home
RSS
August 10th, 2010
10:38 AM ET

‘Ex-gay’ ministry on gay marriage's chances after Prop 8 ruling

Alan Chambers’ opposition to Prop 8 isn’t political. It’s personal.

Chambers is the president of Exodus International, a nonprofit “ex-gay” ministry that promises freedom from homosexuality. He is also “ex-gay”– a married father of two children who says he’s abandoned homosexuality.

Chambers sighed when asked his reaction to last week’s controversial court decision. A judge ruled that California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, violated the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.

“It’s disappointing that a judge would rule against the will of the people,” says Chambers, author of "Leaving Homosexuality." “That’s the greatest tragedy.”

For 34 years, Exodus has told gay and lesbians that they can be “delivered” from homosexuality through faith in Christ, professional counseling and support groups.

But how will groups like Exodus fare if fewer Americans believe that homosexuality is a sin, and if gay marriage becomes an option?

Chambers acknowledged that “our culture is changing” and said more people are abandoning a biblical view of homosexuality.

Does he think gay marriage is inevitable?

“It certainly seems so,” Chambers says. “The jury is still out and there are certainly areas where I see a tendency for more rights for gay and lesbian people. But I also see that there’s still a fight among American people so it’s hard to know.”

Though there seems to be more acceptance of gay and lesbian people in popular culture, Chambers says demand for Exodus ministry has not declined.

“Our calls are increasing,” he says. “Our ministries say we’re busier than ever.”

He says the Prop 8 ruling shows something else: More Americans are accepting the humanity of gay and lesbian people.

“We’re entering a time when we are more compassionate and loving toward people who deserve our compassion,” he says, “and that’s gay and lesbian people.”

- CNN Writer

Filed under: California • Christianity • Culture wars • Gay marriage • Gay rights • Politics • United States

soundoff (338 Responses)
  1. Toby

    There is strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus himself may have been gay. Jesus never married, never was with women, spent all his time with unmarried men. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. The simple fact is that Jesus (assuming he actually existed) never said one single word on the subject of homosexuality. He did, however claim that those who do not believe in him could "depart into everlasting fire." So there you have it. Think for yourself people, and stop using ancient myths to control the lives and minds of real people in the 21st century.

    August 10, 2010 at 4:38 pm |
  2. Reality

    " No simple cause for s e x u al orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that s e x u al orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a hetero se xu al, h o mo se xual or b is e xual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of s e x u a l orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

    August 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm |
    • To Reality

      Your sited statements are accurate. However, there seems to be a consensus among most researchers that it is not a choice. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice. Your life-style, how you live your life, is a choice. Many gays choose a straight life-style and successfully raise a family, others choose celibacy. That said, I would not disagree that a small percentage of those choosing a gay life-style may have originally been straight. We aren't talking about a scientific law here; there are exceptions to the general rules. Conclusive prove of cause, I fear, is still a long way off. The best we can do in the meantime is to be understanding and to dump the harmful, unsubstantiated prejudices.

      August 10, 2010 at 7:54 pm |
    • Guest

      Myth No. 1:
      People are born gay.
      Fact:
      The research does not show that anyone is “born gay,” and suggests instead that homosexuality results from a complex mix of developmental factors.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:22 am |
  3. Reality

    And this from the medical community:

    " No simple cause for se-xual or--ientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that se-xual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of se--xual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

    August 10, 2010 at 4:33 pm |
  4. Kira

    The charlatan's just afraid he's going to have to close shop and find a real job–one that doesn't involve hurting gay people with bogus "therapy".

    August 10, 2010 at 3:10 pm |
  5. she00

    sorry but men can't stop being gay. That's been proven again and again. Maybe a lesbian can become straight but not a gay man. leave gays alone. they have enough problems

    August 10, 2010 at 3:08 pm |
    • JeramieH

      Just out of curiosity, but why do you hold lesbians to a different standard?

      August 10, 2010 at 9:04 pm |
    • John

      I'd like your research sources for your statement ("sorry but men can't stop being gay. That's been proven again and again."). I've performed many literature searches of academic, peer-reviewed journals and have yet to see any statements or "proof" that men cannot change from being homosexual. So, I'd love to see your sources.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:37 am |
    • Jeremy

      Oh, because everyone knows that all a lesbian needs to go straight is a good bang, right?

      August 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm |
  6. Gary

    people are born gay or straight ...they can not be "cured" of homo or heterosexuality....bunk ...

    August 10, 2010 at 2:11 pm |
  7. Frogist

    I still don't understand why gay marriage is something we have to prevent? What's the argument against it? How does this affect straights or anyone negatively? I just don't get it.

    August 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm |
    • Luke

      Because it doesn't. They'll never admit it, but the only real argument against it is that the opponents hate gay people. I'd rather they just admit it. I'd respect them more.

      August 10, 2010 at 2:05 pm |
    • Periwinkle

      I'll never understand why people are divided into "straights" and "gays". It should be "straights" and "crookeds".

      August 10, 2010 at 2:26 pm |
    • Frogist

      LOL @ Periwinkle
      Or Gays and Glums? L-esbos and Mykonos?

      August 10, 2010 at 2:43 pm |
    • David Johnson

      It all boils down to the belief that god hates homo~exuals (the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible). If god hates 'em, then fundies hate 'em. All the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors. Cheers!

      August 11, 2010 at 10:14 am |
    • David Johnson

      It all boils down to the belief that god has a problem with gay people (the famous six "clobber" passages from the Bible). If god has a problem with 'em, then fundies have a problem with 'em. All the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors. Cheers!

      August 11, 2010 at 10:17 am |
  8. McCluck

    Watch out for Ent!tles Sanct!ty Const!tution as they will prevent your post from making it past the filters.

    August 10, 2010 at 1:03 pm |
    • Frogist

      Also it can't handle S/e/x/ as a word or part thereof.

      August 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm |
  9. McCluck

    The slippery slope argument? That is a logical fallacy that says no middle ground can be obtained. Ridiculous. No one would have a problem with drawing the line at HUMAN BEINGS. Is that so hard? Logical fails all around.

