Author Topic: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again  (Read 3570 times)

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« on: November 07, 2006, 11:27:21 PM »
Pretty clear the "bigoted" overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want this:

Eight states had ban-same-sex-marriage amendments on their ballots. Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia joined Wisconsin in approving them, according to projections. Results were pending in Arizona, Colorado and South Dakota.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.measures.ap/index.html

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2006, 05:45:55 PM »
 :)

I’m not worried.  The reason all these “bans” are popping up is because they know it is going to happen.  It’s already happening.  Cities, states, and local governments are already starting to recognize gay marriage/civil unions.  It’s happening in VT, MA, CA, NY, and most recently in NJ.

Sure, there will be holdouts, but eventually every single domino is going to fall.  If nothing else competition and $ will make them fall.  States that don’t offer equality will lose professionals who have the option to leave and they will take their money with them.

Already, virtually all of the top universities in the country offer domestic partner benefits to G&L couples because they started to lose faculty to the competition if they didn’t offer it.  $ talks louder than bigotry or religion.  As more and more outspoken conservatives are outed (there are a lot more Ted Haggards out there) the movement against G&L unions will continue to lose its “moral” authority.

Conservatives are not going to win this one and they know it.  Even intolerant people like Dick and Lynne Cheney had to suck up the fact that their daughter is a big old dyke and she has a long time lover.

The “problem” with gays and lesbians is that we are YOU.  We are your kids, your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, your teachers, your pastors, reverends, firemen, policemen, politicians, actors, singers, and everything else.  It’s easy to hate an anonymous gay boogieman... but it’s harder to deny equality to your own child, sister, etc.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2006, 05:46:27 PM »
MEXICO CITY - Mexico City's assembly on Thursday voted for the first time in the country's history to legally recognize gay civil unions, a measure that will provide same-sex couples with benefits similar to those of married couples. The mayor was expected to sign the measure into law.

The bill, which does not approve gay marriage, allows same-sex couples to register their union with civil authorities, granting them inheritance and pension rights, as well as other social benefits. Lawmakers were still finalizing the details.

Heterosexual couples who are not legally married can also be registered under the legislation.

The bill was severely criticized by the Catholic Church and conservative civil groups. It passed by a vote of 43-17, with all the opposition coming from the National Action Party of President Vicente Fox and president-elect Felipe Calderon.

The party is known for its opposition to abortion and its support for traditional families.

Mexico City is a federal district with its own legislature, and the law will apply only to residents of the capital, with a population of 8.7 million. This is the first time any state legislature has approved such a law anywhere in Mexico.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_gay_unions

Clubber Lang

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 916
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2006, 05:50:54 PM »
the reason these bans are popping up is cause they dont want it to happen, you and youre little disease ridden community are just gonna have to wait till society is ready :)

Clubber Lang

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 916
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2006, 06:09:12 PM »
a simple solution would be to give gay people a legalized union with another name, like a "queerage" or something

but that wouldnt make teh fags happy cause their main goal here is to make the rest of the country eat shit by forcing them to acknowledge their union, being allowed to f**k each other into immuno deficiency just isnt enough anymore :D

in my humble opinion we should let em do it but charge them 10x as much for a licence and make some $$$ off of their illusions

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2006, 06:19:35 PM »
:)

I’m not worried.  The reason all these “bans” are popping up is because they know it is going to happen.  It’s already happening.  Cities, states, and local governments are already starting to recognize gay marriage/civil unions.  It’s happening in VT, MA, CA, NY, and most recently in NJ.

Sure, there will be holdouts, but eventually every single domino is going to fall.  If nothing else competition and $ will make them fall.  States that don’t offer equality will lose professionals who have the option to leave and they will take their money with them.

Already, virtually all of the top universities in the country offer domestic partner benefits to G&L couples because they started to lose faculty to the competition if they didn’t offer it.  $ talks louder than bigotry or religion.  As more and more outspoken conservatives are outed (there are a lot more Ted Haggards out there) the movement against G&L unions will continue to lose its “moral” authority.

