Letters to the Editor

Higher law

January 24, 2012


To the editor:

“Repealer keeps anti-gay law on books” read the Jan. 20 front page Journal-World headline.  Bottom line of the article is that the gay community and those who support the community are very angry at Gov. Brownback for not adding this law to his list of 51 state measures to repeal.  They even cite the fact that the Supreme Court has a different position from Kansas law.

The reality of this is that God has an anti-gay law, an anti-stealing law, an anti-murder law, etc.  It really doesn’t make any difference who approves or disapproves the anti-gay law. God almighty has decreed that the gay lifestyle is sinful, like all the sins listed on his sin lists.

The good news is that God has also provided a way to be redeemed from this and any other sin (except the unforgivable sin) by God’s saving grace accessible only through belief in the sanctifying work of Jesus Christ. We all sin and fall short of God’s glory, but God gave His only begotten son as a payment for our sins, a debt we couldn’t pay.  

If you want to see a list of consequences related to the gay lifestyle, read Romans 1:28 to 32. Don’t stop there, read John 3:16 (Tim Tebow’s trademark verse) and Romans 6:12-23 to get a statement and summary of the good news of Jesus Christ.


Joe Hyde 6 years ago

Yes, but...

Only two weekends ago didn't the New England Patriots show Tim Tebow what it feels like to be the center on a Greek football team?

Keith 6 years ago

If God has an anti-gay law, let him enforce it, and keep the state out of it.

Abdu Omar 6 years ago

Since homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, He doesn't make them, they stray from the norm and what is right, to fall for it. Does He make prostitutes? Does He make murderers? No, people chose to become those.

Keith 6 years ago

I suppose you chose to be a wounded_soldier too.

RoeDapple 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Maddy Griffin 6 years ago

If you don't like gay folks blame straight folks, They're the ones who keep making them.

verity 6 years ago


And I didn't even have to use my Visa card.

Pastor_Bedtime 6 years ago

So you say. Meanwhile my message to you: Keep your god out of our bedrooms, and perhaps keep your own house in order. Your wish for a Sharia state simply won't fly any more. High time to tax your churches.

beatrice 6 years ago

The Bible says those who work on the Sabbath should be stoned to death.

Tim Tebow flaunts working on the Sabbath. Thus ...

When people make the argument about others "attacking" Christians, it only takes a letter like this to indicate that it is more like self defense.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years ago

"The Bible says those who work on the Sabbath should be stoned to death."

For clarification on that, consult the Talmud, which was completed in approximately 700 CE. That will give you a modern viewpoint. You really missed something there, but a whole lot of people do that.

jaywalker 6 years ago

"Romans 1:22 - Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man"

Methinks that line best describes you, Mr. Burkhead, and this letter. Thanks for the citation.

God has not "decreed" anything against gays. Those are a man's writings (Paul) some twenty years after Jesus passed. The only thing God did was make homosexuals in his image, meaning they're just like you, Carl, exactly like you. With the exception that they probably don't perpetuate this kind of bigoted stupidity.
No, homosexuals are made in God's image just as he desires, they're born that way, it's not a choice. And if it's not a choice, not an example of free will, then it has to be how they were meant to be. Either that or he made a mistake and he's up there right now, looking down upon his creation, muttering to himself, "Me-dammit! I left homosexuals and marijuana plants all over the place!"
I don't think that's the case, however.

mom_of_three 6 years ago

John 3:16 doesn't say anything about gay people, either.

Getaroom 6 years ago

Carl, Carl , Carl!

I am sure your JESUS GOD blesses you, however Carl, THE JESUS GOD is telling your personal Jesus God to make a return flight to Flat Earth - ASAP -and that means pronto Carl!! "Signs of Life" are at stake here Carl so return to your unround holy land, grab another BIBLE, one that has Proof of Authenticity(like your Cubic Zirconia diamonds) and make sure it is Certified by THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY and come back later, or not. Apparently the copy you have retained as "THE MATERIA TRUTH of GOD'S WORD" is wrought with Unrepentant Free Will Original Sin and is the work of the AntiChrist and most likely the very one used by the Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición. Unless you are fond of killing jews and faggots, I suggest you burn your current issue and drive stake through it's unholy paper heart prior to committing it to Hell Fire.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

At least Fred Phelps is honest about his bigotry.

bad_dog 6 years ago

I could have sworn you subscribed to black liberation theology.

My bad...

Stuart Evans 5 years, 12 months ago

you're a follower, you just don't know it yet.

jafs 6 years ago

This lte shows some of the problems with some religious believers.

He has a right, under our constitution, to his religious beliefs, and I wouldn't try to take them away. He's free to believe whatever he likes about God, gay people, etc.

