism ;-) to see the slant?

Thanks for the video comment, Randy! How fun. I'm going to have to try this sometime!

Hey BT. I have to say that I smiled while reading this post. No worries on the "you guys" thing. I kind of figured it was more of a slip of the tongue than an actual equating (and I do it too, sometimes). I just wanted to be sure I was being clear about my distintion from the protesters.


If Im in LA, you are on for Vegan Ice cream (so I shouldn't be scared?). I'm guessing it's not at Ben and Jerry's then?



As for your two substantial comments--It sounds like we are on the same page on both of them. How good of a feeling is that?! Thanks for your comments. I really have enjoyed this conversation :-)

Hey BT. Thanks for commenting again. First things first--yes, there are definitely Mexican food restaurants in Houston known for so-so food and strong margaritas (I mean, it IS Texas!). But really, it's the atmosphere that makes those places happen, for me at least.


Ok, on to the other stuff-- I have used city search (the mexican food place I am thinking of in Houston wins their little award for best margarita in town every year, lol). Thanks for the suggestion!



Oh, second- you said "you guys" in your response once. Just to be clear--I'm certainly gay and am mostly on the gay folks' side on this one, but I don't 100% support what is going on here, and I haven't personally protested anyone nor have I supported any of these protests. Anyway, just wanted to clear that up (if that came off as mean, I completely didn't intend it to).



As for people writing bad reviews of El Coyote as a result of Prop 8--shameful. Like I said, I don't think the protests are appropriate here, and lying about a place because you don't agree with the owner is pretty low.



Now as for your most important point about having gay friends and also believing in traditional marriage. I certainly think that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I can guarantee I have friends that voted to amend the Texas Constitution to ban gay marriage and civily unions of all sorts. My dad and step-mom are against gay marriage, but I still have a very close relationship with them. Don't get me wrong--I think they are wrong on this marriage issue. And, it hurts me that they hold the opinion they do--I feel like they have chosen a theoretical concept over what is for me a very personal issue. Actually, let me clarify-I was hurt at first, now I'd say it's just a disappointment. But, people are disappointed with their loved ones for all kinds of things all of the time. It's part of being close to someone. So, I completely support your ability to disagree on gay marriage from your friends, gay or straight.



I think that's separate from El Coyote and these other boycotts, though. With a business owner, I have no idea what her personal convictions are. She can say that she loves gay people, but I don't know her personally. For all I know, she could actually support reenacting laws to criminalize homosexuality. I don't think that's the case here, but when there is money involved (losing money for her), it's hard for me to trust a perfect stranger. So, I have to go off of what I have seen--that she donated money to a campaign that was diametrically opposed to my personal beliefs. Basically, what I am saying is that I would cut my loved ones some slack because I know their motives, but with a stranger that is profiting off of my patronage, I'm not as willing to cut the slack so easily. Also, I think there's a difference between believing one way and voting one way, and actually monetarily supporting a campaign that I believe was untruthful and hurtful, so that would play a role in my decision not to go back as well.



I was listening to a conservative talk radio show on the radio that I listen to every day on the way to work. One of the hosts owns a very popular steak restaurant here in town. I obviously disagree with some of the stuff they say, but they keep me entertained. They've talked about gay issues before, always with viewpoints opposite mine, and said they are just against gay marriage and special rights, but they love gay people like anyone else. Basic stuff. Today, though, they were talking about Obama inviting a LGBT band to play in the inaugural parage. While reading Obama's invitation to the band, the host and restaurant owner said at one point, "yuck", and "I feel like I need gloves to even read this." This was a letter to this gay group from Obama, so it was obviously the opposite of sexually charged.



Long-winded much? Ok, the reason for that little story (that actually did happen this morning), is that at face value, this guy says that he doesn't dislike gays, he is just against marriage and special rights. Fine, I can probably get over that. However, when something like this slips out, it shows his true colors. It's a similar thing with Marjorie from El Coyote--I don't know her, so I don't know what her true convictions are. Maybe she likes profiting from gay clientele but has the "yuck" view like this radio host? Anyway, that's why I've come up with my conclusion that I probably wouldn't go back. People can hold differing views and be close friends. But, friends and patronizing a business are separate issues for me.

Hey BT. Here you go: the article: http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=144185#, and the letter: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content....

Randy and BT- my main answer to both of you is that you are up in arms about this boycott, and both forget, or give a pass to, the threat of the exact same thing by the Yes on 8 people. Sure, the Yes on 8 people never went through with their threat (because they won), but they threatened small business owners that they had found out had donated to No on 8 that they would publicize their names if the small business owners did not make equal contributions to their side. So, BT, if Evangelicals have never done it before (which I'm not entirely conceding, but still), they threatened to do it in this very same campaign. They sent a letter with this threat from the official Yes on 8 campaign, signed by it's leaders. They didn't go through with it essentially because their side won.


