The Rapid City Journal reports that, over the last decade, the number of self-identified same-sex couples increased 68% in South Dakota, from 826 in 2000 to 1390 in 2010. In Rapid City, same-sex couples raising their hands for the Census increased 137%.
Lawrence Novotny, chairman of the Equality South Dakota board, lives in Brookings and said the new numbers reflect a change in attitude that has slowly evolved in the state.
"It is a very good sign," Novotny said. "It indicates people are more willing to be out in their relationship. Couples are more willing to stand up and be open and truthful about their sexuality and relationships" [Nick Penzenstadler, "Same-sex Couples Increase in City, State," Rapid City Journal, 2011.08.25]
People like Michele Bachmann insist all that homosexual coupling is a threat to traditional marriage that must be cured. Funny: having gotten our traditional marriage underway at the beginning of the decade, and now with our happy heterosexual family living just up the road from all that open sin and depravity standing up in Rapid City, my wife and I feel like our marriage is as strong as ever.
So all you trembling heterosexual husbands and wives, what's your problem?
Cory,
You should not be so sure about the marriage of your children if these pagan practices are continued to be deemed moral. Do you like the idea of grandchildren?
Out of line, over reactionary and complete and utter bullcrap Steve. Why do you and your ilk immediately go to over blown propaganda and fear and hate mongering?
I would honestly like a legitimate answer to that question.
If I were a dad, I would place happiness for my children far above grandchildren for myself in the hierarchy of important matters.
Your marriage is your business.
Sibby has problems with diarrhea of the keyboard sometimes. I don't think he means to be as insulting as he is. He's just missing a few tact filters. No internal editor. I got so mad at him one time over a crack like that (involving my daughter), I almost punched the monitor.
Shane, I assume you also dont like Cory's lack of respect to people who disagree with him.
Troy...you obviously haven't been around for me calling Cory out on wanting money and business for Madison but only if everyone is in bed by 10 undisturbed, there is no booze served and absolutely no cage fighting or no fun had of any kind...or for that matter any other number of policies/ideas/lifestyles we don't see eye to eye on.
I have known Cory for 20 plus years and will call him out too and have many times here and via private emails.
Don't believe me...look it up in the archives here. Please, sir, don't assume to know me without knowing facts first.
Shane
Sorry there are so many in the anti-grandchildren brigade.
Shane, I said I assume you didn't like Cory's lack of respect and you confirmed it. Thanks.
Sibby, I currently have 7 grandchildren and one on the way. Cut the crap and apologize. Your argument is insulting and idiotic. People in our society are under no legal obligation to reproduce, and it is in EVERYONE's best interest to keep it that way.
Bill,
I never said that there is a "legal obligation to reproduce". I am sorry that we all do not understand same-sex marriage undermines family. My point proves it. So there here my apology. I am sorry the truth hurts, but I will not change it, or ignore it, to make people feel better.
Obviously, same-sex marriage hasn't undermined my family one bit. I have same-sex married friends who are grandmothers who have very high family values. Gay people can and do procreate and adopt and nurture families all the time. I know, and have known many such folks all my life. You are completely ignorant on this issue if you think otherwise, Sibby. Your point is bogus and you should drop it. It just makes you look dumb.
By the way, Sibby, how many grandchildren do YOU have?
Bill,
So gays are hypocrits. Why don't we agree that they are practicing New Age Paganism (perhaps without knowing it). My experience with that religion (without knowing it) is why I have no biological grandchildren. Yes, the truth hurts. Sex just for fun is hedonism. It is a huge mistake. That is why homosexuality is a mistake. And heterosex just for fun is just as big of a mistake.
So in essence you are admitting that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, Steve. No direct experience whatsoever. Thanks for your candor, my friend.
I think everyone is missing the point when they lash out at Steve for calling practicing homosexual couples New Age Pagans.
If he is correct, and in this case, I'm willing to accept that he is, (sort of) laws that prevent people from marrying because of sexual orientation are violating the free exercise of religion clause. Further, laws that sanction homosexual marriage are de facto “establishing†religions and religious denominations that treat marriage as a sacrament. (I know Steve will tell us that the post Civil War amendments are flawed, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.)
It seems that the most logical conclusion is that all laws regarding marriage be abolished; religious institutions be allowed to marry and deny marriage to whomever they wish, and states should set up laws for cohabitation contracts with safeguards to protect everyone from abusive situations.