The problem is he doesn't seem to understand that this is his belief, he actually thinks it's factual - that he knows for a certainty that God exists, and how his "laws" work.

And, I like the way he minimizes the SC decision by calling it a "different position" from KS law - the SC decision isn't simply a different position, it's the defining position for the nation as a whole.

That's how SC decisions work.

beatrice 6 years ago

Yes. Of course he thinks his beliefs in a higher power are factual. Isn't that kind of the point of believing in a higher power that cannot otherwise be proven or verified? If he didn't believe it to be fact and instead just felt that maybe it could be true, wouldn't that make him an agnostic?

And what self respecting agnostic is going to bother taking the time to write a letter telling others that what the do may -- or may not -- be a sin?

jafs 6 years ago

Well, that's interesting.

I believe in some sort of higher power, yet I don't know that I'm right, or that it's factual.

That's why it's a "belief" rather than "knowledge".

beatrice 6 years ago

Carl obviously doesn't believe in the agnostic, "some sort" of higher power, he believes in a very specific sort of higher power. (I wouldn't be surprised if Carl also pictures his God looking an awful lot like the bearded guy in Michelangelo's Sistine Ceiling.)

And as I said, agnostics in general and you, jafs specifically, wouldn't write a letter stating to know what is or isn't a sin based on your belief in some sort of higher power, now would you? "Some sort" of higher power has other things to worry about than our daily follies, wouldn't you say?

jafs 6 years ago

Of course not.

And, I don't know what God thinks of our day to day lives - I suspect he/she, if God wants anything, wants us to live fulfilling, meaningful lives, and be ethical and have integrity.

I'm not sure that I'm an agnostic - I thought agnostics were on the fence in a way. My life experiences have led me to a pretty strong belief that there's something beyond the physical.

My experiences are of a supportive energy, if you will, and synchronicity of a remarkable sort.

I have had no reason to believe in a punishing, judgmental sort of presence, as many religious people do.

But, I readily acknowledge I could be wrong, and they could be right - perhaps I'll find myself in hell after I die - it's a frightening thought, but it's possible.

beatrice 6 years ago

Sounds good, but you know, it is hard to convince others if you don't have a book. : )

And don't worry about hell. As the great Tom Waits says, there ain't no Devil, its just God when he's drunk.

jafs 6 years ago

Is that all I need?

I could "find" some old scrolls or something.


Ron Holzwarth 6 years ago

"Everyone needs to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer." S.J.H. (1957 - 2000)

Paul R Getto 6 years ago

"Those are a man's writings (Paul) some twenty years after Jesus passed. " === Bishop Spong has a fascinating treatment on "St." Paul. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1991-02-09/features/9101070671_1_spong-episcopal-diocese-bishop ========Another interesting read: The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. Peter Brown. Columbia University Press. New York. 1988 ========= In the end, I doubt omniscient gods of any stripe really care what we do. The preachers like to assert this because the fear they can impose pays their salary and housing costs.

jaywalker 6 years ago

Interesting! Got an ironic chuckle out of that, thanks!

geekin_topekan 6 years ago

God hates Carl. He took a reasonable man and turned him into a blabbering zealot.

jafs 6 years ago

So why did you praise the letter?

mom_of_three 6 years ago

They also used the bible to justify slavery.
Do you advocate that? The bible says we also should not steal, lie or dishonor our parents, and yet people do that everyday. When will I see a letter about that?

beatrice 6 years ago

Dear editor,

Why is it people steal, lie and dishonor their parents? The Bible says we shouldn't, so those of you who are doing so -- stop!

Sincerely, Beatrice

mom_of_three 6 years ago

LOL. I look forward to it being printed soon. They printed the one above.
While I honor the right of mr. Burkhead to write his letter and for it to be printed, I can't help but think of how small minded and hypocritical some people can be.

woodscolt 6 years ago

If the right wing fanatic wackos could only see the irony in their idiocy. Here this nut case is trying to impose his fanaticism on other people while failing to see that he is the one that is out of step. He doesn't see that his bigotry and hate for people who don't live their lives according to him is the real problem and continued threat to this country not the people he chooses to condemn. Well, hopefully your god can see pity in your ignorance.

Liberty275 6 years ago

Why would god care if a person finds contentment in the arms of a man or a woman? If I was god, I wouldn't care what you do with Little Carl as long as everyone involved consents.

This is the type of disconnect that exposes god as a lie.

somedude20 6 years ago

Maybe this "god" you speak of should work on cleaning "its" own house (you know dem priests get frisky in the rectory) with those young young boys.

Btw, how is Santa doing? I bet he is still tired from delivering all of those presents!

Now, if you want to talk about real things, how about Bigfoot? Bigfoot may hate gays (but I bet the Loch Ness Monster is bi)

tolawdjk 6 years ago

Can't believe I actually took a class this man taught at KU.