    Learn to think for yourself people. Anyone else care to try making an argument? To those that are able to take the bible and organized religions messages with a grain of salt.-good for you. These other people are making you look bad.

    August 10, 2010 at 1:00 pm |
  10. McCluck

    The "protect the sancti!ty of marriage" argument is a simple example of religion trying to play politics. Separation of church and state! What the state recognizes as a marriage doesn’t have to be condoned by the church. This is Christians forcing their values onto others via political means (which it has no right to do IMO). Sure you can vote your ideals into law, but when they are withholding rights from a minority they are against our const!tution and should to be removed.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:59 pm |
    • McCluck

      I figured it out...you cant say "sanct!ty" beacause it has the word T!ty in it.....lol

      August 10, 2010 at 1:00 pm |
    • Dan Lilledahl

      And this isn't an example of gays and lesbians forcing their lifestyle on everyone else?

      August 10, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
    • McCluck

      If the christian values were justified, they have a right to try to force them upon people.-some of them are, other not. This is why it is not right that they do this, because they have no logical backing whatsoever.

      August 10, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
    • McCluck

      and its not like they are forcing you to marry them lol

      August 10, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
    • Zebula

      Dan, no one said you had to marry a man just because gay marriage passes. Duh. But your idiot-religious lwas against gay marriag do force your views on me if I cannot get married.

      August 10, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
    • Chris

      Dan, don't play the fool. Some gays and lesbians only wish to be afforded the same right that straight people already have, to marry a person of their choosing. If by "forcing their lifestyle on us" you mean "making themselves known to be gay by being gay and marrying other gay people and kissing them out in public with their gayness," then I daresay you have a problem.

      August 11, 2010 at 9:13 am |
    • Frogist

      Dan, are you saying that upholding the constitution is a hom0se ual agenda? Also how does gays marrying force you to do anything? They are not forcing you to get a gay marriage? While conversely if you uphold the marriage ban you are forcing them not to be married

      August 11, 2010 at 1:03 pm |
    • Frogist

      Dan, are you saying that upholding the consttution is a hom0se ual agenda? Also how does gays marrying force you to do anything? They are not forcing you to get a gay marriage? While conversely if you uphold the marriage ban you are forcing them not to be married.

      August 11, 2010 at 1:04 pm |
    • Jason

      @ Dan Lilledahl – No, gays and lesbians asking to have the same right as straight people isn't forcing their lifestyle on anyone. How is asking to be treated the same as everyone else "forcing" anything on anybody?

      August 11, 2010 at 4:18 pm |
    • Morgan

      @Dan Lilledahl

      "And this isn't an example of gays and lesbians forcing their lifestyle on everyone else?"

      Not at all. You are still completely free to marry who you choose. No one is saying that you MUST marry someone of the same gender, only that you MAY do so. That is choice, not force. If ever someone campaigned for a law that said everyone must be gay and marry the same gender, I'd be as opposed to it as I am the one that says you MUST marry someone of the opposite gender.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:48 am |
    • Pastor Fred Rochester

      Well, last I checked, no one ever gave a good explanation of how man can get out of death and the casket. Last I checked, the Bible is God's Word. And according to the Bible, we forget that sin is sin. So far, no one has made sense of the fact that a man cannot give birth from within a man. So depraved man uses another part of a man's anatomy to mimic intercourse with a woman. In other words, the normal course of marriage requires a male and female according to Matthew 19:4-6. So far, no one is able to get around the fact that marriage was instituted by God and God didn't change His mind according to Malachi 3:6. So far, the only argument you have is the separation of church and state. Your argument is, "never mind what God instituted as right and wrong, I want to have it my way. Well, there is a way that seems right to man but the end is death according to Proverbs 16:25. I'd much rather have organized religion than disorganized sin.

      August 12, 2010 at 10:03 am |
    • dajackg

      Dan – how many gay people have tried to force you to marry them? Those jerks! Lemme at 'em!

      August 18, 2010 at 1:09 am |
  11. McCluck

    The "protect the sanctity of marriage" argument is a simple example of religion trying to play politics. Separation of church and state! What the state recognizes as a marriage doesn’t have to be condoned by the church. This is Christians forcing their values onto others via political means (which it has no right to do IMO). Sure you can vote your ideals into law, but when they are withholding rights from a minority they are against our const!tution and should to be removed.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:57 pm |
  12. McCluck

    It will break down the American family as we know it?-nice try but your going to need allot of evidence (evidence that doesn’t exist to my knowledge outside of biased studies that are contradicted by others.) to argue that stance. What little I have heard of that argument was pathetic at best.-Not even close to justified.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:57 pm |
  13. McCluck

    Not natural? Natural holds no meaning without a god intending for us to be a certain "natural" way. That argument is a logical fail until you can prove god exists.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:57 pm |
    • Ben

      So you have proven that God doesnt exist then? Dont play that argument.

      August 10, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
    • McCluck

      Look up burden of proof buddy. Otherwise all claims about everything must be treated as true if you cant prove that they are false. I will play that argument all day and to deny it is to deny logic and reason.

      August 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
    • Frogist

      Also McCluck, "natural" can be interpreted as "in or of nature". By that description we can cite cases of hom os exuality in other species meaning that the act of same s ex relationships are quite natural.

      August 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm |
    • tomjones1234

      do tell more frogist... not sure about that argument

      August 10, 2010 at 7:12 pm |
    • Rich

      Tom Jones: rabbits, penguins, lions, lizards, dragonflies, etc., etc, include homosexuals. Do a little research.

      August 10, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
    • Grant

      tomjones1234 – it's true actually. Several instances of homose xual behaviour has been seen in nature. I could cite evidence, but you can just as easily google it.

      August 11, 2010 at 9:08 am |
    • Carl

      "Ben
      So you have proven that God doesnt exist then? Dont play that argument."
      -
      You can't prove the non-existence of something. I still haven't seen logical proof for the nonexistance of the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Santa Claus, and God, but as a rational person it seems pretty clear none of them are likely to exist and have any influence on the happenings of this universe.