The previous should read "laws that sanction heterosexual marriage are de facto establishing...."
"No direct experience whatsoever."
Bill, did I admit to practicing New Age Paganism without knowing it at the time.
Yes, I know what it is like not to follow the Word of God and end up without children and grandchildren in my elder years.
LK,
Thanks for taking the debate to a policy based discussion. Unfortunately your argument can be taken to encompass all sins including stealing and murder. Not sure if that is where we want to go. Anarchy can be cruel. The Biblical role of government is to protect the good from those who practice evil.
Why should Christians pay for a system that teaches a New Age Worldview?
Homosexuals are not New Age Pagans. That's a ridiculous overgeneralization, completely devoid of evidence and substance. Among the gay people I know, some are Catholic, some Protestant, some Buddhist, some Muslim, some Native American, some agnostic, and some atheist... which is ALL irrelevant.
Being gay is not a religion, nor are gays, or people who support their liberty and equality all of a common creed. The only philosophy we all have in common is that we are Americans who embrace the precepts of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Why should so-called new age worldview supporters (whatever they are) pay to maintain a Christian influence on social relations?
The reason any of us pay any taxes is that we agree to support the system generally and as such may give up specific control or influence on other areas.
I would love to be able to have a checklist on our tax forms to determine what we support (similar to support for presidential election campaigns) for many areas including discretionary needless wars, but our whole system would grind to a screeching halt if that were the case.
Steve's "point" on funding is irrelevant in the real world. It is more mythology smogging up reality discusssion.
Bill,
I was making the comment tongue in cheek to get to the point that marriage should be left to religious organizations and cohabitation, property determinations, power of attorney, and the other non-sacramental elements that such unions involve should be left to the state. None of the gay people I know identify themselves as pagans either.
Steve,
If you were using assisted suicide to make the point, I think it would fit. That is a voluntary act. (I don't want to get in that discussion here.) Violence and theft are coercive not voluntary, and the state has a right to legislate against such acts.
"Among the gay people I know, some are Catholic, some Protestant, some Buddhist, some Muslim, some Native American, some agnostic, and some atheist… which is ALL irrelevant."
And all have New Age Pagan influcence. Look into Brannon Howse's work on the Religious Trojan Horse.
"Violence and theft are coercive not voluntary, and the state has a right to legislate against such acts."
Telling children of Christians that the parent's worldview is wrong is also coercive.
LK, that's an interesting idea. I see what you are suggesting now. Thanks for clarifying. Not sure I agree, but I get your point.
I'm not sure that I see the moral equivalence between a teacher telling a student that facts as science understands them support evolution, not a 6 day creation, and murder.
My father wisely told me that I might have to learn the material in class for tests but I didn't have to believe it.
I’m pretty sure that advice removed any coercive power that a school allegedly has or, in my case, had.
LK,
I am not into moral relativism. Another example of coercion in education. But if you insist on moral equivalence to murder, then do you want to start a discussion on the murders going on in abortion mills?
I am not into moral relativism either. It is not moral relativism to argue that a teacher telling a student that facts as science understands them support evolution, not a 6 day creation, is not the equivalent to murder on any level
I am going to stay away from any discussion of abortion in this or any other forum because those discussions generate heat not light. Right now, I believe that we are having a civil exchange. I have yet to see a discussion about abortion remain civil.
I will probably get blasted for this from everyone.
Thirty years ago I thought civil unions were a good thing along the lines of LK.
I will go to my grave in opposition to gay marriage.
I could give a long explanation but it wont make a lick of difference to either side.
Hmm, it seems that both sides hold certain ideas that are axiomatic, and no amount of "debate" or argumentation will sway them. American culture is ever-evolving, not static, yet every side seems to want culture to move in a certain direction. I like to think that I should be trying to push culture towards the direction I see is right, just as every other person pushes culture towards what they think is right. Is it a battle? I suppose so. Yet on some front people fight on the same side (Cory and I would probably push that the culture of Madison, SD not be accepting of an adult film theatre on Main Street, I imagine), and on others we are on opposite sides (Cory and I would disagree on an abortion clinic opening in Madison, SD, I imagine). I reckon both sides advocate tolerance, but only of the things that they are willing to tolerate. I do not tolerate Star Belly Sneetches, for everyone knows that those without are the best on the beaches............