ST3V3N 6 years ago

There's a lot of good lessons in the Bible but you can't take every word literally. If we did we would all be gouging our own eyes out and stoning each other to death (even though "thou shall not kill"). The Bible was written by MEN, not God and has been rewritten and translated many times. Act with love and understanding, don't judge, do unto others....and try to live as Jesus did.

Ron Holzwarth 6 years ago

"The Bible was written by MEN, not God" That sounds like a claim of religious belief. You cannot prove that, either way. But, it's also true that some Jewish denominations, whose spiritual ancestors actually wrote the book, agree with that statement.

"(The Bible) has been rewritten and translated many times." Rewritten? No, clearly no. The original texts of the Tanakh are extant, in Hebrew and Aramaic. (The Tanakh is the Jewish canon, the Christian canon Old Testament consists of the same books, but in a very different order.)

It is true that the Tanakh has been mistranslated many times.

But it is true that the Bible has been translated many times, it has been translated into more languages than any other book.

I am not going to make any claims about the New Testament.

jafs 6 years ago

Since God is incorporeal, he couldn't have written anything.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years ago

"The reality of this is that God has an anti-gay law,"

"God almighty has decreed that the gay lifestyle is sinful, like all the sins listed on his sin lists. "

You will pardon me I hope if I deign to totally disagree with your religious zealotry.

All the written texts on "God and :His law" and any other religious doctrine was fabricated by men who wrote it all down to try to explain what they did not understand or were frightened of. King James of England ordered the current edition that is most usually used by religious folks had the King James Bible fabricated to his approval in 1611 by a committe who was working for the king. Failure to adjust their labors to the king's wishes would cost them their heads, ergo, the King James Bible is really all the religious zealotry and prejudice of the King of England.

Your use of this imaginary account of what ancient peoples take on a divine entity to verify your apparent prejudice and bigotry is understandable. Many poeple who do not bother to learn where these texts originated and who take the word of some preacher who is eager to get his hand in your wallet fall victtim to all who seek to control their lives (and votes).

Newt Git rich is on the tube preaching to his fawning followers about how he and God are tight. Disgusting.

RoeDapple 6 years ago

My High(er) Power was made by Browning . . .

Ron Holzwarth 6 years ago

I don't have the numbers and can't find them in any timely fashion, but the Bible condemns adultery over ten times as often as homosexuality is mentioned.

And, one viewpoint is that divorce, followed by remarriage, is adultery.

Therefore, we've got a hell of a lot of sinners around. And isn't there at least one that's trying to be elected to the highest office in the nation?

Matthew Chapter 7, verse 3: Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

beatrice 6 years ago

I know! I read that and thought, crap, why didn't I think of that? The guy is gonna make mint off that one.

labmonkey 6 years ago

Again... we should all receive permission from Warren Jeffs before we are allowed to have any kind of sex.

bad_dog 6 years ago

I'm going to seek his forgiveness instead.

Matthew Herbert 6 years ago

For all of you who believe those in academia are all left-wing liberal nut jobs preaching socialism to your children, I present to you Professor Carl Burkhead from the University of Kansas (civil engineering, I believe). From now on, I will direct each and every Conservative to this letter when they accuse teachers of being politically one-sided.

Paul R Getto 6 years ago

+1 Beware of anyone who starts a sentence with "ALL people/professors [fill in the blank] who .........

Kathy Theis-Getto 5 years, 12 months ago

I wouldn't click on that link - there is an insane bite at the end of it.

Kirk Larson 6 years ago

"...read Romans 1:28 to 32. Don’t stop there, read John 3:16 (Tim Tebow’s trademark verse) and Romans 6:12-23..."

And then read Matthew 6:5-7, one of my favs! (take that Tebow)

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years ago

Yeah, I have noted Matthew chapter 6 several times and have received a lexicon of various interpretations as to what Jesus "really" meant. Like we cannot read it and understand it. I have little regard for people who wear their religion on their sleeves (or on their knees making a big public display of their annointment.)

beatrice 6 years ago

Have the South Park guys trademarked the Book of Mormon?

voevoda 6 years ago

Lots of things are sinful, according to the Bible, but they aren't illegal. God's law is anti-blasphemy, but the Constitution protects it. God's law is anti-paganism, but the Constitution protects it. God's law is anti-coveting, but the Constitution protects it and our capitalist economic system promotes it. And that's just from the Ten Commandments. Even adultery is prohibited in the Ten Commandments, but Mr. Burkhead doesn't advocate making it illegal. So he's really inconsistent here.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years ago

"God's Law iss a misnomer. God has not written any of the books of the Bible, men (and maybe women?) have. These are "laws" concocted by various "prophets" and "disciples" taylored to control their felllow humans by claiming some fraudulant connection with some imagined deity. There are good lessons and truths in the Holy Bible but to say it is the "word of some God" is a long and dangerous stretch.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Ignoring the "sin" discussion, ask the following question: "During the course of evolution, why did sex evolve in fauna"?