But come on, that's the exact same thing as this No on 8 stuff, exactly with what Randy is referring to about extorting (although earlier when I brought this up Randy said it wasn't extorting. Not sure how the gay boycott is extorting when the written threat by the Yes on 8 folks wasn't). And, the Yes on 8 threat came from THE TOP, the Coyote boycott just came from individuals that didn't like what they saw. There was no organized threat from the officials of No on 8 or any other major gay organization. This was just people mad because they felt betrayed.



But, to answer your question Randy--no it's not right, on either side, to extort someone. Yes, it is acceptable to stop patronizing a business that works against the values you hold dear (and really, this woman's life was 'ruined' because people stopped patronizing her business, not because of one day of protests in front of her restaurant). But, it's not right to extort anyone. But, I also disagree with your accusation that they gay side is the only one acting inappropriately in this whole ordeal.

Randy-- I kind of feel like this is apples and oranges here. The gay community was full supporting The Coyote--going there every day, even having a specific gay day that the community basically set up. They chose to stop supporting that restaurant and decided to eat at places that did not oppose what they held as important values.


On the other hand, the San Francisco city is not doing anything to prevent the Coyote from continuing to profit and run a business.



The gay community is not and has not supported the Emirates Airlines, so there is no way for them to stop supporting something that they never supported. The city hasn't taken a stance here yet (it looks like according to their laws they might need to get some clarification), but much like the Coyote, they are letting the business run without getting involved.



Seems like a stretch to me on this one. Maybe it's just me.

Hey Randy. You better be careful, with responses like this, we may just be bff's pretty soon.


Seriously, though, I appreciate your understanding of where I'm coming from on my comment. I also think your point about having to defend marriage is astute (and would've actually been a great response for Mike). I disagree, of course ;-), but it's a nice rebuttal.

Hey, Randy. I posted this on my blog too. I don't watch Jon Stewart much, but happened to catch it in bed last night.


I don't think you'll agree ;-) but I was particularly moved by this quote from Jon, "I think it’s a travesty that people have forced someone who is gay to have to ‘make their case’ that they deserve the same basic rights."



I also enjoyed the debate. Maybe I spend too much time watching Bill O'Reilly or Hardball to realize that people on different sides of the aisle can actually have a civil discussion.

Well, I don't think anyone is really saying divorce is "ok" but gay marriage isn't (and I don't think the author is either). What I'm saying is that people's arguments are inconsistent--they are claiming a biblical argument against gay marriage, but they are not applying a biblical argument against divorce (really remarriage would be more appropriate, but still no biblical argument applied). So, I'm just saying the arguments aren't consistent. If I'm against stealing, I need to be against shoplifting or burglary and white collar theft. I can't just be against one or the other.


I see your point about having to pick and choose a battle, but that doesn't mean the inconsistency isn't there. To me it's just pretty glaring that gay marriage gets picked on bc most people don't want to get gay married, and remarriage at least has the ability to affect almost everyone. Why would I limit my own right to remarry? I wouldn't, so I kind of ignore that side of it, legally. It's not that both should be right or wrong...it's just amazing to me that people have managed to slide the remarriage debate under the carpet so easily.



I agree that your example of gay activists trying to discredit your chosen path is wrong. From what I can tell, this is held on to by some gay activists, not most gays out there. That kind of leads into your next point, really...activists are activists. And unfortunately what's best for them isn't always what's best for the gay community or (maybe more importantly) individual gays (this goes for activists in most groups, too).

I just wrote a response, but it got lost. Boo!


Anyway, I don't think that just because Miller brings up divorce means she's dropping the gay marriage argument together. The divorce argument is not meant to be a tangent, but rather to point out what she sees as a hypocrisy in the biblical opposition to gay marriage. It's too convenient to just write that point off as a non-sequitir than to address the problems it highlights--that we are following two different definitions here--a biblical one for gay marriage, and a worldly one for remarriage and divorce. Her point isn't necessarily that because we divorce and remarriage we must have gay marriage, but instead that if opposition to gay marriage is biblical, how do we explain our approval of divorce (actually more apporpriately remarriage).



Also, I have trouble swallowing Mohler's comment that Newsweek is posting this article because, "The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November." I haven't seen any notion that the national media was "embarrassed." And, while the gay activists are surely calling on the media, I haven't see the claim that the media let them down in November either. The claim has a nice ring to it, but it seems like more speculation than fact.

Done and done...

Thanks, Randy!

Learn something new every day. Thanks!