<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mohler Misstates Christian Support for Same-Sex Couples</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:29:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cd</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19462</link>
		<dc:creator>cd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:05:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19462</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sympathetic with you, Ephilei, and I appreciate the nuances you bring up.  But you don&#039;t persuade me to other conclusions.

You separate American conservative religion from American right wing political commitments.  That may be true for quite a few people, but the overlap/coincidence in my experience is substantial enough- around 50% in the places and churches I have been.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sympathetic with you, Ephilei, and I appreciate the nuances you bring up.  But you don&#8217;t persuade me to other conclusions.</p>
<p>You separate American conservative religion from American right wing political commitments.  That may be true for quite a few people, but the overlap/coincidence in my experience is substantial enough- around 50% in the places and churches I have been.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A.C. Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19411</link>
		<dc:creator>A.C. Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19411</guid>
		<description>Ephilei you make a great point about the evolution of Christian doctrine and the consistency of the eastern church.  The problem with fundamentalists is that they fail to see a distinction between their interpretation of the Bible and what the text actually means.  For them, it&#039;s clear that what we say = what God says.  If it were so &quot;clear&quot; there would be near uniformity (as there are on many other issues).

Also, Dr. Mohler&#039;s argument is an argumentum ad populum.  Simply because a majority of nations do or do not support it does not determine the ethics of what should be done (I need simply to refer to the majority &quot;Christian&quot; opinion of the 19th century that was pro-slavery). Fundamentalists need to be confronted with their distortions of reality as it may, as was the case with myself, provide them the realization someday that they are not part of the elect few who have been illuminated as to what the Bible &quot;really says.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ephilei you make a great point about the evolution of Christian doctrine and the consistency of the eastern church.  The problem with fundamentalists is that they fail to see a distinction between their interpretation of the Bible and what the text actually means.  For them, it&#8217;s clear that what we say = what God says.  If it were so &#8220;clear&#8221; there would be near uniformity (as there are on many other issues).</p>
<p>Also, Dr. Mohler&#8217;s argument is an argumentum ad populum.  Simply because a majority of nations do or do not support it does not determine the ethics of what should be done (I need simply to refer to the majority &#8220;Christian&#8221; opinion of the 19th century that was pro-slavery). Fundamentalists need to be confronted with their distortions of reality as it may, as was the case with myself, provide them the realization someday that they are not part of the elect few who have been illuminated as to what the Bible &#8220;really says.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19405</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19405</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;This approach to faith is not one that I would like to apply to the history of Christianity or theological positions ranging from indulgences, &lt;b&gt;papal infallability,&lt;/b&gt; slavery, the divine right to rule, or the civil routing of heresy, all of which held strong support within Christendom at various points.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

Papal infallability was only defined in the 19th century. It is part of Roman Catholic doctrine &lt;i&gt;today,&lt;/i&gt; while you make it seem like an ancient and outdated belief in Christian circles.

Are you taking the position that this Catholic teaching is wrong?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;This approach to faith is not one that I would like to apply to the history of Christianity or theological positions ranging from indulgences, <b>papal infallability,</b> slavery, the divine right to rule, or the civil routing of heresy, all of which held strong support within Christendom at various points.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Papal infallability was only defined in the 19th century. It is part of Roman Catholic doctrine <i>today,</i> while you make it seem like an ancient and outdated belief in Christian circles.</p>
<p>Are you taking the position that this Catholic teaching is wrong?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PSUdain</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19373</link>
		<dc:creator>PSUdain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:26:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19373</guid>
		<description>&quot;LGBTs punch above our weight financially in most Western nations: amongst the middle- and lower-income brackets, &lt;b&gt;we earn more on average than straights, and we pay more tax&lt;/b&gt;. We usually also have more expendable income, so we plough more money back into the local economy while using fewer taxpayer-funded services like education for children.&quot; [Emphasis mine]

Actually, that&#039;s not true.  I was at the Out for Work conference a few weeks ago, and one of the presentations was on demographics and earning.  Studies show that with only one exception, gay people generally earn less than their straight counterparts, with the exception being white lesbians, who generally earn more than white straight women (this does &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; hold true for women of color).