Kirk Larson 6 years ago

Same reason you shuffle the deck when you play cards.

esteshawk 6 years ago

The issue, Mr Birkhead, is that our Constitution means you cannot force your religious beliefs on others in the form of laws. It is quite clear anti-sodomy laws are based on Christian teachings. An earlier poster noted let God enforce His laws. I say let the clergy preac Gods will, and keep the government where the founding fathers wanted it: out of religious debate.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Aren't glt forcing themselves on society with the request for marriage & anti-discrimination laws? This whole discussion is crazy with both sides talking past each other. Witness that the above discussion demonstrates intolerance on both sides. Those supporting the gay lifestyle are intolerant of religion because religious beliefs threaten their lifestyle. The glt life style, if publically accepted must somehow threaten religious beliefs.

Everyone take a deep breath.

Both sides must admit to their intolerance. Both sides need to stop shoving their lifestyles & beliefs down each others throats. Neither side is winning advocates from the other.

esteshawk 5 years, 12 months ago

Asking for equal treatment is not forcing oneself on society.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Never said anyone was forcing someone to be gay.

As far as wanting the same rights? There is little being denied to anyone. With regard to the marriage issue is it possible that the gay position has not been accepted because society as a whole is not convinced it is necessary?

My point remains, intolerance on both sides is gaining neither side what they want. Legal or not, it is not possible to force someone to accept anything that is against their nature.

Demanding, demonstrating, shouting, arguing gains neither side what they want.

jafs 6 years ago

It's not at all true that little is being denied - there are a slew of legal benefits that accrue from marriage that gay/lesbian partnerships are denied.

Even with various legal contracts that are possible, there are still serious inequalities.

For example, spouses can be "health care proxies", but hospitals are allowed to deny that to gay/lesbian partners, even if they have a written declaration of it.

I suggest that you talk to some gay/lesbian partners if you're really interested in what is being denied to them.

Using inter-racial marriage as an example, people are free to believe what they like about it, but they're not free any longer to deny them the right to get married. It would be the same with glt - people can still have their opinions, and judgments.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Jafs as I said earlier, you can not force people to agree to something that goes against their nature.

The glt community has not persuaded others that the glt lifestyle is something they should support.

Rightly or wrongly it is how glt is viewed. People dressing up like Klinger from Mash, and parading around to show their pride in what other parts of society consider deviant behavior is not going to win hearts & minds.

The glt lifestyle is viewed as outside the normative values of society.

jafs 6 years ago

I said everybody can have whatever opinions they like.

The only thing I was correcting is your view that little is being denied, in the way of legal benefits.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Jafs just because someone or group adopts a certain lifestyle or set of behaviors does not mean those behaviors or lifestyle is automatically eligible for legal status.

nor does it mean they should be considered or granted same.

jafs 6 years ago

"As far as wanting the same rights? There is little being denied to anyone"

Factually incorrect.

Now you are saying something rather different - that it's ok to deny people equal rights.

Which is your actual position?

jaywalker 5 years, 12 months ago

"just because someone or group adopts a certain lifestyle or set of behaviors "

When did you choose to adopt the heterosexual "lifestyle"?

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Jafs the problem here is one needs to distinguish between inalienable & unalienable rights.

The glt request/demand falls in the category of unalienable rights.

One issue society is struggling with is sodomy.

Given societies promiscuous behavior & recent headlines those that would grant those rights are not ready to even consider the issue of legalizing glt marriage/relationships.

As an example how does society reconcile sodomy versus molestation? At what age is sodomy okay? I know the glt community does not like the word, but how else does one describe the sex acts they perform. Granted this ignores the love relationship.

Thie glt lifestyle question is complex & society moves with caution on such issues.

jafs 6 years ago

That's your opinion - I don't share it.

I believe that the rights being sought are inalienable rights, both as "pursuit of happiness" rights, and also because marriage has been declared an inalienable right by the SC - Loving vs. Virginia.

Issues of age of consent should be no different in glt relationships than anywhere else - however we determine the correct age for heterosexual acts is sufficient to do the same for other kinds of sexual behavior.

I have no "struggle" with sodomy, whether it's practiced by heterosexuals or homosexuals - it's none of my business what consenting adults do with each other in the bedroom.

Society certainly does move with "caution" on these issues - women weren't allowed to vote until the 1920's, up until the case I mentioned, inter-racial marriage was illegal in many states, etc. That doesn't make society right.

beatrice 6 years ago

"At what age is sodomy okay?"