Conservatives are not going to win this one and they know it.  Even intolerant people like Dick and Lynne Cheney had to suck up the fact that their daughter is a big old dyke and she has a long time lover.

The “problem” with gays and lesbians is that we are YOU.  We are your kids, your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, your teachers, your pastors, reverends, firemen, policemen, politicians, actors, singers, and everything else.  It’s easy to hate an anonymous gay boogieman... but it’s harder to deny equality to your own child, sister, etc.

Interesting argument:  the public is voting to ban same sex marriage at the state and federal levels because they know same sex marriage is going to happen.  I disagree. 

I think the overwhelming majority of people vote to preserve traditional marriage, because they are opposed to same sex marriage.  Nothing more complicated than that.  It isn't about "hate."  I don't hate gays at all (I wouldn't be hiring them if I did), but I voted to preserve traditional marriage in Hawaii when the matter came up for a vote, along with tens of thousands of my liberal neighbors. 

Nordic Superman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6670
  • Hesitation doesn't come easily in this blood...
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2006, 01:02:48 AM »
How do gay marriages work in the US? Do they get "married" under a Church? Is there any religious aspect to these marriages as there are to hetero marriages? ???
الاسلام هو شيطانية

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2006, 04:00:11 AM »
Interesting argument:  the public is voting to ban same sex marriage at the state and federal levels because they know same sex marriage is going to happen.  I disagree. 

I think the overwhelming majority of people vote to preserve traditional marriage, because they are opposed to same sex marriage.  Nothing more complicated than that.  It isn't about "hate."  I don't hate gays at all (I wouldn't be hiring them if I did), but I voted to preserve traditional marriage in Hawaii when the matter came up for a vote, along with tens of thousands of my liberal neighbors. 

Maybe... but I think increasingly people (especially young people) are going to be asking themselves what exactly are we “preserving.”  When every other person you know is on their second or third marriage, or otherwise living in “sin” marriage seems a lot less “sacred.”

By the way, I don’t think most G&L care about the nomenclature.  All some of us want is equal protection under the law.  I say "some" because not all G&L are even interested in getting married--just like not all straight people are interested in it.

We can debate until the cows come home, but I’m content to let history prove my arguments. G&L unions are already widely recognized in Europe and other countries... it’s already happening in several states here and it will continue to happen even as (old) people aggressively try to “protect” traditional marriage.

As G&L unions become more visible (they are already common) young people will conclude that they have bigger fish to fry with their emotional energy and resources such as working, raising their kids, or investing in the viability of their own relationships.

It used to be when your daughter had a child of wedlock, you ran her out of town to avoid the shame of it all.  Virtually no one does that anymore. Some people still throw out their G&L kids when they come out and cut them off from the family (Alan Keyes and his wife for example) but the number of people who react that way is nearing a perigee.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2006, 04:04:19 AM »
How do gay marriages work in the US? Do they get "married" under a Church? Is there any religious aspect to these marriages as there are to hetero marriages? ???

Just as in straight marriage, that depends on the couple.  I have attended commitment ceremonies that were held in churches and heavily religious and some that were civil or nearly void of religious overtones.

Nordic Superman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6670
  • Hesitation doesn't come easily in this blood...
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2006, 04:08:48 AM »
Just as in straight marriage, that depends on the couple.  I have attended commitment ceremonies that were held in churches and heavily religious and some that were civil or nearly void of religious overtones.

I don't mind civil unions, but how can gays possibly be allowed to get "married" in a religious institude like a Church? The bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviour.
الاسلام هو شيطانية

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2006, 04:15:42 AM »
I don't mind civil unions, but how can gays possibly be allowed to get "married" in a religious institude like a Church? The bible clearly condemns homosexual behaviour.

Don’t you know any openly gay and lesbian people?  Maybe if you talked to them you’d learn a bit about the diversity of world views around you.

Obviously, not everyone reads or interprets the bible the same way; not everyone thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality.  There are many reverends, pastors, priests, churches, and synagogues that are very welcoming of gays and lesbians. 

Nordic Superman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6670
  • Hesitation doesn't come easily in this blood...
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2006, 04:19:34 AM »
Don’t you know any openly gay and lesbian people?  Maybe if you talked to them you’d learn a bit about the diversity of world views around you.