      August 11, 2010 at 9:49 am |
    • Frogist

      To tomjones1234
      Acts of se xuality between same gender pairs exist in other species eg giraffes, sheep, penguins etc. In other words, in other areas of what we might describe as nature, a large number of other species also have same gender sexual encounters or relationships. If we define "natural" as "occuring within the world of nature" then the idea of homos exuality as "unnatural" is false.

      August 11, 2010 at 10:51 am |
    • TonyB

      You cannot scientifically prove that love exists, but everyone believes it does. Well, everyone except McCluck.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:46 am |
    • Grant

      Actually, you can prove activity in certain areas of the brain occurs when interacting with the person you love. This activity is responsible for several biochemical processes that bring about feelings of happiness, closeness, comfort and all other feelings associated with love. So in effect, yes you can prove scientifically that love exists, but it's not the heart that's responsible for it.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:52 am |
    • Sierra Hennessy

      Umm, hate to bother you guys here, but homosexuality IS natural. 3% of every animal on this planet, including humans, is gay. Any farmer will tell you about bulls that are gay. Its quite natural. Whether you believe in God or not, science has already long since offered the proof.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:58 am |
    • Omniverse

      Just because we can't prove it doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just means we can't convince you he does. =)

      There are thousands of undiscovered species of animals (most in the in ocean) Now just because I can't prove they exist, doesn't mean they are not there. The reason there is fallacy on " you can't prove something doesn't exist" is because we still haven't explored the earth 100% much less the universe. So question is, based on rationality that every complex thing there is has a maker, Don't you think its at least POSSIBLE (not certain) that there is A maker?

      August 11, 2010 at 12:01 pm |
    • verify

      Omniverse,

      Certainly there are undiscovered species out there; but you may not, for instance, name one, omniversus ridiculousis, and make up its properties. There might be invisible unicorns on Jupiter, but you must produce hard evidence before they are accepted as real.

      Yes, there "might" be a First Cause for the universe (we are limited by what we currently know about physics - other possibilities could exist) ; but even if true, you don't know any of its properties. You don't know that it created us intentionally, or by accident, or that it even knows that we are here. You don't know that it is smart or loving or demanding... or anything else. Religious stories, made up over the ages, are just that - stories - myth, legend and fantasy, trying to explain the unknown.

      August 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm |
    • Frogist

      To tomjones1234
      Acts of se uality between same gender pairs exist in other species eg giraffes, sheep, penguins etc. In other words, in other areas of what we might describe as nature, a large number of other species also have same gender se ual encounters or relationships. If we define "natural" as "occuring within the world of nature" then the idea of hom0se uality as "unnatural" is false.

      August 11, 2010 at 12:59 pm |
    • McCluck

      That ones easy. I simply say, "Who made the maker?-and watch as your argument unravels.

      As far as those “species that do exist but you cannot prove them”: You CAN prove them, or better said provide evidence for their existence. By finding them, taking a picture and showing it to people, or looking for other types of evidence. If you have no evidence that the spidermonkeycoralcatfishmonster exists (not even stories about its existence, stories=weak evidence), why would you think that it does?-you would literally have to think that any fish I come up with off the top of my head is real until proven fake (which is impossible if it really is fake) by that logic.

      And as far as it being possible that there is a maker. I have no reason to believe there is absolutely no maker. So if I were to be 100% sure that there is no maker, I would have faith in that idea and would be no more justified in my belief than your belief in god. I do however account for the infinitesimally small chance that there could be evidence sufficient to meet my burden of proof requirements. So I say, show me evidence and I will follow.

      I can provide evidence that love exists as grant said, by looking at neurotransmitters.-Just because we don’t understand it perfectly doesn’t mean there is no evidence for its existence. The very fact that we have neurotransmitters that make us feel all sorts of different emotions is evidence enough for me. We could argue semantics about what the word love means, but more than likely a description of the feelings we get from a “chemical reward” for doing something that we are programmed to do -spread our genes. Wouldn’t it make sense in the context of evolution that we are encouraged to act a certain way, especially when genes encouraging that act would be passed more often to offspring and therefore selected for? In other words, depending on your environment, it is perfectly logical to assume that being capable of love would be beneficial to the individual. We observe what looks like love between two individuals, evolution selects for things that are beneficial. Bam!-evidence. I have also felt it, and therefore have directly observed it. At least what I assume is the love of which others speak.

      I shouldn’t have said “till you prove it exists”, its impossible to 100% prove many things. So we rely on inductive reasoning and evidence. So I will rephrase. Until you can provide sufficient evidence that god exists, there is not justification for the "its not natural argument."

      August 11, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
    • Stay on Target

      Just a question, but doe "Who made the maker?" only apply when you are understanding things in a causal and temporal relationship? Presumably, if there's a first cause temporality (and causality) would both be derived from it.

      Either way it's an infinite regress or a brute fact...but I'm more inclined to hedge our bets on the fact that we just don't understand necessary causation and the nature of time all that well.

      August 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm |
    • LB Colorado

      Prove HE doesn't exist. Many scientists have tried and have failed miserably. The natural (Godly or if you choose NOT), if you can't multiply that has to tell you SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.

      August 11, 2010 at 4:54 pm |
    • blogger

      Homosexuality if found all throughout nature. It's natural. What other species get married? None? So what's unnatural here?

      August 11, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
    • Morgan

      "Prove HE doesn't exist. Many scientists have tried and have failed miserably. The natural (Godly or if you choose NOT), if you can't multiply that has to tell you SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG."

      It is logically impossible to prove a negative. No scientist worth his salt would ever try to prove the non-existence of something. Your argument fails on the premise that procreation is the only purpose for marriage and/or sex. Procreation is A purpose for marriage, but far from the only one. Conservation of capital, insuring that health care decisions be made by a loved one we trust, tax benefits, or simply companionship, love and affection are all quite valid purposes of marriage. Otherwise, you should be prepared to deny the right to marry to infertile couples, couples who have voluntarily decided not to have children, post-menopausal women as well as gay people.

      Argument failed. Care to try again?