Age of consent is not restrictive of the act or the genders involved. Adult is the key word in the "consenting adult" issues, whether gay or straight. Or do you believe only gay men are capable of sodomy?

jafs 6 years ago

In my dictionary, the words inalienable and unalienable are synonymous - I'm not sure what sort of distinction you're trying to make there.

jaywalker 5 years, 12 months ago

You can't possibly be serious, citizen1. Which society exactly is "struggling with sodomy" as an issue? At what age is blah blah blah........? The age of consent is the age of consent.

And for anyone not coherent enough to grasp the concept: there is no "glt lifestyle." It's not a fad, it's not drug induced, it's not media related, IT...





But if you have to believe it is, please let us know when and where you CHOSE to be heterosexual and adopted that "lifestyle."
The fact nobody EVER answers that question obliterates the moronic 'lifestyle' and 'choice' arguments.

Cop a clue, folks. To borrow a line, kinda: dumb, blind, and ignorant is no way to go through life, son.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Jafs that is the problem society does not share your cavalier distinction. That is why this issue will not be resolved with that attitude. The glt must recognize societal concerns. Anything else is selfish. I am out of this discussion.

Natural_Law 6 years ago

How soon we forget the principles on which this country was built upon.

"Thus the law of Nature stand as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that the make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no humans sanction can be good, or valid against it". John Locke

Same sex relations are an affront against the laws of Nature. Kansas law is in accord with natural law. The government does not have a right to barge into peoples homes in an attempt to catch people in the act, but the law itself is just. Were someone to commit such an act in public, the government should be in full right to prosecute said person for that act itself as well as public indecency should it so choose. Human law is superseded by natural law.

Almost every single one of the founders of our Country recognized this, and the language of this philosophy is dispersed throughout the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

esteshawk 5 years, 12 months ago

Humans flying in airplanes is an affront on your so-called natural law. So are telephones, they let us speak across the world. Please. Dont try to wrap your bigotry in philosophy.

jafs 6 years ago

It's always disappointing when people can't argue their points clearly, and back them up.

It seems to me that on this issue, those opposed to equality for homosexuals, etc. don't ever do that, and instead just talk about what "society" thinks, as if that's some sort of basis for denying equal rights.

That wasn't true in the past with women and black people, and it's not true now with homosexuals.

There was a time when "society" thought that women shouldn't be permitted to vote or own property, that black people could be enslaved/lynched, and that inter-racial marriages should be outlawed.

Thank God we don't still think that way.

esteshawk 5 years, 12 months ago

Natural law was used to justify slavery, and keeping womenfolk home with the kids.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

Well Jafs, the problem is the glt's haven't given society (those who will vote to approve the glt lifestyle) a reason to do so.

You see the problem is the glt's don't have a legitimate reason to deal with concerns society has, beyond "I believe I deserve what I want". That is a childish argument.

Society changed on the other comparisons you mentioned because there was reason to do so.

The glt's have not provided compelling evidence to change hearts and minds.

That is why that is my last words. There is nothing being said to help move us forward.

Sorry but it is not up to society to convince the glt's of their position, society is not asking for a change. It is up to the glt's to present their case to persuade society.

Until there is meaningful progress, see you.

ebyrdstarr 6 years ago

No one is asking society to "approve" of the lgbt "lifestyle" as you call it. What people are rightly asking for is that our secular laws stop discriminating against people based on the disapproval of some. Especially since that disapproval is rooted in religious doctrine and our laws are not supposed to prefer one religious doctrine over another.

On another note, how are those arguing for lgbt equality supposed to convince you and those like you if you don't want to see parades or have this unacceptable "lifestyle" otherwise thrust in your face? You've said that demonstrating and arguing doesn't get anyone anywhere. So what will? What options are left?

jafs 5 years, 12 months ago

The reason to grant equal rights under the law to all American citizens is the constitution, and the foundational principles of our society.

You might want to consider the question in reverse - what gives you the right to deny equality to homosexuals?

Based on your posts, it seems to me that you are opposed to homosexuality, and you are very unlikely to change your view, regardless of what homosexuals do, or anybody argues. That's your right - I'm not trying to change your mind.

But, we were founded on some principles, not just the idea that "society", or even the majority has the right to decide who gets equal treatment. Homosexuals, just like black people or women, have the fundamental right to equality.

You have the same right to your opinion, or religious belief, or point of view.

David Reynolds 6 years ago

ebyrdstarr, maybe that is part of the problem, "That thrusting in your face" part. You see where are the merits of the lgbt argument? All we here are demands. Making demands is not making a case for your point. Demands only create animosity. To ever arrive at a solution the temperature must get turned down. Demands and irrational behavior only raise the temperature.

