Top Prop 8 Donor Funded Proponent of Death Penalty for Gays

The Ahmanson name is attached to some of the most familiar institutions in Los Angeles, including the Ahmanson Theater, the Ahmanson Foundation and Ahmanson Ranch, just to name three. But very few people in these parts — or anywhere, for that matter — know that the heir to the Ahmanson banking fortune that bestowed these institutions on the city is an extremely reclusive ultra-right wing Christian extremist who suffers from Tourettes Syndrome and who was diagnosed with schizophrenia two decades ago.

But Howard F. Ahmanson’s days in obscurity may be ending. Last week, reporter Max Blumenthal uncovered the fact that Ahmanson was the third largest private donor to Proposition 8, the anti-gay initiative that overturned the right of gay people to marry in California. Ahmanson, a long-time donor to anti-gay causes, is a follower and major funder of the late Rousas John Rushdoony, an author and radical theologian who promoted replacing democracy in the United States with a theocratic government.

Regarding Rushdoony, Blumenthal wrote:

Ahmanson’s most controversial episode related to his funding of the religious empire of … Rushdoony, a radical evangelical theologian who advocated placing the United States under the control of a Christian theocracy that would mandate the stoning to death of homosexuals. With Prop 8 organizers claiming in a virtual mantra that their measure will not harm gays or take rights away from heterosexual Californians, Ahmanson has good reason to conceal his involvement in the campaign.

Rushdoony believed that U.S. law should be based on Mosaic laws in the Old Testament. In his 1,894-page screed The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony advocated instituting the Old Testament’s punishment — death by stoning and other forms of execution — for homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one’s virginity and other behaviors.

Ahmanson has said that, unlike his mentor, he does not support the death penalty for gay people. But he was Rushdoony’s biggest supporter, according to Blumenthal:

Describing his philosophy as “Christian Reconstructionism,” Rushdoony painstakingly outlined plans for the church to take over the federal government and “reconstruct” it along biblical lines. He provided detailed plans for how it would provide healthcare, pave roads and reorganize schools, and how it would mete out justice.

Calling for the literal application of all 613 laws described in the Book of Leviticus, Rushdoony paid special attention to punishments. Instead of serving prison sentences, criminals would be sentenced to indentured servitude, whipped, sold into slavery, or executed. “God’s government prevails,” Rushdoony wrote, “and His alternatives are clear-cut: either men and nations obey His laws, or God invokes the death penalty against them.” Those eligible on Rushdoony’s long list for execution included disobedient children, unchaste women, apostates, blasphemers, practitioners of witchcraft, astrologers, adulterers, and, of course, anyone who engaged in “sodomy or homosexuality.”

After Ahmanson’s awakening, R.J. Rushdoony reveled in his discovery of a financial angel willing to fund the growth of his think tank, Chalcedon, while expanding the influence of Reconstructionist philosophy. He rewarded Ahmanson’s generosity by giving him a seat on Chalcedon’s board of directors. Ahmanson was profoundly grateful. At last, in Rushdoony he had found the attentive and approving father he yearned for his whole life. “Howard got to know Rushdoony and Rushdoony was very good to him when he was a young man and my husband was very grateful and supported him to his death,” Roberta Green Ahmanson told me. The Ahmansons were at Rushdoony’s side when he died in February 2001.

In 2001, Ahmanson and his wife donated $1 million to a right-wing Christian front group, the Institute for Religion and Democracy, for the stealth purpose of smearing openly gay Episcopal bishop Eugene Robinson.

Blumenthal concludes: “While the Episcopal global schism represented a towering achievement for Ahmanson, the passage of Prop 8 would be the apotheosis of his long career. He does not seek credit — recognition only damages the causes he funds.”

At the very least, maybe this episode will put the glare of publicity on Ahmanson’s every move from now on.

H/t: Kira

34 Comments

  • Kira
    November 12, 2008 - 7:10 pm | Permalink

    This part of my comment fits under your article “Pitts: Some Blacks Forgot Sting of Discrimination” but is also appropriate here due to Ahmanson’s deep involvement.

    I think the current disturbance in CA between the Blacks and Gays is suspicious. I have little doubt the radical rightwing is responsible – stirring up trouble by having the media report unfounded claims that Blacks are responsible for the passing of Prop 8.

    By doing so, they [radical rightwingers/GOP] are causing dissension within the Democratic Party and probably using diversion tactics to hide something else they are doing.