      August 12, 2010 at 9:46 am |
  14. McCluck

    Good thing we have laws that protect the minority from the religious bigot majority and how they vote. We will look back in history and we will recognize those that apposed equal rights as the pathetic individuals they are. I may give you bigots a break if I heard a good argument from your side.-Nothing but religion forcing its tentacles into our (supposedly non religious) gov't.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm |
    • To McCluck

      Why this stuff about the bigoted voters? The voter turnout was 79.42% – not exactly major. The votes for Prop 8 was only 52.24% after the LDS and other religious groups dumped tons of money into it – not exactly a landslide. In other words, over 47% of the voters were NOT bigoted and were proved justified in their vote. If the vote were held again, Prop 8 would go down in flames. The religious-right is, thankfully, losing its power to dominate over everyone else.

      August 10, 2010 at 7:22 pm |
    • Neeneko

      It would not be so bad if these people were at least a real majority... they seem to confuse 'better organized' for 'larger numbers'. The actual majority of people are generally against such measures... but a minority of evangelicals wield disproportionate power and are organized enough to come out the the polls in large numbers, so they call themselves the majority.

      August 11, 2010 at 10:58 am |
    • McCluck

      I see what you both are saying, good points. Still, good thing we have laws that prevent the extreme views of powerful, organized groups from taking peoples rights away through voting, even if it is the case that the majority of people don’t feel that way (but whose opinions are weak to the point that they are not motivated to vote).

      August 11, 2010 at 11:05 am |
    • TonyB

      There are two primary reasons people oppose gay marriage, and it isn't bigotry. I personally don't care if Jim wants to marry John. What I don't want is for a religious institution to be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony that violates the institution's beliefs. If gay marriage is allowed, will it then be a crime to deny a gay couple to be married at a church, synagogue or mosque? All three religions oppose gay marriage, so the government should not compel them to perform a ceremony that violates their beliefs.

      Another reason why some people oppose gay marriage is because marriage (to them) means a union whose purpose includes procreation. It is simply impossible for a homosexual couple to reproduce on their own, and therefore to those people allowing a union that could never involve procreation reduces the importance of marriage. I'm not saying that is a 100% correct view (many heterosexual couples cannot procreate for various reasons), but that is the thinking. It isn't bigotry, it is an attempt to protect an institution that some people find sacred.

      Of course, it is easier to label everyone as bigots than to consider the real reasons for opposition, which is what I see a lot in these forums. Real life usually isn't that simple.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:42 am |
  15. Cath

    SO this guy went through a "homosexual" phase or a "bisexual" phase, then turned it into a career. Opportunistic comes to mind, but whatever the reasons, he seems incapable of accepting either his homosexuality or bisexuality and is now using this to garner money. At best, a tortured soul who cannot come to grips with himself, at worse, a bottom feeder opportunist. He needs therapy.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:54 pm |
  16. McCluck

    Not a single bad word in my post yet it wont pass the filters, what a joke.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
    • David Johnson

      The dreaded waiting to be monitored thing happens to me all the time. I never use foul language. I never call anyone names. But still... Ah, the ways of the moderator gods is mysterious.

      August 10, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
    • Grant

      Ah ha! Found the word they hate: consti tution

      Don't believe me, try it for yourself!

      August 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm |
    • McCluck

      i already figured that out but thanks. also Ent!tles and Sanct!ty

      August 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm |
    • Grant

      Sorry McCluck, saw your post after I made mine. That explains two other posts I made on a different article that didn't get approved.

      August 10, 2010 at 2:04 pm |
    • McCluck

      No apologies required my friend. Instead of arguing with bigots, it became my goal to beat the darn filter! we win lol.

      August 10, 2010 at 2:27 pm |
    • Grant

      McCluck, you seem to have left out one argument that has been thrown back at me that I'd like your take on. It's an extension of the "slippery slope" argument, but applies to incest.

      In a point against gay marriage, it was once proposed to me that should a consenting pair of sound-minded related adults decide to enter into a relationship together, then by the same arguments put forth in defense of gay marriage, they should be allowed to do so, and that if we are opposed to this notion, then by extension we should be opposed to gay marriage as well.

      Thoughts?

      August 10, 2010 at 3:09 pm |
    • McCluck

      That is a much more difficult argument to handle. I think everyone's gut reaction would be to say that incest is horrible though they don’t know why. When you break it down, if one loves a sibling then why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?-it hurts no one but themselves if no children are conceived. It would however be horrible to let them procreate. This is because of the chance of having a child with a genetic abnormality. In my mind, I imagine our hate for incest (and maybe homosexuals) is biologically driven because it protects us from making unfit children, genetically speaking, and therefore hindering our own fitness. fitness=ability to p@ss our genes and have our children grow to p@ss theirs. So, I see no reason for brother and sister to be not allowed to marry and share a life together if they are willing to let evolution select against them and not have children. But I do not think we should let brother and sister procreate by law.
      Fortunately, I don’t think my opinion from above (one that I am not very sure about as I just formed it now) must carry over to the incest thing. Incest is much more of a choice. Homosexuals are prevented from marrying anyone of the same gender (they are only attracted to the same gender upon birth) while everyone is prevented from marrying their siblings so equal rights still apply to everyone. I suppose if there was a human condition where they were unable to be attracted to anyone but their siblings then there would be enough similarities to make that argument. Till then incest really IS a choice. And unlike some religious claim, being a homosexual is most certainly not a choice.
      I struggled with that one, anyone else have an opinion?

      August 10, 2010 at 4:55 pm |
    • McCluck

      I cant get my comment to pass the filters again....

      August 10, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
    • McCluck

      o That is a much more difficult argument to handle. I think everyone's gut reaction would be to say that incest is horrible though they don’t know why. When you break it down, if one loves a sibling then why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?-it hurts no one but themselves if no children are conceived. It would however be horrible to let them procreate. This is because of the chance of having a child with a genetic abnormality. In my mind, I imagine our hate for incest (and maybe homosexuals) is biologically driven because it protects us from making unfit children, genetically speaking, and therefore hindering our own fitness. Fitness = ability to pass our genes and have our children grow to pass theirs. So, I see no reason for brother and sister to be not allowed to marry and share a life together if they are willing to let evolution select against them and not have children. But I do not think we should let brother and sister procreate by law.
      Fortunately, I don’t think my opinion from above (one that I am not very sure about as I just formed it now) must carry over to the incest thing. Incest is much more of a choice. Homosexuals are prevented from marrying anyone of the same gender (they are only attracted to the same gender upon birth) while everyone is prevented from marrying their siblings so equal rights still apply to everyone. I suppose if there was a human condition where they were unable to be attracted to anyone but their siblings then there would be enough similarities to make that argument. Till then incest really IS a choice. And unlike some religious claims, being a homosexual is most certainly not a choice.
      I struggled with that one, anyone else have an opinion?