I have laid out several questions above and all they do is get ignored. All I hear is "I want what I want & I do not need to justify myself". Well, sorry but that is not how it works. If you are asking for something from someone, then you need to present a case such that the someone is inclined to agree with you.

Where is the compromise on the lgbt part? Society has offered a compromise, yet you turn that down. Agreements start with compromise. Sometimes complex issues need to be addressed in parts over time

No one has even attempted to answer the questions I raised regarding sodomy above. How about a good start in achieving the lgbt desire by offering help to interested people in dealing with that issue?

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

The merits of the argument are that members of the lgbt community are being treated as second-class citizens and being denied equal rights. I see no reason why those of us in favor of equal rights should not demand a change. We should not have to go cap in hand to the oppressors and say please a lot.

I also see no need why we should compromise on equal rights. What would the compromise be? It seems to me that lgbt people have been forced to compromise for far too long already. The side that would deny equal rights is the side that is in the wrong, so it's hard to stomach the idea that we need to find some compromise or wait for equality to come around on the wrong side's timetable.

I'm not sure how to answer your questions about sodomy. Are you only concerned about same-sex sodomy? Are you equally horrified by acts of sodomy between opposite-sex couples? Even couples who are married? As for your conflating sodomy and molestation, I don't know what to say about that. The two things are totally different. I don't think you need to be comfortable with anyone else's personal and private sexual activities before we as a society can finally acknowledge the equality of members of the lgbt community.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

I am not comfortable with any act of sodomy. There are laws against when it is brought to light.

Sorry but you did not answer my question.

The issue is the lgbt have to convince society to change, not the other way around. I am sure that is the source of the anger I sense.

The burden is on the lgbt.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

There are no enforceable laws against consensual sodomy. All such laws are unconstitutional. See Lawrence v. Texas from 2003.

I did address your question. You just don't like my response because I reject your underlying premise. Those arguing for lgbt equality do not have any burden to convince society to change. (Although judging by poll numbers, I'd say our side is winning that battle, anyway. A majority in this country now supports marriage equality and a large, large majority supported repeal of DADT.)

Those who are wrongly oppressed and denied rights do not need to change the hearts and minds of their oppressors. By demanding this, you ask for far more than you are entitled to.

jafs 5 years, 12 months ago

I answered them clearly and directly, and without any personal stake in the matter.

Any issues regarding homosexual conduct and the age of consent are reasonably solved by the same age of consent we deem for heterosexual conduct.

An adult, who is capable of informed consent, is capable of that for any sexual acts they feel like engaging in, with whatever gender partner they like.

Why you feel you have the right to be involved in those decisions, if you're not one of the parties engaging in them, is beyond me. Let's say I have an opinion that certain sexual acts between heterosexuals are disgusting, and not natural. Does that give me the right to find out if you're engaging in them, and prosecute you for it? On what possible grounds would I gain that right?

The argument has to do with fundamental rights in our society - I've expressed my arguments - "pursuit of happiness" is a fundamental right of all American citizens, and the SC case Loving vs. Virginia established marriage as a "fundamental" right.

To me, that means that denying the right to marry to lgbt folks, is discrimination, and unconstitutional. I don't particularly care whether you "approve" of their lifestyle or not - that's up to you.

And, finally, I should note that in fact, changes in the status of women, black people, etc. were not preceded by massive changes in social approval - there was some of that, but people maintained various forms of opinions and disapproval long after those rights were gained.

Your contention that lgbt folks must persuade you to "approve" of them, in order to grant them basic equal rights, is odd.

As I've said numerous times, you're free to have whatever opinion you like about their conduct - that doesn't give you the right to deny them equal rights under the law.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

Jafs sorry but society, in general, does not agree with you. I have no stake directly. But I am a member of society just like you. The lgbt are not winning hearts & minds. Until that happens the equality issue being discussed will persist.

Sorry but just like the lgbt, human nature is involved on both sides.

esteshawk 5 years, 12 months ago

Actually, in the restof the country, gay marriage has support, its just that when it comes up to vote, only those with strong beliefs (hatred) show up to vote. Think tyranny of the majority.

jafs 5 years, 12 months ago

I don't mean to sound too arrogant, but I don't care whether "society" agrees with me or not.

That's not an answer to the arguments I've presented, which you've simply ignored.

In fact, if you look at the SC decision I've referred to a couple of times, it clearly puts the burden on those who would deny the right to marry, not those who seek to marry.

As a "fundamental right", it cannot be abridged lightly.

Feeling "icky" about homosexuality isn't enough of a reason to deny it, in my view.

esteshawk 5 years, 12 months ago

Also, if you are not comfortable with ANY kind of sodomy, youve led a boring and wasted sex life. . .