It is hard overcoming the axioms, Joe! But I'd like to think that my original post above does not take "Gay marriage is acceptable" as an axiom. I see same-sex couples becoming more common, if not more visible. I see my marriage and your marriage hanging tough. I see others cheating and divorcing and beating their kids due to personal failings that don't appear to have any connection to exposure to same-sex couples. I therefore conclude that same-sex marriage is not a significant threat to different-sex marriage or families.
As for the grandkid argument: let's be serious. Homosexuals aren't campaigning for everyone to become homosexual and enact Children of Men. Same-sex marriage seems unlikely to reduce the number of children, unless you can show me that in the past, when denied the opportunity for open homosexual partnerships, homosexuals generally sighed, entered sham heterosexual marriages, and made lots of babies to take their minds off their disappointment. I'll wager that the percentage of homosexuals in a population who are disinclined to reproduce remains relatively constant.
I'll also wager that there are numerous other factors that could delay or deter my daughter's production of grandbabies than her sexual preference. And that's her business. (Whatever those factors are, though, I hope they stay very, very strong until at least after she gets out of high school.)
Troy, if you recognize that a homosexual couple can and should have precisely the same legal rights as married people and accept their union, that is all anyone would ask of you, I think. Trying to convince the Catholic Church to hold gay weddings on the altar probably ain't gonna happen in our lifetime, brother, but that's not your problem.
That said, I do have a spiritual question for Troy and Sibby (and of course, I don't know the answer). Do you guys think "souls" come in "male" and "female" modes, or are they gender neutral? i.e. is sexuality a function of spirituality or just biology?
I suppose another way to ask the question would be, "is the Holy Spirit male, or female?"
The holy spirit is pinot noir.
LK,
Then I will stay with evolution, a philosophy created by a racist and used by Hitler to murder many. Science cannot prove macro-evolution. Nor can it prove Darwin's belief that dark skin people have yet to evolve into white (Aryans).
And Bill, it was God who created a woman for Adam. For what purposes?
Bill,
That is a question I've never thought about to find a complete answer. What I do know is we are body AND souled creatures. How these two "components" inter-act is beyond my pay grade.
Regarding the gender of the Holy Spirit, at first blush, I think the Holy Spirit has no gender because it has no body.
Steve, because Adam was getting tired of being the only person who would talk to the snake? ...but seriously folks...
Okay, Genesis says God created woman because adam needed a suitable helper and none of the animals were cuttin' it.
It also says man and woman are the same thing (one flesh).
So what's your point, Steve?
(You realize don't you that biology says pretty much the same thing except that females came first, right? Some species are exclusively female. By contrast, there are no exclusively male species.)
I will agree with Troy that Bill's question is above my pay grade. I will toss out these verses from Galatians 3 that indicate that gender should not be a large issue for believers.
(26) So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, (27) for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (28) There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (29) If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
As far as the Holy Spirit goes, I would just add the source material to Troy's comment. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
As for Larry's contention about pinot noir, I believe a single malt scotch is a more accurate metaphor.
The existence of the soul cannot be proved by sobriety.
Yes, Troy, good. That would be my interpretation as well. So if we are one in the unity of the Holy Spirit... where is the gender in that?
"So if we are one in the unity of the Holy Spirit"
Does that apply to those who have not accepted Jesus Christ?
Sibby, if you're asking me, I think the answer is yes. I think it is a metaphysical description of the nature of being. I don't read it as an authoritarian mandate but rather as a liberating revelation. By my read, everybody gets to heaven. In fact, we're already there. We just have to wake up and realize it.
Bill,
You answer is not Biblical.
Sorry "Your answer", which means that you believe that we have already taken dominion and have created a man-made Kingdon of God on earth?
No, that's far too limited and dualist, Sibby. I'm saying that the universe is really all one thing, everything/nothing, all unity. One.
p.s. Sibby, I don't expect or encourage anyone to "believe" that. It is both literally and figuratively "unbelievable." I'm just saying that's the way it is, take it or leave it.
"I’m saying that the universe is really all one thing, everything/nothing, all unity. One."
All unity and all "One" except the Bible?
And Bill,
Since you brought up Monism, Pantheism and/or Panenthesim are theologies of New Age, and the theologies of the New World Order theocracy being established in our public schools and universities. So much for separation of church and state.
There's nothing "NewAge" about it actually. And we've just demonstrated above that it's in the Bible. In fact, it's in all the sacred books of all the great religions.