    Here are a couple of links that connect Ahmanson the radical “Christian” Fundamentalist to the Electronic Voting Machine industry:

    The Hidden History of Electronic Voting Machines:

    “Former CIA Station Chief John Stockwell writes that one of the favorite tactics of the CIA during the Reagan-Bush administration in the 1980s was to control countries by manipulating the election process…. Documents illustrate that the Reagan and Bush administration supported computer manipulation in both Noriega’s rise to power in Panama and in Marcos’ attempt to retain power in the Philippines. Many of the Reagan administration’s staunchest supporters were members of the Council for National Policy.” — Dr. Bob Fitrakis, Senior Editor, The Free Press

    The quote above is significant because the original funders of the first major US electronic voting machine company, Data Mark (which is now ES&S), were the evangelical Christian Ahmanson family. Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. was a member of the secretive Council for National Policy, a rightwing organization that featured members such as John K. Singlaub (a founding member of the CIA), Ku Klux Klan leader Richard Shoff, Oliver North and other Iran-Contra figures, and many other hard-right ideologues.

    The Ahmanson family has given hundreds of millions of dollars to various conservative initiatives. They fund groups that push for the teaching of creationism in schools and are main contributors to the infamous Chalcedon Institute, which supports mandating the death penalty for gays, exclusion of citizenship for non-Christians, and if that wasn’t enough, bringing back slavery.

    In the halls of power they are most well known for starting one of the most powerful think tanks in the world, the Heritage Foundation, which was a major policy provider for the Reagan administration. …[more]

    AND

    Bob Fitrakis on Diebold, ES&S, Ahmanson & others – 2004

  • November 12, 2008 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    These people need to go somewhere and start their own country, with all their ridiculous rules. The country we already have does not need them.

  • Kira
    November 12, 2008 - 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Hey Jon! Thanks for the H/t :)

  • Kira
    November 12, 2008 - 9:08 pm | Permalink

    A Hail Mary pass?

    Democratic legislators ask state Supreme Court to void Prop. 8

    In their brief, lawmakers described the 500,000-vote margin as a “bare majority,” and said it was “compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law.”

    “Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group,” the brief says. …[more at link]

  • Eddie
    November 13, 2008 - 12:08 am | Permalink
  • Kira
    November 13, 2008 - 2:45 am | Permalink

    Apparently the son is cut out of altogether different cloth than his father Robert H. Ahmanson.

  • Dot
    November 13, 2008 - 3:35 am | Permalink

    His invovment just sounds weird and fishy. It is hard to belive that stuff is still real, but I guess people still kill people even over small things. The problem Trish is that those people have already found a land and made a country out of it. They killed blacs latinos and many others to have it. I guess that is the trick. It’s not about nagotiating or working together, its about whether or not you can kill people because that is obviousely how you get what you want.

  • November 13, 2008 - 11:19 am | Permalink

    This is not recent news, many people across the web have been talking about Reconstructionist, third wave,Domionist,and many other names and non-names (like Bible Church)that they have used to infiltrate and subvert normal if conservative churches.

    http://www.talk2action.org has been a center of activity that is getting the word out and fighting back. This is not about Christianity, but an eliminationist theocratic totalitarian fringe found in most religions.

    In Islam that would be Al Queda and the Islamists, in Judaism Kahanists (who are causing similar mischief in Israel)but each is most a threat to those who they claim, and in the USA that would be the Dominionists and not the Islamists.

  • Dorothy
    November 13, 2008 - 11:52 am | Permalink

    Can you imagine even thinking that gays should be put to death? Why aren’t we exposing leaders in past history who advocated this? On second thought, maybe we shouldn’t. Want to know why? Well, it is a known fact that homosexuality was a capital offense in the early American colonies and Thomas Jefferson even supported the castration of homosexuals (just Google all of this and you will find how different early Americans were when compared with today’s Americans!). Thoughts, anyone? Dorothy

  • Ross1776
    November 13, 2008 - 2:54 pm | Permalink

    As I understand, the gay community in California have all legal rights with respect to domestic partners as married couples do – governmental “civil unions” in this country were actually instituted in order to secure inheritance rights in the event of dying intestate, or without a will. Since gays actually have no natural children by and large, but through adoption at this point, those “rights of inheritance” are secured through the adoption papers themselves, just as any married couple’s children adopted during the marriage. Actually, what really would clear this up is the state’s issuing “domestic partnership” licenses in order to protect the children in the event of dissolution of the domestic partnership.

    Marriage is both a religious and civil union…..so if you are not religious, or do not believe in marriage in the manner in which God actually did intend it – since he created Adam, and then Eve, as his actual plan for the family since it is scientific fact that we cannot procreate, without medical intervention, on our own without the other sex. This is fact, not merely religious teaching.