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

Wine just came out my nose. Thanks for that.

ivalueamerica 5 years, 12 months ago

Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Carl Burkhead has been consistently and repeatedly jumping on the pro-homophobia Pro-discrimination issues since at least 2007 *just search this site for his name.

things that make you go HMMM.

In other words, if by chance this is the case for him, he is not to be judged for his homophobia and hate in the name of God, he is to be pitied for his inability to reconcile his nature with his environment.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

Ivalueamerica, that is the problem with trying to have a serious conversation on a serious subject. Pretty soon someone with nothing to add starts with the name calling.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them homophobic, nor does it make them filled with hate.

Those comments & that kind of a thought process is why this issue will not be resolved anytime soon.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

No, this "issue" won't be resolved anytime soon because people like you insist on seeing it as an issue at all. It really shouldn't be. People should be treated equally under the law. That's just all there is to it.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

Ebyrdstarr that is part of the problem. Some think any behaviors goes, others think some behaviors should not be treated cavalierly.

I know you & others do not like that, but as I keep saying, your approach is not winning hearts & minds.

If the glbt lifestyle is to gain acceptance, you must change hearts and minds.

So far the approach used by the glbt community & their supporters is not working. I don't care how mad folks get at the thought I am trying to share with you to help you, but unless you change your approach nothing will change.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

I am not concerned with changing your heart or mind. Neither seems terribly open to changing, anyway. You want to judge private behavior. I don't want our laws to recognize that judgment as legitimate.

This isn't about any behavior goes. This is about private, consensual, adult behavior that affects only 2 people and does not hurt anyone. This is about the law no longer saying, "You two form an acceptable family, but you two over there do not."

Whether you like it or not, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people are everywhere. They are living and working and loving and raising children and paying taxes and voting and driving carpools and generally doing all of the things that everyone else does. Yet you insist on lumping all of these people together into one, easily dismissed collective of people living a "lifestyle" you don't like. Well, here's the deal. There are lots of "lifestyles" I don't care for. I'm not a big fan of homeschooling when the purpose is to shield children from learning anything that doesn't fit within a narrow worldview dictated solely by religious doctrine. I don't care for a lifestyle that embraces plastic surgery. In fact, I kinda disapprove of that lifestyle. I am not a cat person, so the lifestyle of those who live with cats is not my cup of tea. But none of my judgments about any of those lifestyles should in any way affect government policies. Our legislatures should not pass any laws that would treat cat people differently or would discriminate against someone who has had a nose job.

What will it take for you to understand that your personal disapproval of a "lifestyle" is not sufficient justification for a set of laws that treat those people differently from those whose lifestyles don't bug you?

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

One of my biggest beefs with the anti-homosexuality movement is the arbitrariness of doggedly opposing this one "behavior" based on Biblical principles while not caring that there are no laws criminalizing other Biblical no-nos.

For example, shouldn't it bother you that we don't have a statute criminalizing dishonoring one's parents? Shouldn't people who honor their parents have more rights and privileges than people who don't? I treat both of my parents with tremendous respect and I always speak well of them. So shouldn't I have more right to dictate exactly who can visit me in a hospital and make end-of-life decisions for me than someone who steals from her parents or no longer visits them?

How about people who engage in sexual relations outside the bonds of holy matrimony? Shouldn't those people be denied legal rights because you disapprove of their behavior? How about adulterers? Shouldn't they be denied legal rights? Or people who covet? And since divorce is a no-no, shouldn't we abolish all divorce?

My point being, how do you pick which behaviors are unacceptable and which aren't? Because I'm not convinced you have a principled basis for insisting that homosexuality is awful and wrong and should not be condoned by laws while all sorts of other things are fine.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

ebyrdstarr you misjudge me. I have never voiced an opinion one way or another. You just assumed that, thus showing a prejudice as I make a post. If you were objective you would realize I have been explaining why you are not achieving what you are requesting of society.

I am not requesting laws to approve or disapprove the type of recognition one seeks.

That is the problem with having this discussion. Prejudice exists on both sides.

I keep saying both sides must engage in real objective listening, and the approach needs to change.

Remember it's hearts & minds your after.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

No, it's equality I'm after. And equality does not have to bow to the whims of the majority.

And I'm not assuming anything about you, or misjudging. You said you had problems with sodomy. That's not me reading into anything or being prejudiced.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

Ebyrdstarr, there you go again, with your bias showing. Just because I raised the question does not say anything about personal preferences. But so what if I did?

Sodomy is one of the issues the glbt issues centers around. Please reread my comments objectively. I have been very careful in what I am posting.

This is why progress is difficult.