      August 10, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
    • McCluck

      i cant get most of my response to post and i cant figure out why....here is the last part

      Homosexuals are prevented from marrying anyone of the same gender (they are only attracted to the same gender upon birth) while everyone is prevented from marrying their siblings so equal rights still apply to everyone. I suppose if there was a human condition where they were unable to be attracted to anyone but their siblings then there would be enough similarities to make that argument. Till then incest really IS a choice. And unlike some religious claims, being a homosexual is most certainly not a choice. In other words, a gay man cannot happily marry a woman because he is instincively attracted to men. But a person with a sibling can still happily marry someone else that he is incstinctively attracted to. They are just apples and oranges and not related enouph to make that claim.

      August 10, 2010 at 5:25 pm |
    • McCluck

      I give up trying to get that past the filters...

      August 10, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
    • Gadflie

      The "slippery slope" argument best applies to straight marriages. After all, they are the one that started us down the slope. If you support the right of straights to marry, you must support polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc...

      August 10, 2010 at 6:07 pm |
    • lewax00

      Constitution? Really?

      August 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm |
    • KAK

      Grant. The day that there are enough citizens fighting for the right to marry their adult first cousin, child, or other related family member, and they wish to take it to court and fight for the right, we can then have that argument in the public sphere. To date I see little, if any, organized group crying that their basic constitutional rights in this area are being violated. Until then, realize that for gays and lesbians there are actually laws on the books which currently deny them their basic constitutional rights. Let's work to remove those hateful and hurtful laws first, and then take on the debate of polygamy, familial marriage, etc. The fundamental rights for gays and lesbians to marry the adult of their choice is a very different Constitutional question than marrying multiple partners or your son/daughter.

      August 10, 2010 at 7:29 pm |
    • jim atmadison

      Ent!tle, Sanct!ty, and Const!tution all have the letters t, i, t in a row. That's seems to be why they get blocked.

      Somebody has fear of n!pples.

      Oh, and you can't say 'n!pples, either.

      August 11, 2010 at 8:26 am |
    • JohnQuest

      McCluck, I have heard the same lame argument "if gays can marry then why cant we marry sheep?" stupid I know. I answer the not so bright people that ask that silly question, laws should be applied across the board, no one is allowed to marry sheep or their sibling or any such thing. The same laws for all.

      August 11, 2010 at 9:54 am |
    • McCluck

      I agree, that is what I was thinking too. Also, Gays loving one another and siblings loving one another are not the same so the logic from one doesn’t apply to the other. Gay is not a choice. As far as I know there is no one born with no choice but to love their sibling.-so equal rights still apply to all, they can marry who they are born to love. Some may say "but gay men have the same rights, the rights to marry a women or vice versa" but it is not their choice who they are capable of loving. If the condition exists where they can only love their sibling they may be able to make a comparison. And as far as someone being born only loving animals?-I don’t know if that happens, but regardless animals are not cognitively human, they cant be held responsible, enter contracts or consent so it would be absurd to allow them to participate in an agreement that they cannot understand or consent to.

      August 11, 2010 at 10:54 am |
    • Grant

      Thanks JQ and McCluck for your responses.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:02 am |
    • Sierra Hennessy

      Saying that gay marriage opens the "slippery slope" is simply poor logic, not to mention fear mongering. Allowing gays to marry does NOT require me to approve of besiality, incest, rape or anything else. Gay marriage supports only two gay persons to marry. In fact, unless you ARE gay, it has nothing to do with you at all. Most of my "gay" friends are more concerned with what rights come with marriage, the right to be beside a loved one when they are dying, the right to claim insurance, to file taxes and get those write offs et al.

      Heterosexual couples commonly overlook that all those papers the minister is signing and filing prior to the ceremony are regarding a CIVIL UNION under the law. Marriage in a church is just between you and God. Marriage regarding state law goes hand in hand with it, but they are two seperate concepts.

      Let's just celebrate that two human beings want to spend a lifetime together. That's rare enough right there.

      August 11, 2010 at 11:54 am |
    • Dan

      @ JohnQuest: While the marrying of sheep may be hyperbolic, it serves as a reminder that when I was a kid, no one would have dreamt that gay marriage would ever be an issue. If you don't think the slippery slope argument works, just wait until more and more men program themselves with fetishes (it is happening due to the "anything goes nature of the Internet") like pedophilia - which is on the rise. What will the pedos demand if our society allows gay marriage. You can call me ridiculous all you like, but as I said, I never dreamt our nation would get to this place.

      August 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm |
    • blogger

      Slippery Slope. It's a common logical fallacy. However, no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Giving women the vote has somehow not led to giving sheep the vote. One does not follow the other...

      August 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
    • Morgan

      @Dan

      You said "... when I was a kid, no one would have dreamt that gay marriage would ever be an issue. "

      And before that, no one would have dreamt that interracial marriage would ever be an issue. And before that, no one would have dreamed that women wanting to vote would ever be an issue. And before that, no one would have ever dreamed that the right to own slaves would ever be an issue.

      It's called social evolution, and hopefully it means that we're maturing as a society.

      August 12, 2010 at 9:38 am |
  17. McCluck

    This blog has a terrible filtering system.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:39 pm |
  18. To Bill

    What is this Harm you speak of?

    I think you are confusing the word right with rite, and that is totally understandable.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:18 pm |
    • To To Bill

      You're kidding, right? You can't imagine any harm that would follow were the state start forcibly divorcing heterosexual couples? Especially those with children?

      If you're serious, then I encourage you to read Judge Walker's findings of fact. It's about 100 pages detailing the harm done to gay couples...and their children...by denying them access to marriage.