    What is needed is “domestic partnership” licenses for same sex couples, in order to protect the inheritance rights of any children or others who might claim rights of inheritance at death.

  • e.mitchell
    November 13, 2008 - 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Someone should post a list of all of the businesses that contributed to the prop 8 fund and all gays and people with a mind that can think for itself should boycot those businesses.

  • visitor
    November 13, 2008 - 4:58 pm | Permalink

    holy crap, make your inline links easier to identify! let’s stop living in the beautiful imagination world where everyone has perfect vision. text-decoration: underline;

  • November 13, 2008 - 5:13 pm | Permalink

    But Ross, separate but equal is not equal. The cornerstone of the California Constitution is the equal protection clause, which instructs the government to protect the rights of all citizens equally. Prop 8 is a direct violation of this clause.

    The choices facing the Supreme Court now are a) quash Prop 8, b) end the right to marriage for everyone, straight and gay or c) whiff on the decision and send it to the federal courts. (Hint: the same Republican California Supreme Court justices who legalized same sex marriage in May will be making this ruling.)

    Bear in mind that the state legislature, which according to the constitution represents “the people,” passed laws making gay marriage legal twice last year, and Gov. Schwarzenegger — who now opposes Prop 8 — chickened out then and vetoed the legislation.

    But there is one fact you’ve got wrong: Marriage has nothing to do with religion legally. Weddings can be religious, but marriage is administrated by the state. It’s been this way for hundreds of years.

    Proof 1: Even couples who marry in churches must have a license from the government.

    Proof 2: Divorces are granted by courts, not churches.

    Finally, I would urge you to actually read the Bible. Abraham, the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, was a polygamist. His wife Sarah was his half-sister, as was customary in that day. Jacob, David and Solomon were polygamists too. In the New Testament, Paul opposed marriage, saying it should only be entered into as a last resort by Christians who were too weak to control their urges.

    In fact, the romantic ideal of marriage is actually relativity new. Before the early 1800s, marriages were mostly business arrangements between families. It wasn’t until the dawn of industrialization that common folks were able to afford to marry for love.

  • Dot
    November 13, 2008 - 8:00 pm | Permalink

    I must step in and say tha Paul did no write agains marriage. If you Really read he bible Paul said that if you are doing work for the church it is easier to do it when you are single because you do not have extra obligations. In fact he Bible does talk about marriage even in he beginning of the bible is Adam and Eve. They go through a marriage ceremony with God ending it by saying go multiply and replenish. Marriage was so important that even mary wed joseph so that their family could be complete. Their were polygamists but only to the people God appointed. Sorry to step on your toes but I like to see he facs straight on both sides of a discussion.

  • Dot
    November 13, 2008 - 9:53 pm | Permalink

    On top of that, the bible does say to cleave unto your wife and that a man should leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife. Not just a woman but a wife. And if you are looking for Romance, what about the man in the old tesament who worked 14 years as a slave just so he could marry a woman. That is pretty romantic. I think you really have to be in love to do that for someone.

  • Kira
    November 14, 2008 - 1:00 am | Permalink

    Jesus asks, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord!’ but do not do what I say?”

    as in: love God, love neighbors, love enemies, do justice, tell the truth …

    Here is a letter that all “Christians” should think about when judging homosexuals (For which they are not supposed to judge.)
    It is a very strong and moving letter written by the mother of a gay boy in Vermont…

    “Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I’ve taken enough from you good people. I’m tired of your foolish rhetoric about the “homosexual agenda” and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

    My first born son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called “fag” incessantly, starting when he was 6.

    In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn’t bear to continue living any longer, that he didn’t want to be gay and that he couldn’t face a life without dignity.

    You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don’t know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn’t put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it’s about time you started doing that.

    At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won’t get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don’t know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

    If you want to tout your own morality, you’d best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I’m puzzled.

    Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that’s not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

    A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul, a Vermonter, so I’ll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for “true Vermonters.”

    You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn’t give their lives so that the “homosexual agenda” could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn’t the measure of the man.

    You religious folk just can’t bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he, you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant.

    God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin. The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about “those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing” asks: “What ever happened to the idea of striving to be better human beings than we are?” Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that? “

  • Mike
    November 14, 2008 - 3:47 am | Permalink

    What does him having Tourettes Syndrome have to do with anything? That doesn’t or shouldn’t influence him to act in any way against a certain group.

