the messiah spotted in governement-subsidized laboratories!

part four: the outright war on sex

this part need not be long. it doesn't need lots of examples and outrageous quotations and all that. because this the crux of EVERYTHING i've discussed in the first three sections of this rant of mine.

• why oppose vaccines for sexually transmitted infections? they will "make it ok" to have sex.



• why educate our children about sexuality in a comprehensive fashion that includes information on contraception — with which they can protect themselves — and does not simply preach abstinence? because then they will not be succumb to scare tactics that stop them from having sex.



• why not allow a safe and effective drug that will prevent the number of abortions (in the rights' eyes, baby-killing atrocities) over-the-counter status? because it makes sex less risky and more people will do it.

is sex immoral? amoral, even? should we not do it? is it dirty? does it show lack of self control? some sort of character flaw, a defect? i want to know why sex itself has become positively demonized. i want to know why we're heading completely backwards — why the right seems to long for a return to clergy peoples' views on sex in the 1930's. i want to know why, if back in the "heyday" of good, upstanding citizens with good, upstanding beliefs regarding the physical expression of love, the rate of extramarital affairs is lower today than it was in the 1950's (you know, june's-in-the-kitchen-of-our-house-that-looks-just-like-everyone-else's-and-sex-is-for-baby-making-so-we-sleep-in-separate-beds-except-when-we-need-to-procreate). i want to know if george bush looks forward to cozying up to laura at the end of a long, hard day of being the biggest idiot ever to make the "greatest" nation in the world look ridiculous (i mean, come on, it must be exhausting). on second thought i take that back. that is something i don't want to know.

my point is they're doing it. we're doing it. teens are doing it.

and i'll go further to say that they're going to continue to do it. as are we. as are teens.

and i'll go even further to say that we should — all of us — we should be doing it. because it's part of who we are and that will always be true.

and to look at the bigger picture (regrettably): we've got a war on civil rights, a war on privacy, a war on gay rights, a war on free speech, a war on knowledge. (i won't even mention the actual war.) we've got a war on women's rights, a war on choice, a war on birth control, a war on important medical advances... i could go on. and not to say that it is by any means the most important or sickening addition to the above list, but we would be ignorant not to recognize — and perhaps wonder about? — the fact that we are also facing on all-out war on sex.

AND SHE'S BACK

so it's been a million years. but as i've decided to start trying to behave myself and become a more fruitful, contributing member of society — no of the planet — i thought i might try the whole blogging thing again. you know, exercise my brain a bit. do brains grow back like worms? hm.

anyway, i am almost finished with the last part of that little series that i'm sure everyone has just been DYING for me to finish, begun months and months ago... but i just wanted to reappear and mention two quick things first.

one is this:
can the world perhaps be saved after all?
yeah, i didn't think so either but it's fun to be optimistic for a second.

the other is a part of a new yorker article that made me fume on the bike at the gym yesterday. and yes, of course it had to do with bush. here's the excerpt:
"last monday, in an interview with abc news, general george casey, the top commander in iraq for the past two years, agreed [with a comment about the rise of sectarian violence in iraq], saying that 'the six last weeks or so have been the highest levels of sectarian violence that i've seen since i've been here' and that 'a countrywide civil war' is 'the most significant threat right now.' (at a news conference that same day, president bush himself weighed in on the subject: 'you know, i hear people say, well, civil war this, civil war that.' well, at least he's listening. or maybe just hearing.)

it's funny that i'm writing this for just myself now. no one will now i'm posting! how profound.

stay tuned...
[don't really need to say that if it's just me, do i?]

the messiah spotted in governement-subsidized laboratories!

part three: vaccines, shmaccines

now here's an interesting one. also one for which the facts do a pretty good job on their own...

there has been a recent development in the study of sexual health: the hpv vaccine. there are actually two of them — they prevent different strains; one of them is nearly 100 percent effective against the two strains of hpv that account for 70 percent of cervical cancer cases in women. the second is equally protective against these cancer-causing strains and offers additional inoculation against two other strains of the virus that account for 90 percent of genital warts cases. both of these vaccines could be availble to the general public as early as this summer. health officials are very excited about these vaccines; over 10,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year, not to mention the huge amount of women who develop high risk strains of hpv that must be monitored to be sure they don't become cancer, not to mention the 500,000 to one million cases of newly dignosed genital warts annually in the united states. point being, hpv is a pretty important thing to be working to fight. so the development of these hpv vaccines is pretty good news, right? we should start vaccinating everyone we can as soon as possible, right?

or, as some would have it, we can argue over its "moral" implications instead.

yes, it's true. the right-wing pjfs actually have the audacity to oppose vaccinating young people because it will promote amoral, premarital sex:

just listen to bridget maher of the family research council who said "giving the hpv vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful. they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

or don't. because it's ridiculous. personally i prefer to listen to those who are looking at this vaccine exactly for what it is: "...public health 101," according to cindy pearson, director of the national women's heath network.

or cynthia daillard of agi who said, "if we had a vaccine for lung cancer, i don't think anyone would hold it back from their children because it might encourage them to smoke."

and thus i arrive at the conclusion at which i seem to arrive in every discussion of my little pjf-science series: there's just no argument. seriously, please step forward if you think you can explain to me how a vaccine that could prevent 70 percent of cervical cancer cases could even conceivably be a bad idea. i'd be interested to hear what you have to say.

the messiah spotted in governement-subsidized laboratories!

part two: "you got an iud? that sucks! did you lose your license?"

sex education. so i know this has gotten some publicity lately, but i'm just not entirely convinced that people truly grasp exactly what is being taught — and not taught — to this nation's youth. i also will say that i'm also not convinced that i can easily convince people that some of what is being taught — and not taught — is actually being taught (and not taught); it's just that outrageous. the issue here is, as most people know, whether kids should be getting comprehensive sex education, which is what one would think of as a basic "sex ed" class, or if schools should be teaching abstinence-only curriculae, which often do not include any information on contraception — reasonable, right, because if no one's having sex, then there's no need for birth control. this is actually a lovely thought; i mean, if no one needs to have sex, then this is great: our tax dollars go to teach kids that they shouldn't have sex, they don't, we all save a fortune in medical expenses, no one gets pregnant or stis and everyone's happy. however, that would classify as anti-sex lala land, or something to that effect. the fact is that people — teens, everyone — are having sex and there is a need for birth control. a dire one, in fact. and yet kids in these programs are taught that abstinence is the only way to keep them safe; that's it and that's all. they are taught that other methods of protecting themselves are not effective and encouraged to do things like make virginity pledges — actually signing things swearing not to engage in sex until they are married [who's tick is that? a scientist's] in front of peers and evangelicals — oops, i meant educators. hey, they both start with an e... (interestingly enough, a recent study found that teens who made public pledges to abstain from all premarital sex did have fewer sex partners than teens who didn't take the pledge; however, when the virginity pledgers did have sex, they were less likely to protect themselves than those who hadn't. effectively looking out for young people's health, those pledges).

now, in my mind, the whole abstinence-only sex "education" (i put education is quotations because i hesitate to even call it that) issue is really and truly ridiculous. i guess i just don't see the argument for consciously chooing to deprive people of information they need — and deserve — to make decisions regarding their physical and mental well-being. i mean, wouldn't this be synonomous with the government saying, "we think drinking and drug use is bad and therefore we will no longer sponsor programs that teach young people about the hazards of engaging in those behavior." seriously, what's the difference? young people having sex can be dangerous (they get pregnant with children they can't support maybe causing them to drop out of school, etc., or say they contract hiv, whatever the case may be); alcohol and/or drug use can be dangerous. but we continue to teach children about these dangers — through school programs, all kinds of federally-funded organizations, tv ads, and more — because we realize it's going to happen anyway, and we need to educate young people about it so they can make informed decisions. take the infamous "just say no" campaign. don't you think they wanted america's youth to know what they were "just saying no" to? now, don't get me wrong, i — personally — do not think that sex and drug abuse, say, are really that comparable in terms of (and i hesitate to use this word at all) moral contexts in our society. i think it can be perfectly safe and healthy for young people to engage in sexual behaviors. but i do think the example above holds up; the people funding these abstinence-only programs do think that it is morally reprehensible for young people to have sex. they do equate it with illegal behaviors like underaged drinking and drug use. so much so that they're taking that issue to the state legislators, too. i don't think many people realize that family planning clinic workers in texas, for example, are legally required to notify the police if they treat a minor for a condition that indicates they have had sexual intercourse (this includes birth control requests). and if you think it's only for statuatory rape purposes, think again; minors who have concensual sex with other minors fall into that category, as well.

anyway, my point is that there's just no logic here. as stated in regards to ec, if the "pro-lifers" really want to stop abortion, isn't teaching people about birth control a good way to start?

as to specifics, rep. henry waxman from california released a report on abstinence-only education last december that contained some pretty outerageous findings. and it's not just that the programs have a fundamentalist agenda, waxman's report also found that approximately two-thirds of these programs are telling kids things that are just plain wrong. i mean, we can argue over the philosopical and ethical implications of these issues until the cows come home, but what about sheer misinformation? hell-o. just to point out a few of the unbelievable errors and some of teh just ridiculous "information" that these federally funded programs include — and i'll come back to that later:



the claim that 'condoms help prevent the spread of stds,' is not supported by data
[yes, you read that correctly]

condoms fail to prevent hiv approximately 31 percent of the time [blatantly untrue]

chances of giving birth prematurely is increased if a woman has had an abortion [umm, nope]

"twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create [a] new individual." [humans take 23 chromosomes from each parent, not 24. and not that i care, but it's just wrong!]

a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms [striking out]

forty-one percent of heterosexual teen girls and 50 percent of homosexual teen boys have hiv [in the dugout]

a 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person" [there's an objective thing to teach in a classroom]

five to 10 percent of women who have legal abortions will become sterile [i mean, really]

women need "financial support," while men need "admiration" [sexist much?]



so now that we've digested that, i will tell you that these kinds of programs received $170 million dollars from the bush administration. programs actually teaching kids about sex — and everything that goes a long with it — received nothing.

look at the things we are teaching and those that we're not: condoms don't actually offer protection from infection or pregnancy, cell clusters are thinking people and if a woman aborts one she will probably end up sterile which could greatly interfere with her vocation of securing "financial support" and "admiring" her husband. this is not information; this is not education. these are strategically designed programs. who knows where the "facts" of these curriculae are coming from? but i do have a fair guess at where they're not coming from: science. i hesitate to overuse the pjf term. but this is a "moral" agenda, and somehow it's ended up in our classrooms. funded by our government.

i will end on a slightly positive note. very slightly positive. one of the most outrageous curriculae has recently lost its federal funding. the aclu finally won its suit against "the silver ring thing" which was a government-funded organization that "taught sex ed" and also preached the virginity pledge, providing pledgers with a silver ring as a token of their pledge. anyway, that curriculum — financed by the bush administration until very, very recently and only having lost that funding because the aclu went through a grueling process to oppose it — and also by no means the only of its kind left out there — contained the following sentence in its coursework materials; as in its textbook, one might say:

"in hell non-believers will be doomed in unending torment with the devil and his demons. ... [n]on-believers will spend eternity in agony."

man, i'd hate to get a question wrong on one of their tests.

[stay tuned for part three: vaccines shmaccines]

the messiah spotted in governement-subsidized laboratories!

i know people are probably get tired of hearing me blab about sexual and reproductive rights and freedoms etc. etc. etc., but you know, it was just time to point a few things out. and since i know i also tend to get carried away and make things unreadbly long, i had the clever idea to post this one in parts.

what's concerning me lately is — and i'll give you one guess — yes, it's those pesky jesus freaks (pjfs) again. more specifically though, their interference in science. now, it's quite clear that anything into which they inappropriately stick their noses into — and if you ask me, lately, all of their meddling has been inappropriate — turns sour, but i'm particularly discouraged lately by just how much leverage they are managing to pull when it comes to the issue of scientific matters and, in turn, their relation to the governmental side of things. because whether it should be or not, i'd say that most of the scientific research and decisions et al. that are really affecting the general public, are things that end up meaning something to us in terms of federal funding, law, mandates, and all of that. you know dr. weird-fuzz-haired-science-man may well be concocting new biochemical equations [i don't actually know if one can technically "concoct" an equation] in his garage, but that doesn't matter so much to a "regular" person such as myself on any given day, does it? and things like biological and/or nuclear warfare and the science behind those that are apparently being cooked up in all of "those scary countries over there" (right, w?), well, they are going to be a daily issue for people like me if — and only if — one of two things happen: one, they do have the technology and they use it to kill us all (in which case we won't care too much about anything i'm saying; feel free to disregard under those circumstances) or two, our government makes a point out of making it an issue to serve its own agenda (cough-wmd-cough-wmd).

that said, does the recent surge in pjfs digging around in scientific affairs strike anyone else as exceedingly disturbing? there are way too many occurrences of this to point out, and some of them are so large that i don't know that i even want to go there. you know, that whole right to life debate that emcompasses abortion, the death penalty, and stem cell research? well, yes, there's that. [the one thing i will say about that is that i think people often forget that that's a religious debate — since when were the terms "religious" and "moral" interchangeable?] and you know, i don't think i can even address the intelligent design "debate" in greater detail quite yet; i am still attempting to digest the religious rights' claims that the intelligent designer, as supported by science (incomprehensible grunting), is not necessarily god]. and that distinction, is that some sort of effort to pull a fast one? hopefully we can all remember that this is simply a religious sect demanding that children be taught that god created the world in seven days and nothing else. so there are some huge ones lurking out there with which one can make a pretty decent argument that many of today's politicians are ignoring that whole separation of church and state thing. but i also think it's important to draw attention to some of the lesser publicized ones; because they really are affecting people daily. maybe not me, living in the middle of a massive liberal city; maybe not you, either, but they are affecting people. and here i am thinking specifically about the meddlings as pertain to reproductive rights, apart from the life debate that includes abortion.

i think there are four major issues that have arisen on this front lately. they are emergency contraception, sex ed, sti vaccines, and then, one that maybe we don't consider as often as we might: sex itself.

also, christina page just wrote a book called how the pro-choice movement saved america. now not having actually read the book, i don't know if parts of this will seem like a massive rip-off if you have read it. but regardless, after perusing it just a tad for a work task, i stumbled upon some of the most succint and effective quotations about some of this — issues i've been giving thought to for quite awhile. so some of the quotations are from the page book that we definitely all should read.

now, in the order i laid out...

part one: emergency comprehension

emergency contraception. this battle has been raging for awhile now. a few factual things to start: ec is not the same thing as the so-called "abortion pill." ec does not end anything, but rather it prevents conception. pretty huge difference, though not one that pro-lifers are too interested in clarifying. numerous health care professionals agree that ec is an exceedingly useful tool in preventing something we can all agree that we want to prevent: abortion. after all, as i've often said, no one is pro-abortion; everyone — on both sides of this issue — wants to see less of them. and ec is a good place to start. the new england journal of medicine recently estimated that ec could prevent 1.7 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions each year in the united states alone; and as knowledge and popularity increase, so will the instances of prevention. anyway, as you may or may not know, plan b (brand of ec) was recently evaluated for over-the-counter status. after deferrals and stalling, and then after a panel of fda advisery doctors decided that the drug was both safe and effective, the fda decided not to grant it over-the-counter status. not too long after it was denied in spite of the fact that it "passed the fda test," the general accountability office (gao) released a report that confirmed that politicians — not scientists — were the ones who actually made the decision to deny american women access to plan b. and what was this decision based on? morals. enter the pjfs.

dr. susan wood was the director of the office of women's health at the fda at the time, and she resigned her position over the ec controversy. when she announced her resignation from the agency, she said, "i can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled." dr. alastair wood,who almost became commissioner of the fda a few years back and sat on the panel for the review of plan b said conclusively: "it's the first time I know of the [fda] making a decision in which no one has produced any scientific basis for the decision." so politics trumped science. and what's the only thing that can beat politics in the us these days? that's right: religion.

to give you an idea of the type of people we're dealing with here:

"making ec available would be a welcome tool for adult sexual predators who molest family members, children of friends, or students,' jill stanek of concerned women for america told the fda advisers. "they could keep a stash in their bedroom drawer or their pocket to give their victims after committing each rape."

now i'm not quite sure what or whom exactly it is ms. stanek is concerned for, but i for one am frankly concerned for her sanity. of course that's what the doctors had in mind in creating plan b: encouraging rapists! [an fyi: on her website — which i don't recommend visiting — her very brief bio makes mention of a few policy events, some public appearances, a history as a nurse, and lastly, the name of the church she and her family attend.]

and the icing on the cake comes from dr. david hager, who sits on the fda reproductive health drugs advisory committee — though i can't for the life of me figure out why: he refuses to prescribe birth control to single women and actually recommends prayer for pms symptoms — and doesn't leave any room for confusion: "i was asked to write a minority opinion that was sent to the commissioner of the fda. i argued from a scientific perspective, and god took that information, and he used it through this minority report to influence the decision. once again, what satan meant for evil, god turned into good."

so i guess they weren't kidding, eh? god really does get the last word. even at the fda.

[stay tuned for part two: "you got an iud? that sucks! did you lose your license?"]

because this is what happens

last night in new bedford, massachusetts, a teenager clad in black walked into puzzles lounge, a bar. a gay bar. the teenager ordered a drink. he asked the bartender if it was a gay bar. the bartender said yes. the teenager ordered another drink. he then walked to the back of the bar where two other patrons were shooting pool. he pulled out a hatchet and swung it at one of the pool players. at his head. when the hatchet flew out of his hand after intervention from other customers, the teenager pulled out a handgun and shot both of the men playing pool and another who was leaving the bathroom. he pushed the bartender out of his way as he ran out into the street and is currently at large. the hatchet was lying on the ground outside the street outside the bar. beside a machete.


the bar's owner told journalists:

"we've been here almost 15 years. all it takes is one bad egg."

is it me or is that almost identical to a line from the laramie project?

we shouldn't be surprised. we should be mortified, but not surprised. people like larry king's guests last month (see my last post) make sure that this happens. and will continue to happen.

“hatred is a very underestimated emotion"

(jim morrison said that)

so i just stumbled across the transcript of a larry king live show that aired 2 weeks ago, on the 17th. the show was titled, "debate over gay marriage." and though i happen to believe that the very title is a negation of any sense of reality in itself — i will PAY the person who can truly explain to me why this should be a political debate; i like trying to be open-minded — i think there are some exchanges worth pointing out here. i know this is painfully long, and i'm not guaranteeing that if you make it through you won't be in more pain still, but i thought i'd throw it out there to e-land anyway for whomever to whatever they will with it...

this frightens me to my core. i don't have to tell you that these are the christians that support bush. sometimes literally support him. and certainly "morally," whatever that means. funny how what is essentially a political talk show is stocked with religious commentators and representatives, eh?

i have elected not to comment as i don't think i'm quite ready. yet. give me a day to digest. and then projectile vomit.

anyway,

guests were as follows:

• janet parshall, radio host of "janet parshall's america" (in case you have any doubts, she's religious right-ist.)



• chad allen, a homosexual actor


• reverend albert mohler, jr., the president southern baptist theological seminary


• guy padgett, the former mayor of casper, wyoming, also homosexual

so, some highlights ala educated guess:

take one: no, i have not seen it, BUT...

king used controversy sparked by brokeback mountain at the golden globe awards to start the discussion.

king: janet parshall, did you see the film? if so, what did you think of it?

parshall: no, i didn't see the film and i'm not at all surprised that out of seven nominations brokeback walked away with four... .

king: why would you comment on it if you haven't seen it?

parhall: well, i'm interested in all of the buzz around the film. i'm not the least bit surprised that we're hearing so much chatter. after all, i think what we're witnessing, larry, is the homosexualizing of america.

we've got the book of daniel with a gay theme and we've got will and grace with a gay theme and we're trying to get people, like me, people of faith who happen to believe that any sex outside of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual marriage, is wrong to try to somehow tolerate and even more importantly accept that lifestyle.

king: don't you think you might learn more by looking at it rather than looking away from it?

parshall: no, i don't think so. in fact, let me tell you something about ang lee. he's a brilliant film director. i'll bet if he found a really good property dealing with, oh let's say polygamy, i bet he could tap into the human heart. i bet he could make people cry. i bet he could pull away the kinds of emotions that people allegedly get after they walk out of this film.

and would it really be about getting us to look at polygamy and accepting it or would it really be about an effective director who knows how to use a particular art form?

...

mohler: i've not seen the movie, larry, and that's a matter of decision, not just a matter of chance. like others, i don't feel any need to see the movie. i have read the screenplay. i know the short story and, of course, I know what the movie is about because it's out there so much in the media. ...

king: didn't the short story move you at all?

mohler: well, no, actually...

king: for example, you're a reverend, didn't you have some compassion for what happened to the younger one of the two?

mohler: well, absolutely. you have to feel compassion when anyone feels pain and when anyone goes through that kind of struggle. but, you know, i really am horrified to think about where that story ended.

you know my main concern, larry, is not with the gospel of heterosexuality, even though i think that's very important. it's with the gospel of jesus christ and what i find lacking in the movie, the screenplay and in the short story is any resolution that really brings these persons to know why they were created and how god really intends them to live and how they would find their greatest satisfaction in living just as god had intended them for his glory.

king: does it disturb you that apparently there's no record of christ having had a heterosexual relationship?

mohler: no, as a matter of fact, christ was single, celibate and yet he had a lot to say about sex. he normalized marriage and said that marriage is absolutely normative and, you know, even with a woman caught in adultery he said "go and sin no more."

and there's no doubt that the christian gospel, the gospels of matthew, mark, luke and john and the entirety of the new testament present a comprehensive celebration of marital sex as one of god's greatest gifts but also as a gift that has to be kept within the boundaries that god has given us and that is heterosexual marriage.

take two: oh no you did NOT.

king brought up matthew shepard, the 1998 victim of an anti-gay hate crime in wyoming.

king: janet, will you say that your cause is hurt when you hear of a matthew shepard?

parshall: well i will say what jonathan dunn, the great poet said, "every man's death diminishes me." i think his death was egregious. i think the homeless man who was beaten to death, his death is egregious. i think the christian who was beheaded in indonesia is an egregious death as well.

but i think it's wrong, larry, to think that somehow one death is more problematic, more egregious than the death of another human being and i think for someone to be killed because of their sexuality, if in fact that was the case, is as wrong as killing someone because of their skin color or because of their religious belief.

king: you don't question that's why he was killed?

parshall: well, there's a lot of questions about his background. was he, in fact — and this is no way, shape or form a justification of what happened because it was wrong, wrong and wrong. let there be no ambiguity there.

but in reality i understand that matthew was somewhat of a person who hung around some of the gay bars and was coming on to some people. so, was he looking for trouble in all the wrong places?

if i were his mom, i would have given him some counsel stay away from that kind of a lifestyle because there's a way that seems right on demand and the end therein is death and unfortunately it cost matthew his life.

take three: doing sex and the christ-itution

king: reverend mohler, if you believe that being gay is a choice, did you choose to be heterosexual?

mohler: well, in some sense yes but when i say it's a choice and i would have to go back before that to say there are desires and even what we might call a sexual or erotic profile that goes back beyond when any of us ever knew we made a choice.

i don't doubt for a minute, larry that there are millions of people who struggle with attractions to the same sex or other kinds of attractions that they don't even know they ever chose. they may never have and as they know themselves would never have chosen them.

but the big issue for all of us is how we find out what our creation was all about and what we were made for and why this incredibly powerful thing called sex is such a big part of our lives and how we are to bring it into a right alignment.

in other words, there are heterosexuals who struggle with all kinds of desires that are just not right desires and when it comes right down to it i, as a christian, believe that we are also deeply affected by sin that we don't even know ourselves well enough to know why we desire the things we desire.

what i hope for is that persons, heterosexual and homosexual, will come to know the grace of the lord jesus christ, would come to know new life in him, would come to understand that sinners can find the only help that is — that is worth finding and the only salvation and solution to our problems by coming to faith in the lord jesus christ and then understanding that god, our creator, has the right to define every aspect of our lives including our sexuality.

king: do you know why if it's such a beautiful thing that it's a sin to do it?

mohler: to do sex?

king: sex, why is it a sin to have sex if it's so beautiful?

mohler: well, i don't think it is a sin to have sex within the confines of marriage.

king: i mean outside of marriage, gay sex, outside of marriage sex. it's a beautiful thing. who does it harm?

mohler: well, you know, that is the problem. i can't say it's a beautiful thing. it may be something the world finds attractive. there may be pleasure in it that is passing but i think the only thing that can genuinely be beautiful is that which is also good and true and that means just as the creator intended it for us.

king: right but that's what you think. you don't want your thoughts to be his thoughts. the creator doesn't say because i say it everyone must do it because you have free choice right?

mohler: well...

king: so you're not making a judgment are you?

mohler: well i am making a judgment...

king: you are?

mohler: ...in saying that what al mohler thinks about this really isn't all that important but what the creator thinks about it is determinative. it's absolutely important.

it's the criterion that will be used even on a day of judgment that i firmly believe is coming when heterosexuals and homosexuals will be judged for all of our sin. and, yes, god will hold us accountable. we have free choice in terms of free agency deciding whether we're going to obey or disobey but we are accountable.

king: but it's not in the constitution. jesus isn't in the constitution of the united states. so, we're going to get into laws now.

take four: democracy's a bitch

king has moved onto gay marriage and is referring specifically to the wyoming town of casper, of which one of his guests was formerly mayor.

king: why would it bother you, janet, if they had gay marriage in casper, wyoming?

parshall: well, let me pick up on something that guy [padgett] said because i appreciated it and that is letting the voice of the people be heard, which is why in 2004 you had eleven states that had a referendum dealing with exactly that subject [gay marriage] and, guess what, in all eleven states the voters said, uh uh, marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.

king: and if they passed it, you'd have gone along with it right?

parshall: passed the idea of what defining marriage as one man and one woman?

king: gay marriage, yes.

parshall: well...

king: if they said one man and one man you'd have gone along because they would have voted it that way so you would approve.

parshall: wouldn't have had much choice. welcome to democracy, exactly.

king: all right, so...

parshall: but i have to tell you, you asked me...

king: ...what do you have against it?

parshall: what i have against it is that it's a pretend family, larry. let's talk about this. you talked about the law but really the genesis of this law, no pun intended, happens to be the book of genesis. it was god himself that defined family as one man and one union, one man, one woman in that union and everything else is a fraudulent misrepresentation.

king: but in genesis guys had five wives.

parshall: yes, they sure did and guess what the bible also said they had a boatload of trouble. in fact, it's interesting usa today writes a piece...

king: but still called them family.

parshall: well, that also said it was called a problem. god's plan all along was one man and one woman and when those patriarchs stepped outside that plan the rest of that book says they had a whole bunch of trouble. so, it isn't about hurting me personally, larry. it's about hurting our culture. it's about hurting our kids.

i think when two people of the same sex get together and they decide to use the moniker of a marriage i think it's a grotesque misrepresentation and actually if that union decides that they want to then adopt children because biology says they can create children then i think what you have in many respects is state sanctioned child abuse because you have purposely taken away either a momma or a daddy and mom and dad are both necessary in a child's life.

king: would you agree that a homosexual union can raise a pretty good child and a heterosexual union can raise a pretty bad one?

parshall: i would agree that probably we need to reform the foster care system and we need to tear down some of the encumbrances to the adoption laws in this country but i don't think it's a good idea to say to johnny, guess what, two daddies are going to meet all your needs just like a mommy and a daddy are because that's just not true.

take five: note to self: take "central molecule of civilization" off the gotta-figure-that-one-out list

king: reverend mohler, do you have any objection to gay unions in which at least when one of the partners may die the other partner may have the full rights of what a marriage would have brought?

mohler: well i think the most important thing is that we understand that marriage is an objective reality and it's been honored that way throughout human history i believe because god did give it to us explicitly even in the act of creation.

when you look at the current debate over gay marriage there are all kinds of things going on there. i fully support a federal marriage amendment because i believe as a people, as a community, we need to honor what marriage is.

i do believe that different arrangements are specific to marriage in terms of such things as parental rights and responsibilities. the covenant of marriage is honored by society and vested with certain rights.

i do understand that in our current cultural moment there can be other arrangements that can be put together, for instance in hospital visitation and other things where individuals can make decisions without regard to perhaps some issues related to marriage.

but when it comes to anything that would devalue marriage and de-normalize marriage, i have to oppose it because i think it leads to a lack of health in the society. i think it — i think it mis-teaches, larry.

marriage not only protects the union of the man and the woman and their children and perpetuates the human race, it's the central molecule of our civilization. it also teaches and the fact is that the adoption of anything like same-sex marriage or even civil unions teaches the wrong thing about what sex and marriage and family is all about.

king: but visiting someone in the hospital [visitation regulations for legally married people sometime differ from standard ones] you couldn't care about that could you?

mohler: no, i raised that myself. i think there are all kinds of issues that are thrown out there that are really false. they have nothing to do particularly just with the institution of marriage but with some social customs and hospital policies that i would be glad to see revisited. but i don't want to see anything happen that would marginalize or weaken marriage as an institution.

king: why then aren't you outwardly opposed to all divorce?

mohler: well, i absolutely am.

king: it destroys a marriage.

mohler: as a matter of fact i...

king: oh, you are?

mohler: i find myself often in hot water for that because i believe the bible is as clear about divorce as about the fact that homosexuality is a sin and i will be the first to say that the very fact that divorce is so accepted in this culture is one of the greatest threats to the family and to our civilization and our society, one of the greatest causes of pain and one of the greatest demonstrations of sin in our time.

so, i'm right there on the front lines to say that our acceptance of a divorce culture is one indication of how far we've come from god's vision of how deeply we have absorbed a deep antagonism in opposition to god's plan.

and, i think it opened the door, larry, for the very conversation we're having about same-sex marriage. if we had held the line at divorce, i don't think we'd be having this current conversation.

king: and so, therefore, unhappy people should stay together?

mohler: unhappy people should find out how to be happy together by fulfilling their covenant promises to each other made before god. i think that's the way to find happiness.

take six: "absolute transcendent eternal truth"

these exchanges followed a caller from chicago to the show who after identifying herself as both the mother of a gay son and a "true christian," posed the following: ... my question is, have they [mohler and parshall] ever had the privilege of having a friendship with a gay person? i hope they will so they will not speak of them as sub-human the way they are tonight. it's breaking my heart.

king: reverend mohler, do you have any gay friends?

mohler: yes, yes i do as a matter of fact. and i don't think it's fair to categorize anything that's been said here today as speaking of homosexuals as sub-human. as a matter of fact, i think we have learned...

king: but you speak of them as sinners.

mohler: ... well, I want to speak of myself as a sinner, larry. it's just a matter of which kind of sin and which pattern of temptation.

king: you don't seem as angry as yourself. just a comment.

...

king: janet, how would you respond to the mother?

parshall, well first of all, let me tell you one mother to another mother, chicago, i appreciate your exemplary, unconditional love for your son. i think that's our calling as moms.

but I have to tell you, that i think al makes a very important point. and that is, if we have a child that's engaged in a wrongful behavior, not wrong because we decided to say it was wrong, but wrong because absolute transcendent eternal truth said don't engage in that behavior, because you're going to get hurt.

then i think the loving thing to do as a parent is to say, "i love you, honey, i will love you until the day i die, but i want to encourage you to make another choice because the one you're making now, in the end, is going to be very hurtful and harmful."

take seven: i sin better than you sin

another caller, from nyc, made two comments: "one is that we live here in america, and we're talking about the separation of church and state for one thing. civil unions should be for everybody, gay, straight, lesbian, heterosexual, everybody. as far as the government is concerned, we should all have civil unions. and if the churches and the synagogues want to have marriage, they can call it marriage. who cares. but as far as the civil rights issue, everybody should have civil unions.

king: janet, what's wrong with that idea? civil unions for everybody. you want to get married, go to the church of your denomination?

parshall: well...

the caller continued: "...i had a phony marriage. i was married to a gay man for 27 years when i found out. he was never interested in me. he was playing around with other men. he could have introduced illness into the family. he is much happier being with men. i am much happier not having him be with me. we're both free. and it's really nobody's business what goes on between consenting adults behind closes doors. ...

king: let me ask you this way. janet, why is it your business?

parshall: well, i think we are all part of this government, and we all have a voice, and i think it's important that we understand in the marketplace of ideas, all ideas should be listened to. good ideas will last and stand; bad ideas will fall under their own weight. you know, it's interesting, larry, in this debate — and i think it was chad [allen] or else it was guy [padgett] who said earlier, we're going to debate this for a long time. we are. we're going to debate this until the cows come home. and there will in the final analysis be two mutually exclusive perspectives on this. one will say, hey, anything goes, don't box me in by rules, i want to do my own thing, i want to define it any way i want to. just give me the liberty to live as i want.

and then the other world view that says, well, you know what, i do have free will and i do have choice. but i bow in submission to a loving god — not a cosmic bully who wants to beat me to death with his rules, but a loving god who says, here's a parameter. i've made man and i've made woman and i've made the institution of marriage. and when you step outside that institution and you engage in sexual activity, you're going to get hurt. and because our god loves us unconditional, he hates it when we get hurt. and so that's what we do, we speak out and we speak the truth. and it isn't a matter of saying, well, we're the haters and we're pointing fingers.

king: but janet, if you choose to do it and you don't get hurt — some people get married and do get hurt — something is wrong with the equation?

parshall: you know what? i have to tell you, larry, that we are all sinners. the statement that was made earlier that somehow al and i are pointing fingers at other people — you know, al and i got all dressed up tonight and sat here to be with you, and we came here as sinners, but we are sinners that understand that we are loved by an unconditional god.

king: so you're sinners with more understanding than these sinners.

parshall: my...

king: you have more understanding than your fellow sinners?

parshall: no...

king: this is a panel of sinners, but two of them have more understanding than the other two?

unidentified male: we're all sinners, but they get to get married.

KING: Well, you have more understanding than they do.

parshall: let me tell you what the difference is. let's take another choice in behavior. let's call it adultery. how come here in washington, dc, i have seen gay rights parades, but how come i haven't seen the national association of adulterers who come to washington and demand all kinds of legal protections...

king: i don't think they have a group.

parshall: and if they did, you and i would be having the same discussion, because it would be another choice of sexual behavior outside the parameters of marriage. and guess what, government does have a say here. government says that a 55-year-old teacher can't have sex or marry a 14-year-old student.

king: but government also threw out all other adultery laws.

parshall: all other adultery laws?

king: that's right. adultery among consenting adults, there's no such thing anymore.

parshall: that's exactly right. and oh, we're so much better now. That's why one out of two marriages end in divorce.

king: but the people decided it, janet. hey, what can we do? the public decided it.

PARSHALL: Or some activist judges.

king: activist — i've never met an inactive judge. most of them get up and go to work. anyway, that's — inactive judge would be at home sleeping.

take seven: poor, confused child

this caller is the daughter of a gay man from south carolina and directed her comment to parshall: "how she said that it's child abuse for gay parents to have kids. well, my dad is actually gay, and i completely disagree with what she said. ... and it's just, you can't really comment on that if you don't know the situation. ...

king: i think she's saying, janet, why not walk a mile in her shoes?

parshall: well, larry, i'll tell you what, i walked a mile in my shoes, and i know what it's like when my children have a mother and a father. listen to what south carolina didn't say. she didn't say she had two daddies; she said she had a homosexual father. there's a lot more i would like to ask her as a follow-up question. for example, did her dad leave the relationship? does she live with her mom? does she visit her dad? so in other words, is she getting the benefit of both the mother and the father?

king: but the main thing is, she's happy.

parshall: well, we hope she's happy, but i bet something...

king: well, she says she's happy. are you questioning her?



if you're still with me (hats off), i offer only this:
there is one thing for which i give these kinds of insane religious zealots credit; what they say is so absurd that they save me a lot of effort in trying to make them look extremist and ridiculous and horrific and hair-raising — no, they do it themselves.