      August 10, 2010 at 9:36 pm |
  19. Flex

    I wonder how many guys this closet pervert has been with since his marriage to his wife. This type of human is the lowest common denominator, and the religious organizations that feed off of his self loathing are equally pathetic. They're lower than a child molester because they're completely dishonest.

    August 10, 2010 at 12:10 pm |
    • To Flex

      I don't think the guy is dishonest. He's delusional. If many current scientists are correct in believing orientation is set somewhere between the 1st trimester and the 1st year after birth, and is NOT a choice, then the only way you can become an ex-gay is by brain-washing. Lose the "faith" and you're back to being gay. You can't change how you were born.

      August 10, 2010 at 6:59 pm |
      • maine liberal

        If true believers accept the foundation that God created everything than they must accept that God created gays

        August 11, 2010 at 9:53 am |
        • Gary

          Maine Liberal, No most blame Satan and say sexuality is simply a choice. also many anti gay especially religious anti gay folks dont realize just how productive many gay people "fit" in many occupations such as hairstylist,fashion design,coreagrapherers,make up artist, and so many creative "non masculine" occupations...this post sounds very bias and insulting ....but true heterosexuals like myself who know in their heart sexuality is NOT a Choice will realize how accurate I am.

          August 11, 2010 at 10:05 am |
        • McCluck

          Hey, why dont you just calm down with that logical stuff huh? You are going to make some heads explode.

          August 11, 2010 at 10:05 am |
        • brad

          Or maybe human evolution produced two types of sexuality, and one type is a freak.

          August 11, 2010 at 11:17 am |
        • jerry

          WOW I CANT BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT WHAT AN ABONANATION yes GOD CREATED but we also live in a fallen state GOD gave us a free will to choose like i sais before GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE not adam and steve

          August 11, 2010 at 11:47 am |
        • Gary

          Jerry only problem sir Gays dont choose to be that way. They were born that way.

          August 11, 2010 at 11:51 am |
        • Calvin

          Gary – you can say that till the cows come home, but you cannot prove it. And behavior is always chosen....

          August 11, 2010 at 12:34 pm |
        • Gary

          Calvin, if being straight is your choice. then you would be attracted to both men and women sexually but choose women. I doubt that is the case I am attracted to women I am married to a woman. I was born this way. Most people are born straight. check mate.

          August 11, 2010 at 1:12 pm |
        • McCluck

          Lol, so you want these people to choose an action that feels wrong to them because what they naturally feel is wrong according to you? You are going to have to justify why it is wrong in order for your claim to hold and water. And no it cannot be proven that it is a not a chioce, but we have ample evidence to support the concept that it is not a choice. Nice try.

          August 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm |
        • McCluck

          That was meant as a reply to Calvin

          August 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm |
        • peace2all

          @Calvin & @Jerry

          I think that if you do the slightest bit of research you will find, virtually, if not all scientific disciplines to be firmly in the court of it is 'inherent' at birth.

          If you look at some of the latest studies coming out of neurobiology, sociology, psychology, genetics, etc.....again, it is nature, not nurture.

          There 'may' always be some exception to the rule somewhere..... and some that were gay/lesbian, may actually be 'bi-se**ual.

          But, to say that it is 'just a choice', and they should get de-programmed, ask god for forgiveness and accept jesus into their life, is preposterous.

          But even more importantly and the bigger issue here is the fact that there are those of you that, just because your bible tells you so, or you 'just don't like it...i.e... makes you feel bad, means that it absolutely wrong, immoral, etc.... and hey, let's make a law about it...

          Respect and Peace to you both.....

          August 11, 2010 at 1:22 pm |
        • jerry

          peace to all if you research the BIBLE you will first of all know that GOD IS REAL ,JESUS IS REAL,THE BIBLE IS THE (BASIC INSTRUCTION BEFORE LEAVING EARTH)you will find that JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS TO SAVED HUMANITY FROM ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN HELL,you will find that JESUS IS REAL AND LOVES YOU WITH AN EVERLASTING LOVE,and most of all you will find ourt that GOD gave us a choice to choose,you will also find out that GOD created adan and eve not adam and steve i challenge you to put science to the test against THE BIBLE i guarentee THE BIBLE WILL WIN OUT because THE BIBLE IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN EVERYTHING not science PERIOD

          August 11, 2010 at 3:07 pm |
        • Gary

          jerry , prove it and we will agree with you.

          August 11, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
        • Gary

          jerry bible just like the quran is a religious text written by men 2200 years ago ....why do we have to read a book written by humans to learn about God?

          August 11, 2010 at 3:17 pm |
        • jerry

          mr gary the first of all THE BIBLE IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM LIKE THE KORAN OR HOWEVER YOU SPELL IT THE BIBLE IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN EVERYTHING WE DO,AND SURE THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY MAN YES,BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY GODDLY MEN AS THE HOLY SPIRIT PROMTED THEM it isnt a man made false religion like the quran is and second of all how many little boys and girls out there do you see that are gay and haow many adults do you see gay (oops smelling oh i mean spelling mistake ill get some nasty letters about that)when you get to a certain point you reach the age of accountability another words knowing right from wrong

          August 11, 2010 at 3:27 pm |
        • Gary

          jerry, I proved to you using simple logic sexual preferrence is not a choice....prove to me bible is word of God. just because you read the bible and choose to believe its context as word of God dosnt prove anything. You have read it and have faith it is the word of God. You have attended church your faith I am sure has grown that it is the true word of God. As an agnostic I havent had that experience despite reading it over 3 times and attending various churches...My father is devout methodist, my wife and kids are devout cathlic/christians. that is fine by me but I need proof...thanks for replys have a great life and even better after life in heaven one day!

          August 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm |
        • Jason

          Jerry, who says the bible is the final authority? Oh wait, the bible says it is. You know what, the torah also says this...as does the qur'an...and the tao te ching...and the teachings of scientology...etc, etc, etc. The bible is a book, just like all the other ancient religious book... full of stories, nothing more.

          August 11, 2010 at 4:26 pm |
        • brad

          You forgot to include the Constitution which is subject to the interpretation of the guys wearing the robes.

          August 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm |
        • brad

          Jason, you forgot to mention the constitution and declaration of independence. Old documents subject to interpretation by the courts.