  • Salt
    November 14, 2008 - 4:02 am | Permalink

    Actually, Jon is a little off. States only got involved in licenses for marriage because of interracial marriage. The vast majority of churches simply wouldn’t perform the ceremony, and the state solution was to grant a license for this and allow a judge to perform it. This expanded to licenses for everyone to get married, as all government programs tend to. While examples of marriage licenses do exist in the colonies, they were almost always because of interracial marriage, the common practice was to do without a license – it was considered (and is by some Christians) to be unneeded in a vow between two people & God, in essence involving a third party (the state) into the marriage with no divine authority to be there.

    Recognizing the state created a loophole around the majority of the peoples wishes – most states eventually passed laws prohibiting interracial marriage to preserve racial identity, and in accordance with biblical law, but by then the hook was set and more states started requiring it for various things.

  • November 14, 2008 - 7:16 am | Permalink

    Paul (or whoever wrote the letters in the New Testament) said a lot of things, including:

    Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

    And:

    Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

    But the passage I referred to when I said Paul was against marriage was this:

    Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    There’s a perception that Paul only aimed his hellfire at gays, but in fact there are only a couple of passing references to homosexuality in the letters. Most of the behavior he damned referenced straight people. Stuff like this:

    Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

    And this is the point: Religious extremists have exaggerated what the Bible says about homosexuality, making it seem like the entire book is nothing but an anti-gay screed. In fact, taken in context, homosexuality is barely mentioned.

    There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other sins that the Bible says are as grievous as being gay — eating shrimp and ham, women wearing pants, checking your horoscope, burning incense and improperly covering one’s poop in the desert, for example — and there are at least 10 sins that are arguably much, much worse than being gay, including worshiping another god, making idols, saying “God damn” and other swear words, working on Sunday, murder, adultery, theft, lying and jealousy.

    When religious extremists start demanding that adulterers be denied the right to remarry and fornicators be prevented from adopting children, that employers have the right to fire people who say “God damn” or work on Sunday and that landlords have the right to evict women who wear pants and talk in church, then there will be no denying that their use of Bible verses to justify denying civil rights to gay people is sincere.

    It will still be irrelevant since we live under a civil government, not a theocracy — but at least it will be sincere.

    Until then, there’s only one conclusion to draw: People who selectively use the Bible to excuse their hatred toward gay people are lying to themselves. They need to look in their own dark hearts and ask themselves what it is they are truly afraid of.

  • Dot
    November 14, 2008 - 7:07 pm | Permalink

    So first of all do you know what fornication is? It is expressing sexual passion out side of marriage. Paul wanted people to get married if they could not hold their passions.

  • November 15, 2008 - 7:07 am | Permalink

    Paul wanted people who were too weak to control their passions to get married as a last resort, but what he really advocated was sublimating sexual passion and not marrying — or at least that’s how the Catholic Church interpreted it when it installed its (supposed) celibacy regime centuries ago.

    Again, the point here is that Paul says that millions upon millions of unmarried straight are just as hellbound as gay people. Ditto adulterers.

    If the fact that the Bible says being gay is a sin is the basis for restricting the civil rights of gay people, then the same restrictions should apply to fornicators and adulterers. Their rights to marry and adopt children should be criminalized by amendment to every state constitution that prohibits gay marriage or adoption.

    The reality here, of course, is that quoting the Bible as a rationale for hatred of gays is just an excuse to cover personal prejudices and internalized homophobia.

    None of it — the Bible verses or the suppressed homosexuality of the haters — is a valid excuse for restricting the rights of gays to marry in a non-theocratic society, however.

  • Dot
    November 15, 2008 - 8:15 am | Permalink

    Two things, the bible does talk about homosexuality and chastity in Romans 1:25-32. But you are right the lord never does teach hate or violence from anyone. For all people he gave the commandment to love one another. Mathew 5 has some great things to say about that. It talks about bridling your sexual passions to be within marriage and also gives the bases for hate, it just should not happen.

  • November 15, 2008 - 10:31 am | Permalink

    Yeah, and it sounds pretty bad, but you’ll notice that Paul isn’t castigating people for being gay. He’s saying that God punishes ungodly people — heathens, if you will — with the curse of homosexuality:

    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

    For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

    Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    Most people first encounter their sexuality in early pubescence. Does this sound like the average 11 year-old kid today? “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.”

    Kidding aside, it’s pretty clear Paul is referring to the then-predominant pagan religion, saying that because the pagans worship nature, not God, God punishes them by turning them gay.

    We can stipulate that Paul did not approve of gay sex, but let’s also stipulate that he disapproved of any sex that was not absolutely necessary.