The fact that we (may) often have affluence or more disposable income is more often due to our not having children or other expenses that straight people/couples have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;LGBTs punch above our weight financially in most Western nations: amongst the middle- and lower-income brackets, <b>we earn more on average than straights, and we pay more tax</b>. We usually also have more expendable income, so we plough more money back into the local economy while using fewer taxpayer-funded services like education for children.&#8221; [Emphasis mine]</p>
<p>Actually, that&#8217;s not true.  I was at the Out for Work conference a few weeks ago, and one of the presentations was on demographics and earning.  Studies show that with only one exception, gay people generally earn less than their straight counterparts, with the exception being white lesbians, who generally earn more than white straight women (this does <i>not</i> hold true for women of color).</p>
<p>The fact that we (may) often have affluence or more disposable income is more often due to our not having children or other expenses that straight people/couples have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tavdy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19359</link>
		<dc:creator>Tavdy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19359</guid>
		<description>Emily, you&#039;re right - those stats were probably regarding out LGBTs rather than both out and closeted LGBTs. But it seems to me that you just underlined my point rather than anything else - closeted gays in homophobic areas are likely to earn less than straights because of the stress of staying closeted. They&#039;re less economically productive and (because stress can cause secondary health problems) more likely to need medical care.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Emily, you&#8217;re right &#8211; those stats were probably regarding out LGBTs rather than both out and closeted LGBTs. But it seems to me that you just underlined my point rather than anything else &#8211; closeted gays in homophobic areas are likely to earn less than straights because of the stress of staying closeted. They&#8217;re less economically productive and (because stress can cause secondary health problems) more likely to need medical care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily K</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19356</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:24:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19356</guid>
		<description>Tavdy, 

I would say that your statistics most likely apply only to uncloseted homosexuals. IMHO, gays are more likely to be closeted in the working class, in rural areas, and generally in areas that one might consider &quot;less developed&quot; or &quot;less educated.&quot; And those gays definitely are no less gay, and they certainly don&#039;t make as much money as Ellen or that Merrill guy from Merrill-Lynch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tavdy, </p>
<p>I would say that your statistics most likely apply only to uncloseted homosexuals. IMHO, gays are more likely to be closeted in the working class, in rural areas, and generally in areas that one might consider &#8220;less developed&#8221; or &#8220;less educated.&#8221; And those gays definitely are no less gay, and they certainly don&#8217;t make as much money as Ellen or that Merrill guy from Merrill-Lynch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AJD</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19349</link>
		<dc:creator>AJD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19349</guid>
		<description>Regarding China, it&#039;s obviously not the most pro-gay country in the world, but I would hesitate to list it alongside the likes of Iran and Libya. Most of the problems gay people face there are cultural, not the result of pervasive government-sponsored persecution. They got rid of sodomy laws in 2001, and there has been talk of same-sex marriage in the National People&#039;s Congress; the government has been doing a lot lately to try and address the AIDS epidemic among gay men, too.

I&#039;m out to all of my friends over there, and I&#039;ve known a lot of Chinese people who are out their friends and families as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding China, it&#8217;s obviously not the most pro-gay country in the world, but I would hesitate to list it alongside the likes of Iran and Libya. Most of the problems gay people face there are cultural, not the result of pervasive government-sponsored persecution. They got rid of sodomy laws in 2001, and there has been talk of same-sex marriage in the National People&#8217;s Congress; the government has been doing a lot lately to try and address the AIDS epidemic among gay men, too.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m out to all of my friends over there, and I&#8217;ve known a lot of Chinese people who are out their friends and families as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ephilei</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19346</link>
		<dc:creator>Ephilei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:59:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19346</guid>
		<description>Any Catholic or Protestant argument from tradition is hypocritical because Christian tradition is only truly followed by Orthodox Christians who believe such &quot;liberal&quot; ideas from the ancient Fathers like Jesus&#039; death not being a substitution for sin, that hell is not punishment, and that humans can become One with God.

And I guess Mohler forgets that the Bible&#039;s interpretation has constantly changed (in Protestant tradition) with liberal scholars (Luther, Calvin, Anselm, etc) pushing an agenda (and they did have an agenda!) and in light of contemporary developments like astronomy, eugenics, better translations, and access to older copies of the Bible than ever before. There&#039;s nothing new under the sun.

But Mohler is just preaching to the choir (a Baptist paper), not trying to create an apologetic. That rhetoric is for rallying the troops and cannot possibly convince anyone who doesn&#039;t already agree with him.