          August 11, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
        • maine liberal

          There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

          August 11, 2010 at 4:40 pm |
        • maine liberal

          So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

          August 11, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
        • Jason

          So, the bible says not to eat things from the sea with fins or scale...do you eat Shirmp, if you do then you are a sinner. Oh, do you beat your wife, the bible says it's okay...as long as it's no wider than your thumb. Also, don't forget, according to the bible...you can own slaves. Jst sayin...

          August 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm |
        • bethkat

          If YOU read the bible (all of it) you will find a book that was written over a period of many hundreds of years in the desert by a group of nomadic herders. If you read translations of old versions of the bible you will find that Jesus was married, that God originally had a feminine partner and that the bible says nothing about NOT BELIEVING in other diety's, only that you should not hold any of them HIGHER than God. In fact, if you do a little research you will find that Jew's believed very strongly in the power of other deity's, and occasionally offered them sacrifice to appease them if bad things were happening.
          A little research would also tell you that the book which you call the "Bible" was finalized by the Catholic church less that 500 years ago after being picked over for a millenia. You will find that many credible portions were thrown out and that large sections of it were made up completely. Most of the "New Testament" was written hundreds of years after the death of Yeshua of Nazareth.
          EDUCATE YOURSELF!

          August 12, 2010 at 12:26 pm |
        • jerry

          mr peace to all i challenge you to find out more about JESUS AND THE BIBLE and i also challenge you to ASK CHRIST INTO YOUR HEART and by the way its a typing error its amazing how many criticise your smelling oh i mean spelling or your stammer oh i mean grammer

          August 11, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
        • jerry

          mr peace to all its not just because i dont like it its because it completly goes against nature you know male-female you know husband-wife you know him-her oh asnd by the way i am respecting that is why i am telling you the truth so that one day GOD FORBID YOU DIE WITHOUT KNOWING CHRIST AND END UP SPENDING ETERNITY IN HELL FIRE YOU CANT SAY THAT NO ONE TOLD ME oh and by the way ya oops sorry YES i sais hell because weather you like it or not HEAVEN AND HELL ARE BOTH REALITIES AND YOU DONT GO TO HEAVEN BY BEING A GOOD PERSON AND YOU DONT GO TO HELL BY BEING A BAD PERSON

          August 11, 2010 at 3:19 pm |
        • Jason

          Jerry, did you know the concept of hell came from one of the two valleys that surround Jerusalem? See, back in the day, the good people of Jerusalem use to throw their trash into the Valley of Hinnom,...and like all garbage dumps...fires begin and smoke rises and it gets all nasty looking and smells bad. Well, after a while, the good people of Jerusalem would banish the bad people from the city...banishing them to the Valley of Hinnom,...forcing them to exile in the area that was all nasty and smelly and full of fire. Don't believe me, look up Gehenna.

          August 11, 2010 at 4:34 pm |
        • jerry

          jason yo dude hav\e an idea since youi dont believe me about hell since you dont believe in hell ,since you say you know so much since you think you know everything than die and find out for yourself oh ya i forgot if you do that it wil be too late.FOR IT IS APPOINTED A MAN TO DIE ONCE AND AFTER THAT THE JUDGEMENT.believe what you want just remember our life is but a vapour just a inkling of what eternity will be and life without CHRIST = 0 nothing notta.But again i dare you i compell you i challenge you to ask CHRIST into your heart trust #1you have nothing to loose and CHRIST to gaijn #2 what if just maybe what if all of us fanatics or JESUS FREAKS as you people call us are right because eternity without CHRIST is not very nice.Like i sad you believe us TRY FOR YOURSELF YOU WOULD BE PLEASENTLY 'VERY'PLEASENTLY SURPRISED

          August 11, 2010 at 10:00 pm |
        • Gary

          jerry, once again you have no proof. Its just a feeling you have. You are strong in your faith. The same way muslims are strong in their faith,same way Hindus are too. No two christian secs believe the same thing by the way. You read a book and take it as the word of God. Thats your right. Dont get upset when other people who have read the same religious text as you and dont feel the same way.

          August 12, 2010 at 10:58 am |
        • LB Colorado

          Jerry, I believe you have got it. P.T.L. No fluff – it is the way it is.

          August 11, 2010 at 5:08 pm |
        • jerry

          mr gary in all due respect where sir is your proof like i said before 'is a murderer born a murderer,is a prostitute born a prostitute,is a drug adict born a drug addict the answer is NO why thank you for asking'BECAUSE GOD GAVE EVERY ONE OF US A CHOICE TO CHOOSE WE ARE NOT PROGRAMED AS ROBOTS AND ALSO WHICH IS THE MOST OBVIOUS IS THAT'GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE and trust me i say that in all due respect of the BIBLE

          August 11, 2010 at 12:50 pm |
        • jerry

          as i was going to say SIR is i would like to see your proof to back uyp your claim

          August 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm |
        • Gary

          Jerry , simple logic, if we all choosed whether we were gay or straight. We would all be attracted to both sexes and choose one or the other. Jerry if you are a straight male it is because you were born that way. You may choose what college to go to . You may choose which woman to ask out. but you dont choose whether you are attracted to men or women....check mate.

          August 11, 2010 at 1:14 pm |
        • Frogist

          Jerry, I thought god created everyone and everything...

          August 11, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
        • Common Misconception

          Jerry, you are only remembering convenient parts of the bible. Let’s assume your beliefs are correct. Jesus said to give to God what is God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, setting down the separation of church and state. The portions of the bible that decry homosexuality also have a prophet telling them the error of their ways, and only in the end did God alone punish them. If you are truly a Christian, you will accept others for who they are, minister to them, but never try to force them to change to your beliefs. What you are doing right now is just fearmongering.

          August 11, 2010 at 3:04 pm |
        • cindy

          WRONG!! You obvioulsy do believe in the word of God as it is written.