    Still, the point is, if we’re going to base our laws restricting the rights of gays based on this passage from Paul’s letter to the Romans and the abomination citation in Leviticus, then why shouldn’t the rights of people whose sins are condemned dozens of times also be restricted? Fornicators, adulterers, liars, women who wear pants and talk in church, people who eat shrimp and ham and, of course, people who don’t cover their poop properly in the desert are at least as sinful as gay people.

  • LoueyNorey
    November 15, 2008 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Howard Ahmanson has been blessed by God because he knows that His printed Word says that certain practices are a big no-no because, as history proves, they can collapse any civilization. For some hints on what made America the most blessed country in history, Yahoo “Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right.” Also Google “Zombietime” and hit “Up Your Alley Fair” – illegal, kinky, police-protected acts approved by Obama occurring in public in front of children in Nancy Pelosi’s district while she keeps smiling unflappably like Mona Lisa! Are g-ys aware that they are speeding up the return of Jesus as Judge? In Luke 17 Jesus referred to some vices in Genesis and said that just before His return there will be a mysterious worldwide resurgence of the “days of Lot” (a reference to the destruction of Sodom which resulted in the Dead Sea Green Party’s sudden change of plans!) on an unparalleled scale which will be caused by unseen otherworldly powers that will be allowed to manipulate millions. So g-ys are unwittingly hurrying up the arrival of a Judge which won’t be a very g-y time for many! Will anyone be surprised when SF’s underground saint – San Andreas – gets a big jolt out of the gross faults of SF’s public-porn-protecting leaders? LoueyNorey

    (Obama, Pelosi, and Newsom did not approve of this message!)

  • Madison
    November 15, 2008 - 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Louey – You’ve been missing your meds again. Remember: You have to take the yellow pills four times a day or Barney will start talking to you from the teevee again.

  • Dot
    November 16, 2008 - 12:06 am | Permalink

    Wait Jon in your first line you said God punishes heathen with homosexuality? Homosexuality is a curse? Do you mean that if you are a homosexual, you are actually a heathen? I just want to clarify I am not mocking you I just want to know if that is what you are saying or not.

  • November 16, 2008 - 7:22 am | Permalink

    Dot, of course you are mocking me, but I’ll play along. This is what I wrote: “[Paul is] saying that God punishes ungodly people — heathens, if you will — with the curse of homosexuality.”

    I don’t believe in curses. Sexuality is innate to each person’s natural being. Homosexuality is no more a moral issue than left-handedness, blue eyes or other anomalies.

  • Dot
    November 17, 2008 - 1:57 am | Permalink

    I feel sad for you Jon, In no way was I trying to mock you. Is this how you treat everyone who has a question about something you say? Look, life happens. You are made to survive. Satisfying sexual urges can help, I do belive that but think, you are right handed or left handed, why? Because you need one or the other to survive. Right? Your body does things for a certain reason and like you said, there are many things that happen that we don’t really know why. But your body is built for survival. If your hand is cut off your body acts instantly to help it and keep it alive. But sexuality, although it does help you supress your sexual urges, it is still part of survival. You have sex, you have children, your children take care of you until your body can no longer run. But you pass on your seed. Two men and two women cannot make a baby together. I think that is one of the bottom lines. I think maybe a lot of people who voted yes on 8 probably just are pro life. Two gay men cannot make a baby together. That is just basic basic biology. Science can intervene but if you want to be something other than human…

  • November 17, 2008 - 6:32 am | Permalink

    I assumed you were mocking me because it’s a standard Rove/Limbaugh ploy to deliberately take a statement out of context and twist its meaning — are you saying gay people are cursed? — in order to change the subject and put the speaker on defense instead of addressing the central issue. If I mistook your intentions I’m sorry, but I don’t know how I could have been clearer that I was offering an interpretation of what Paul said.

    There is a huge problem with the argument that marriage is strictly a vehicle for procreation, and that is the millions of married couples who don’t have children — senators Bob and Elizabeth Dole, for example. It also demeans adoption and the use of surrogates by straight couples who can’t have children. And it ignores the possibility that nature or genetics — or God, if that’s how one sees it — produces more gay people in times of over-population. In any case, when Christians rise up to rescind the right of childless couples to stay married, I’ll believe the “marriage is only for child rearing” argument is sincere.

    Some people marry for romance. Some marry because they have to. Others marry for convenience. Britney Spears got married because she was drunk. It’s really nobody’s business why a couple wants to marry.

    Ironically, the idea that gay people should commit to each other for life is a very conservative concept. Too bad conservatives can’t see past their own bigotry to acknowledge that fact.

    Gay marriage is coming, just as surely as “colored only” water fountains have gone away.

  • Dot
    November 17, 2008 - 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Good answer Jon. I am not being sarcastic. :-)

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *