CommentsDisplaying PubliusPencilman's 10 most recent comments.

• Report: Fox‘s Roger Ailes Says Jon Stewart Basically Admitted to Him That He’s a Socialist

  May 22, 2012 at 4:34pm

  HOLY COW! Stop the presses!

  The Blaze has discovered that someone tweeted hearing Ailes say that Jon Stewart is “basically” a socialist!

  Slow news day, eh Erica?

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 22, 2012 at 2:31pm

  In reply to otoa.

  “When you hear liberals lie and say “Jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality” so that must make it okay? Not exactly.”

  The bigger and more pertinent issue is that Jesus does not write our laws. He holds no elected office and certainly no dictatorial powers over what should and should not be legal. So, in that context, it matters very little what Jesus said about homosexuality.

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 22, 2012 at 12:16pm

  In reply to Chuck Anziulewicz.

  ““Two consenting adults” has nothing to do with marriage, which is what the topic anyway.”

  Ummm… a marriage can ONLY be performed between two consenting adults. Both adulthood and consent are an absolute requirement for any marriage.

  I find it troubling that you don’t seem to think that adulthood or consent are needed….

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 22, 2012 at 12:10pm

  In reply to otoa.

  Melika,

  All of your examples of deviant behavior involve abuse, injury, mutilation or even death, and all can just as easily happen between a man and a woman as between two men or two women. I don’t exactly see what these examples have in common with gay marriage.

  If your problem is that we can’t rely on agreements between two consenting adults, then your issues are with the foundations of contract law itself, not gay marriage.

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 22, 2012 at 12:05pm

  In reply to otoa.

  NickyLouse,

  And one more thing…
  “Leave marriage as God and nature intended it.”

  If nature intended marriage to be between one man and one woman, why is it that, throughout much of history, perhaps even a majority of marriages at many times have been polygamous? And guess what: I would be willing to bet the vast majority of those marriages were heterosexual! How many wives did Solomon have? Your claim that marriage in its modern form is more “natural” is completely ahistorical.

  As I have addressed all of your misgivings, I hope you will join me in saying that there should be no legal barriers against two consenting adults being married (barring, of course, incest, which is more likely in the case of heterosexual marriage than homosexual marriage).

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 22, 2012 at 11:55am

  In reply to otoa.

  NickyLouis,

  “This would seem to advocate incest among brother and sister of “consenting age”.”

  Of course, the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman does not explicitly exclude incest either. Does that definition “advocate” for incest?

  “You leave the words “two”, “consenting”, “adults”, and I infer “human” arbitrarily.”

  Not arbitrary. Humans are the only beings who can legally render consent. There is no such thing as legal consent from an animal or inanimate object. This is why animals cannot legally sign contracts and why bestiality ALWAYS constitutes animal abuse. The requirement for “consent” excludes all other possible parties outside of a man or woman of the legal age of consent.

  I am sorry that you feel that one is “discriminating” against a lack of consent, but it is a basic tenet of the law that to enter anyone into a binding contract without their consent is a violation of their individual liberties. Such a scheme would allow people to be bought and sold, which hasn’t been legal since the end of slavery. The idea that gay marriage would somehow weaken this foundational concept of consent is absolutely absurd.

  ““two” can just as easily become “three”, “six” or any number.”

  No. Two means two. You can make the same silly argument by saying that marriage between a “man and a woman” could easily became marriage between a “man and women.“ Just by defining marriage as between a ”man and

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 21, 2012 at 10:00pm

  In reply to NarnianWarrior.

  And the whole idea that churches would be forced to conduct gay marriages is completely idiotic. Churches have always had freedom to not conduct marriages if they choose. Some will not marry people who have been divorced, others refuse to marry couples that are not both of the same faith. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in suing a church for discrimination against Jews if that church has refused to marry a Christian-Jewish interfaith couple (and the same goes for synagogues). Churches can even refuse to marry interracial couples if they choose. There is absolutely no reason to expect any of this to be different for homosexual couples.

  And sure, there may be a situation in which religious organizations need to provide benefits to same-sex spouses. If the organization is against interracial couples, it would still need to provide spousal benefits equally in that situation as well. The fact that workplaces can’t pick and choose approved spouses for their workers is not a matter of religious freedom.

  At the same token, in the case of an abusive or adulterous heterosexual marriage, no one confuses spousal medical benefits for an “approval” of the nature of that marriage by the institution. Why should this be the case with gay marriage?

  Anyway, since you say that marriage is “pair bonding for the purpose of creating and raising children,” I assume that you want to ban marriages for old people and sterile couples.

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 21, 2012 at 8:22pm

  In reply to PubliusPencilman.

  It’s OK AvengerK. You don’t have to cover for your poor reading skills. Seek out help!

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 21, 2012 at 8:18pm

  In reply to NarnianWarrior.

  14Eschatology,

  Sorry, but you really needed to read my post a bit more carefully. I was not talking about “social science” at all. I was explaining that in what you call “Biological Science” (which is no different from any other hard science) there is no such thing as something biologically “wrong” or biologically “right.” Those are value judgements that are a product of society.

  InBlack’s point is completely silly because his premises are just plain goofy. First of all, in science, “nature” doesn’t “reject” anything. Nature is not an anthropomorphic being capable of accepting or rejecting things. But still, InBlack is confusing sterility (which is a biological inability to have children) with simply not procreating. I am sure that the vast majority of gays are perfectly fertile–they are just not engaging in procreative activities.

  But, if we wanted to go by InBlack’s thinking, we would necessarily need to conclude that any kind of celibate behavior in humanity is “wrong”–so I suppose we should stop giving rights to the Catholic priesthood! Or to anyone actually born sterile for that matter!

  And finally: “is” is a verb, not a preposition.

  But please, feel free to take another shot at critiquing my argument. Just read more carefully first.

• Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality

  May 21, 2012 at 6:55pm

  In reply to otoa.

  RJJinGadsden,

  It’s not MY definition of consent. It’s the legal definition of consent. I’m not entirely sure where you are going with that question. Sexually abusing a minor is obviously hurtful and illegal regardless of the gender of the victim, but this question has no bearing on a marriage between two consenting adults.