Obviously, not everyone reads or interprets the bible the same way; not everything thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality.  There are many reverends, pastors, priests, churches, and synagogues that are very welcoming of gays and lesbians. 


Sounds like you're bending the rules to suit... infact it's a fact these people are...
الاسلام هو شيطانية

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2006, 08:41:18 AM »
Maybe... but I think increasingly people (especially young people) are going to be asking themselves what exactly are we “preserving.”  When every other person you know is on their second or third marriage, or otherwise living in “sin” marriage seems a lot less “sacred.”

By the way, I don’t think most G&L care about the nomenclature.  All some of us want is equal protection under the law.  I say "some" because not all G&L are even interested in getting married--just like not all straight people are interested in it.

We can debate until the cows come home, but I’m content to let history prove my arguments. G&L unions are already widely recognized in Europe and other countries... it’s already happening in several states here and it will continue to happen even as (old) people aggressively try to “protect” traditional marriage.

As G&L unions become more visible (they are already common) young people will conclude that they have bigger fish to fry with their emotional energy and resources such working, raising their kids, or investing in viability of their own relationships.

It used to be when your daughter had a child of wedlock, you ran her out of town to avoid the shame of it all.  Virtually no one does that anymore. Some people still throw out their G&L kids when they come out and cut them off from the family (Alan Keyes and his wife for example) but the number of people who react that way is nearing a perigee.


The fact that the divorce rate is astronomically high and people break their vows does not support an argument for gay marriage at all IMO.  The institution is sacred.  It's the people who screw up the institution.  It's sort of like our democracy.  On paper, it is a near flawless system.  Simply outstanding.  In practice, you get a Congressman chasing boys, a Congressman accepting a bribe, and a president having an affair with an intern in the White House while conducting official business.  It's still a great system, but with flawed people.

I do not believe this debate is truly about marriage.  A number of states have reciprocal beneficiaries laws that give unmarried people some of the same rights as married people.  What this debate is about is the homosexual movement's attempt to further legitimize the lifestyle.  In fact, it is an attempt to force people to accept the lifestyle.

That said, you are probably right that the day is coming when all of the stigma associated with the lifestyle will be gone and Jack can marry John in any state in the country. 

BTW, I'm actually very interested to see how the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be interpreted by the Supremes. 

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2006, 08:44:40 AM »
Sounds like you're bending the rules to suit... infact it's a fact these people are...

Absolutely correct.  There are some gray areas in the Bible.  Condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle is not one of them.  The only interpretation that endorses homosexuality is a tortured one. 

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2006, 10:57:44 AM »
The fact that the divorce rate is astronomically high and people break their vows does not support an argument for gay marriage at all IMO.  The institution is sacred.  It's the people who screw up the institution.  It's sort of like our democracy.  On paper, it is a near flawless system.  Simply outstanding.  In practice, you get a Congressman chasing boys, a Congressman accepting a bribe, and a president having an affair with an intern in the White House while conducting official business.  It's still a great system, but with flawed people.

I do not believe this debate is truly about marriage.  A number of states have reciprocal beneficiaries laws that give unmarried people some of the same rights as married people.  What this debate is about is the homosexual movement's attempt to further legitimize the lifestyle.  In fact, it is an attempt to force people to accept the lifestyle.

That said, you are probably right that the day is coming when all of the stigma associated with the lifestyle will be gone and Jack can marry John in any state in the country. 

BTW, I'm actually very interested to see how the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be interpreted by the Supremes. 
Well said, bro!  Well said!

Clubber Lang

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 916
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2006, 03:58:00 PM »
any argument involving the term "sacred" speaks for itself ;)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2006, 04:10:47 PM »
any argument involving the term "sacred" speaks for itself ;)

My  thoughts exactly.  ::)

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2006, 10:54:56 AM »
Nothing like using a word with religious connotations to get anti-Jesus freaks' panties in a bunch.  The office of the presidency is sacred.  The family unit is sacred.  Marital vows are sacred.  This thread isn't really about religion, but you cannot escape the fact that religious values permeate our democracy.   