Yes, it is in the Bible...Babylon. And that means that New Age is not all that new. The correct term is paganism.
Steve, as per LK's excerpts above:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Gallatians 3: 28) There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Bill,
Those verses in context do not support Monism. If you read the entire Bible, you will understand that there is the physical and there is the spiritual.
Here is the Galatians in context:
"26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Ver 26 makes it clear that 28 applies only to those who have accepted Jesus Christ. It is not in support of Monism.
If you go the second Corinthians the seed is destroyed in order to produce the plant. We have to die in the flesh in order to be born again in the Spirit.
Steve, I don't think you understand what monism means.
For example, is there only one God or is Elohim/Jehova just one god among many? I assume you would answer the former rather than the latter, correct?
And is that one God omnipresent or are there places where that God does not and/or cannot be? Again, I would presume you would answer the former and not the latter. Let's start there.
"Ver 26 makes it clear that 28 applies only to those who have accepted Jesus Christ." No, it doesn't Sibby. Not at all.
Besides, that's not Jesus talking. You get that, right? St. Paul was just a guy like you and me, trying to figure things out.
Pretty good overview of monism here, Steve. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10483a.htm
Bill,
First of there is no Book of Jesus, so just because Jesus not not say it is a strawman. I am talking Biblical Worldview, so that includes all of the Bible, not just the parts you want to use.
With that said, omnipresent means God exists in evil. Not sure we want to accept that.
Jesus was the "Way". Those who accept him had a spirit life different than those who didn't. Again, we die a physical death in order born again in a spiritual sense. That makes monism unbiblical. You will find monism, omnipresent, and panentheism among eastern mysticism. And eastern mysticism is a component of what is called New Age paganism. You will find it in mystical Catholicism too.
Sibby, Thomas Jefferson didn't think it was a strawman. He did an edit on the bible and threw everything out except what Jesus said. He thought the rest was all just a bunch of hocus-pocus. There are a lot of Christians who feel that same way, I think.
You will find monism anywhere you find rational thinking about philosophy, cosmology, and religion, Sibby. It's the only concept that agrees with the scientific method and the universe as we observe it as well as all the mystic literature (as you have shown.)
"New Age Paganism" sounds like a buzz phrase to me. Kind of like "WingNut."
Where did you come up with it?
You'll find a better description of the idea here than you will looking up "New Age" whatever, Sibby. Like I said, there is really nothing at all new about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
Excerpt:
"Perennial philosophy is the philosophical concept, which states that each of the world’s religious traditions share a single truth. Perennial philosophy asserts that there is a single divine foundation of all religious knowledge, referred to as the universal truth. Each world religion, independent of its cultural or historical context, is simply a different interpretation of this knowledge. World religions including, but not limited to, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism and Buddhism, are all derived from the same universal truth. Although the sacred scriptures of these world religions are undeniably diverse and often oppose each other, each world religion has been formed to fit the social, mental and spiritual needs of their respective epoch and culture. Therefore, perennial philosophy maintains that each world religion has flourished from the foundation of the same universal truth, making these differences superficial and able to be cast aside to find religion’s deeper spiritual meaning."
Also this:
St. Augustine said "That which we today call Christian religion also existed among the ancients, and has not been absent amongst humankind from the time of its origin up to the time that Christ became flesh; true religion, which had already existed, began then to be called Christian".
Source: Ye Shall Know the Truth: Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy, by Mateus Soares de Azevedo (USA, World Wisdom, 2005. P. 211)
By the way, Sibby, as I said above, it's okay if you don't agree on any of this. The philosophy has plenty of space for your belief system in it. Not sure the reverse is true however. That could be the problem.
Bill, you need to read St. Augustine with the lens that understands all of his thoughts. Read this quote after reading the first part of the Gospel of John, incidentally the most intellectually dense words I have ever read.
"World religions including, but not limited to, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism and Buddhism, are all derived from the same universal truth."
This violates the Commandment on worshiping other gods. Baal worship was condemned by God of the Bible. So yes, what you advocate is paganism. And you are right, "New Age", is not new. It goes back to Old Testament times. What we have is deception being deployed by the advocates of "New Age Paganism". Sadly, many who posses "great knowledge" are being sucked into it. Beware of those who promise great knowledge. It is the oldest lie in the Book.
RT @sullydish:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-10.html