          August 11, 2010 at 2:14 pm |
        • jerry

          oh and by the way you can call me a JESUS FREAK its i will accept as a compliment and LB COLORADO thank you

          August 11, 2010 at 10:05 pm |
        • jerry

          ok gary since i 'have no proof'please show me the proof that you have since you obviously know so much about this subject.and by the way its not a feeling its a knowing ONCE YOU HAVE TASTED AND SEEN THAT THE LORD IS GOOD you dont need no proof you just know than you have unsaved people who are self proclaimed experts on this subject who sit here and try to discredit the gospel of CHRIST its amang how all these unsaved people know so much.like i said istead of trying to discredit the GOSPEL OF CHRIST wont spend all your time finding out that it is real.as i said before 'if we were born gay(wich is completely rediculous)than GOD would not have given us a free will to choose

          August 12, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
        • jerry

          well i see once again an unsaved person has come and proclaimed that they are self proclaimed experts,and again trying with all there efforts to discredit the GOSPEL OF CHRIST amazing and yet us FANATICS OR JESUS FREAKS are wrong.mr gary please mr expert show the rock solid undenieing proof you have since i supposedly dont know what i am talking about,and once again the quran and THE BIBLE are not the same the next time you talk to a muslum or buddist or jehova witness ask them if there god has ever COME TO THIS EARTH AS A HUMAN FORM AND HUMBLED HIMSELF AND GAVE HIS LIFE FOR NTHE SOULS OF HUMANITY

          August 12, 2010 at 2:01 pm |
      • jerry

        to flex your too flexed we are NOT BORN GAY IT IS A CHOICE GOD GAVE EVERY PERSON A FREE WILL TO CHOOSE let me ask you a question is a drug addict born a drug addict,NO is a murderer born a murderer NO is a president born a president NO is a prostitute born a prostitute NO AND SO ON AND SO ON AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH SO IT WILL BE NEAR THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

        August 11, 2010 at 11:53 am |
      • aesthete2

        Well you can pretend, but that's an evil thing to do to the woman you marry.

        August 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm |
    • Jimmy

      @To Flex

      I don't think he's delusional. That ministry is treating homosexuality like an addiction. They aren't saying it will go away, but that one can choose to ignore it. This is true of almost anything if one really sets their mind to it. Like vegetarians and the celibate. It's not actually nature to the body, but someone can try to suppress that if they so choose. The only issue I have is that it shouldn't be a problem to begin with.

      August 11, 2010 at 4:06 am |
    • Rob A

      There is still no concrete evidence that anyone is born gay. That is nothing but theory and speculation. However, there are many documented cases of people whose homosexuality can be traced back to a childhood problem such as abuse or a bad relationship with a parent. More psychologists and doctors need to stop being politically correct and start treating homosexuality for what it is, a disorder and not a natural state. There is nothing natural about it.

      August 11, 2010 at 7:15 am |
  20. Bill

    The absolute arrogance of 'the people' who seem to think that their right to vote includes a right to harm law-abiding citizens and their families with that vote is something I will simply never understand.

    August 10, 2010 at 11:18 am |
    • Periwinkle

      No one is HARMING law abiding citizens. Homosexuals already HAVE rights. They don't need SPECIAL rights. And a "family" is made up of a man and a woman, not two males or two females, no matter what homosexuals claim. And they are not gays. There is nothing GAY about a homosexual.

      August 10, 2010 at 2:22 pm |
    • tomjones1234

      I've never seen so many "ironic" quotation marks in an article before

      August 10, 2010 at 7:09 pm |
    • Rich

      there are only 4 in the article, TJ.

      August 10, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
    • garc

      How? Not one person has yet to explain to me how granting gay people the right to vote harms my (or your) straight marriage in any way.

      August 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm |
    • garc

      oops–I meant to say right to marry.

      August 11, 2010 at 1:38 pm |
    • M

      Unfortunately, religion's only way to control the masses is to control what they think. Abolish religion and you will begin to heal the world.

      August 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
    • Dan

      @ M

      You say that religion wants to contol the way people think, then call for the abolition of religion. Seem you want the same power you accuse the religious of.

      August 11, 2010 at 3:47 pm |
    • Viper1j

      garc wrote: "How? Not one person has yet to explain to me how granting gay people the right to marry harms my (or your) straight marriage in any way."

      Well, now Sparky, let's take a look at that. Can you drive? Need a LICENSE don't you? What about to fly? Yep, I'm a pilot and I need a LICENSE. And everyone (especially the FAA) tells me that flying, like driving is a PRIVILEGE. I don't have a RIGHT to fly, and I don't have a RIGHT to drive.

      I hate confusing this issue with facts, but isn't marriage one of them there things you need a license for? But that's supposed to be a "right"? Can you or anyone name ANY single thing (besides marriage) where you think have a RIGHT to a license? I'm not greedy... Just one will do.. 🙂

      August 17, 2010 at 9:01 pm |
    • Chaim

      @Viper 1j

      Garc is incorrect in saying these things are rights. The issue is one of equality under the law.

      By pointing out that a LICENSE is not a right, you must admit that the issue is a secular one, since marriage licenses are issued by the secular authority of the STATE.

      Religion has no business dictating secular issues in a manner that promotes inequality under the law. This is one of the points of the case in question...and why the gay and lesbian community will eventually triumph in the end.

      Equality under the law. You've got it and so does every other American. Getting the courts to do the Constitutional thing....priceless.

      August 17, 2010 at 9:14 pm |
    • robin

      Viper1j – you are actually arguing very effectively AGAINST a ban on gay marriage. You argue that marriage is a privilege – not a right – because a license is required, and by definition nobody has a right to a license. Fine. You have taken religion and subjective moral views out of the equation entirely (as they should be) and focused squarely on the LEGAL institution of marriage. Now, think about what you're saying. NOBODY has the right to a marriage license. I agree completely! Gay, straight – NOBODY. Straight people simply have the right to TRY to get a marriage license ("pursuit of happiness" and all that). Now, think hard. On what Constitutional basis can you justify the denial of that right to gay people? And on what Consitutional basis can you justify the denial of marriage licenses to gay people just because they're gay? The answer, my friend, is NONE WHATSOEVER.

      August 18, 2010 at 11:53 am |
    • Seth

      Sorry Viper. Loving v. Virginia. The Supremem Court says marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT...

      August 18, 2010 at 4:38 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.