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2006, 06:10:54 PM »
Things aren’t sacred because we say they are.  They are sacred because we treat them as if they are.  Marriage sacred?  Ask Ted Haggard and  Brittney Spears...  ha ha ha (mocking laughter) 

Isn’t Tom Cruise headed into his third marriage?  ha ha ha  (more mocking laughter)

Is wearing white on her wedding day sacred? ha ha ha ha ha

Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2006, 07:03:43 PM »
Marriage has always tradionally meant a union between man and woman. Why should this definition be changed to please a bunch of fags?

Clubber Lang has got the right idea, don't call a same sex union marriage. Istead it should be known as "buttbuddyism" or some other weird name.

Dos Equis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63786
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2006, 12:33:29 AM »
Things aren’t sacred because we say they are.  They are sacred because we treat them as if they are.  Marriage sacred?  Ask Ted Haggard and  Brittney Spears...  ha ha ha (mocking laughter) 

Isn’t Tom Cruise headed into his third marriage?  ha ha ha  (more mocking laughter)

Is wearing white on her wedding day sacred? ha ha ha ha ha

Then there are the tens of thousands of couples who get married, stay married, and live happily ever after.  Trying to focus on failed marriages instead successful ones neither supports an argument for homosexual marriage, nor diminishes the sacredness of marriage. 

Obviously, our society treats marriage as sacred because, among other things, (a) you have to get the government's permission to get married, (b) the marriage must be performed by a person authorized by the law to perform them, and (c) the man and woman take a vow to remain together in sickness and health, good times and bad times, till death. 

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2006, 09:37:58 AM »
S. Africa Parliament OKs Gay Marriages
The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 14, 2006; 11:42 AM

CAPE TOWN, South Africa -- The South African parliament on Tuesday approved new legislation recognizing gay marriages _ a first for a continent where homosexuality is largely taboo.

The National Assembly passed the Civil Union Bill, worked out after months of heated public discussion, by a majority of 230 to 41 votes despite criticism from both traditionalists and gay activists and warnings that it might be unconsitutional. There were three abstentions.

The bill provides for the "voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union." It does not specify whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.

But it also says marriage officers need not perform a ceremony between same-sex couples if doing so would conflict with his or her "conscience, religion and belief."

"When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of color, creed culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told the National Assembly.

The bill had been expected to pass given the overwhelming majority of the ruling African National Congress, despite unease among rank and file lawmakers. It now has to go to the National Council of Provinces, which is expected to be a formality, before being signed into law by President Thabo Mbeki.

© 2006 The Associated Press

bigdumbbell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17468
  • Bon Voyage !
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2006, 09:56:54 AM »
queers should move to the evolved states and leave the trailer park states to the child molester heterosexuals.  :)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2006, 03:32:37 AM »
queers should move to the evolved states and leave the trailer park states to the child molester heterosexuals.  :)

And those married ones in denial who have sex with male prostitutes on the side.  :'(

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19439
Re: Voters Reject Gay Marriage . . . Again
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2006, 03:38:10 AM »
3 Christian Groups Move To Condemn Gay Sex
By Alan Cooperman and Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post Staff Writers


BALTIMORE, Nov. 14 -- Faced with rising public acceptance of same-sex relationships, three U.S. Christian denominations are taking strong measures this week to condemn homosexual acts as sinful.

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops, meeting in Baltimore, declared Tuesday that Catholics who minister to gays must firmly adhere to the church's teaching that same-sex attractions are "disordered." Catholics with "a homosexual inclination" should be encouraged to live in chastity and discouraged from making "general public announcements" about their sexual orientation, the bishops said.

The largest Baptist group in North Carolina, meanwhile, moved to expel any congregation that condones homosexuality, adopting a policy that allows the Baptist State Convention to investigate complaints that member churches are too "gay-friendly."

And on Wednesday in Pittsburgh, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), a mainline Protestant denomination with about 3 million members, will put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women.

The decisions are part of a mounting backlash in many U.S. denominations against church groups whose stated goal is not only to welcome but also to "affirm" gay congregants. For many religious groups, the biblical injunction to hate the sin but love the sinner is no longer sufficient, because many believers do not view homosexuality as a sin.

The impulse to restate traditional teachings against same-sex activity is complicated by the simultaneous desire to minister to gays. Thus, Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' committee on doctrine, stressed that the tone of the bishops' statement was intended to be "positive, pastoral and welcoming," even as it compared same-sex attractions to the temptations of "envy, malice or greed."

Asked how he could square those two messages, Serratelli told reporters that "the truth is always welcoming."

The bishops' statement came in the form of new guidelines for Catholic ministries aimed at gay men and lesbians. Bishops must take care, it says, "to ensure that those carrying out the ministry of the Church not use their position of leadership to advocate positions or behaviors not in keeping with the teachings of the Church."

It is not sufficient, the document adds, for those ministering to gays to take a position of "distant neutrality" toward the church's teachings.

Donald W. Wuerl, Washington's new archbishop, said the document should not be seen as a crackdown on pro-gay ministries. Rather, he said, "the starting point is the church living in a culture in which these things are being promoted, and our task is to keep saying: 'Remember, here are the true teachings of the church.' "

Serratelli, summarizing the document, said the church considers same-sex attractions to be "objectively disordered" because "they do not accord with the natural purpose of sexuality." Although "simply experiencing a homosexual inclination is not in itself a sin," he said, homosexual acts are "sinful," "never morally acceptable" and "do not lead to true human happiness."

A coalition of 15 Catholic groups that support the full inclusion of gays in the church, including Call to Action and DignityUSA, denounced the document as "not at all pastoral, but rather harmful."

"These guidelines try to make gay and lesbian people invisible in the church. The plan here is not to minister but to make a 'problem' disappear," said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Catholic outreach group for gays.

In North Carolina, the state Baptist Convention voted to broaden its fight against homosexuality by moving to expel churches that "affirm," "approve," or "bless" same-sex relationships.

The measure targets as many as a dozen Baptist churches in the state that position themselves as actively welcoming gays, but it could exclude any church that enrolls openly gay members.

The growing acceptance of gays in popular culture and the fact that homosexuality has powerful advocacy groups made the stance necessary, Baptist leaders said.

"In our day and time, no other sin marches so defiantly across our national landscape," Mark Harris, the head of the committee that introduced the measure, told the 2,600 delegates, or "messengers," assembled at a convention hall in Greensboro, N.C.

But while the proposal was approved by the required two-thirds majority, hundreds held up their hands to object. Some worried that churches would spy and report on one another. Others said the measure impinged on local church autonomy and reflected an unfounded obsession with homosexuality.

"It seems so contrary, at least to me, to the picture and posture of Jesus in the gospels," Nathan Parrish, from a church in Winston-Salem, N.C., told the assembly. "Jesus's life and ministry were marked by radical hospitality, openness, vulnerability, humility. By contrast, the Baptist State Convention is recommending that we . . . magnify the message that certain types of people, as well as their friends and perhaps their fellow believers and family members, are neither welcome nor worthy of a place at the table of this community."

What made the measure extraordinary, church members on both sides said, is that for what may be the first time in the convention's 176-year history, membership in the group would be contingent upon a specific policy -- that is, treatment of gays.

"This issue has emerged as a litmus test," said Andrew Wakefield, professor of biblical studies at Campbell University, in Buies Creek, N.C., which is affiliated with the Baptist State Convention.

On Wednesday in Pittsburgh, the Rev. Janet Edwards will go on trial before a Presbyterian Church tribunal for officiating at a same-sex marriage ceremony. Earlier this year, the Redwoods Presbytery in Northern California acquitted a minister in a similar trial, ruling that ceremonies for same-sex couples are not "contrary to the essentials of the Reformed faith."

Jimmy Creech, who was defrocked as a United Methodist minister in 1999 for performing a marriage ceremony for two men, said the number of U.S. churches that welcome openly gay members has been rising steadily, including many congregations in the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ.

"But it's a social change that, for many, has theological implications they just are not willing to accept," he said.