@cd

It&#039;s sounds like you have a heavy axe to grind against Christians and are more concerned about that than what Christianity or the Bible hold true. I do agree with your basic conclusions, I just think you get there all wrong. Among your basic errors are implying that Christian history/tradition has anything BUT an extremely negative view of homosexuality and that its negative view was imported from paganism; the Protestant church does not much like Eastern European Christianity which is Orthodox and have had a strong &quot;missionary&quot; presence trying to convert them into more American/W European ideas both religious and social; &quot;Mohler and the rest really don’t have a Biblical case to oppose female-to-female marriage&quot; you really think that? And I do not think at all that Christians only count whites as &quot;real Christians.&quot; While we&#039;re as racist as non-Christian Americans, we&#039;re rejoicing at the current upsurge in Christianity in South America now and Anglicans favorite priest right now is from Africa.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any Catholic or Protestant argument from tradition is hypocritical because Christian tradition is only truly followed by Orthodox Christians who believe such &#8220;liberal&#8221; ideas from the ancient Fathers like Jesus&#8217; death not being a substitution for sin, that hell is not punishment, and that humans can become One with God.</p>
<p>And I guess Mohler forgets that the Bible&#8217;s interpretation has constantly changed (in Protestant tradition) with liberal scholars (Luther, Calvin, Anselm, etc) pushing an agenda (and they did have an agenda!) and in light of contemporary developments like astronomy, eugenics, better translations, and access to older copies of the Bible than ever before. There&#8217;s nothing new under the sun.</p>
<p>But Mohler is just preaching to the choir (a Baptist paper), not trying to create an apologetic. That rhetoric is for rallying the troops and cannot possibly convince anyone who doesn&#8217;t already agree with him.</p>
<p>@cd</p>
<p>It&#8217;s sounds like you have a heavy axe to grind against Christians and are more concerned about that than what Christianity or the Bible hold true. I do agree with your basic conclusions, I just think you get there all wrong. Among your basic errors are implying that Christian history/tradition has anything BUT an extremely negative view of homosexuality and that its negative view was imported from paganism; the Protestant church does not much like Eastern European Christianity which is Orthodox and have had a strong &#8220;missionary&#8221; presence trying to convert them into more American/W European ideas both religious and social; &#8220;Mohler and the rest really don’t have a Biblical case to oppose female-to-female marriage&#8221; you really think that? And I do not think at all that Christians only count whites as &#8220;real Christians.&#8221; While we&#8217;re as racist as non-Christian Americans, we&#8217;re rejoicing at the current upsurge in Christianity in South America now and Anglicans favorite priest right now is from Africa.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tavdy</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19345</link>
		<dc:creator>Tavdy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19345</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;Their only solace is that Eastern Europe is holding out (for now).&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

Quite possibly not for much longer - the wording of the CT ruling is such that it could be used as legal precedence over here and, combined with upcoming EU legislation prohibiting discrimination within and by EU member states, the 24 EU states that don&#039;t yet have gay marriage could be forced to legalise it by the Court of First Instance or European Court of Justice. Those 24 states have a combined population of around 425 million. Importantly (and unlike in the US) a legal decision that grants a civil right cannot be overturned by a referendum - the European Court of Human Rights would prevent it.

The keys are the precise wording used in the EU legislation (I&#039;m trusting the EU Parliament to stand their ground on this one) and getting the CFI/ECJ to accept the CT ruling as precedence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;Their only solace is that Eastern Europe is holding out (for now).&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Quite possibly not for much longer &#8211; the wording of the CT ruling is such that it could be used as legal precedence over here and, combined with upcoming EU legislation prohibiting discrimination within and by EU member states, the 24 EU states that don&#8217;t yet have gay marriage could be forced to legalise it by the Court of First Instance or European Court of Justice. Those 24 states have a combined population of around 425 million. Importantly (and unlike in the US) a legal decision that grants a civil right cannot be overturned by a referendum &#8211; the European Court of Human Rights would prevent it.</p>
<p>The keys are the precise wording used in the EU legislation (I&#8217;m trusting the EU Parliament to stand their ground on this one) and getting the CFI/ECJ to accept the CT ruling as precedence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/10/20/3974/comment-page-1#comment-19344</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:29:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=3974#comment-19344</guid>
		<description>Thanks... I&#039;m really going to have to lecture the proof-reading staff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks&#8230; I&#8217;m really going to have to lecture the proof-reading staff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