Earlier in all of these posts there wad a reference to the constitution and "all men are equal", it really states created equal. But no one is denying equality of men. Society is debating behavior of men & women.

Society distinguishes between types of behavior, and has laws governing behaviors.

The discussion is about behavior not equality among men.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

You wrote that you had a problem with all kinds of sodomy. Own what you wrote. Don't try to hide behind this "I'm just trying to post questions " silliness. Own your position because the mere fact that you are asking the questions you are asking reveals what your position is. (Though your clear statement out sodomy didn't leave any real room for doubt.)

What is society's (since you are unwilling to acknowledge it as your own) principled basis for having laws distinguishing between homosexual and herterosexual behavior? No one I have asked has ever been able to point to anything that didn't lead straight back to the Bible. Thus, I maintain there is no principled basis.

And already, the US Supreme Court has found that there is no principled basis for criminalizing the sexual behavior of consenting adults. So how is there any principled basis for denying marriage rights to same sex couples? It can't be based on their sexual behavior, because our constitution doesn't allow us to care about that. So what is it?

And thus we get to the core of my point: there is no principled basis for any state operating under the US Constitution to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex people in any law. This discussion is entirely and totally about equality.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

I am asking the questions because this is the reason why society has not granted what you request. By your tone you are trying to make this personal, and in so doing avoid having to acknowledge & deal with why your request has not been granted, ie; public acceptance.

You are trying to combine personal behavior & the individual to justify a claim to equality. Again I say equality deals with people abstractly, it is not about behavior. That is the problem with your argument.

The issue is not about equality between men, it is about the behavior between men.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

I'm not trying to make this personal at all; I am trying to impress upon you the true scope of the issue. When you say this isn't about equality, you're just wrong. The US Supreme Court has already said that this behavior that you find so objectionable, though you won't own it, is something the government has no legal right to regulate. Our state, though, maintains its unenforceable, bigoted law and the person specifically picked by our governor to identify laws that should be stricken from our statute books refused to include this one. To many, that is flouting the supreme law of this land, which we find offensive. And it is doing so to support some other law that individuals like this letter writer seem to feel is more important, which we also find offensive.

So, you know what? Under the law, my request has been granted. This great nation no longer criminalizes private, consensual, adult sexual behavior. Woot! Now if we could just get people like you to stop pretending that other ways in which the law discriminates against lgbts or allows people to discriminate against lgbts is perfectly acceptable response to "behavior" you don't approve of. But in terms of the legal fight, I frankly don't think we need societal (or your) approval. Judges can't bow to that pressure and, well, we've got a majority in favor of gay rights, anyway. Truly, the battle is already won. The stragglers just make the most noise.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

Well if all of that is the case, then why the up roar in this dialogue.

All I have been saying remains true. The true issue is gaining public acceptance. Rules, laws, whatever, the issue is public acceptance. The issue is winning hearts and minds.

Human nature must be dealt with.

jafs 5 years, 12 months ago


I, and apparently others, don't agree that the "true issue" is gaining public acceptance. We feel that the true issue is gaining equal legal rights, which is a very different thing.

The only opinions that will ultimately matter on this, I think, are the opinions of the SC justices who eventually hear a case on that matter.

Public opinion often lags behind, in these issues.

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

Ultimately you are asking for equal rights based on behavior, which is an unalienable right.

Unalienable rights are legal rights that are based on the latest rulings & thus subject to change overtime.

The lgbt community still needs to win hearts & minds for true acceptance. Regardless of what is said here, acceptance is the goal & the thinking is the courts will given them acceptance.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

What exactly do you think unalienable rights are?

David Reynolds 5 years, 12 months ago

Thanks for the correction I typed incorrectly.

Sorry but time & events require I leave this dialogue. Good luck.

ebyrdstarr 5 years, 12 months ago

Oh, right, because you meant to say INalienable rights because there's a big distinction between the two. Even though I can't find and credible authority that makes a distinction. My Black's Law Dictionary doesn't. The United Nations uses inalienable in the same way our DofI uses unalienable. The two mean the same thing.

But even if they don't. Even if there's a subtle distinction as you claim, the rights at issue here of private, adult, consensual sexual behavior would fall into your unalienable category in two ways. First, that whole pursuit of happiness thing. And second, the US Supreme Court had recognized it as a liberty interest. Yep, that same over-arching concept of liberty referred to in our DofI and codified in our Constitution.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 12 months ago

I hope that you're not wearing mixed blend fabrics, or have any tattoos, or heaven forbid you ever worked on the sabbath. for we would most certainly have to put you to death. See Leviticus.

You want to tinker in what you think god(s) want, but you are just cherry-picking to support your own ideology.

Paul R Getto 5 years, 12 months ago

Cheeseburgers are illegal too; don't forget that.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.