By John Blake, CNN
(CNN)– Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony magazine when he received an unusual letter.
“I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”
In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”
“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”
We know what King thought about race, poverty and war. But what was his attitude toward gay people, and if he was alive today would he see the gay rights movement as another stage of the civil rights movement?
That’s not the type of question most people will consider on this Monday as the nation celebrates King’s national holiday. Yet the debate over King’s stance toward gay rights has long divided his family and followers. That debate is poised to go public again because of the upcoming release of two potentially explosive books, one of which examines King’s close relationship with an openly gay civil rights leader, Bayard Rustin.
The author of both books says King’s stance on gay rights is unclear because the Ebony advice column may be the only public exchange on record where he touches on the morality of homosexuality.
Yet King would have been a champion of gay rights today because of his view of Christianity, says Michael Long, author of, “I Must Resist: Bayard Rustin’s Life in Letters,” who shared the story of King’s Ebony letter.
“Dr. King never publicly welcomed gays at the front gate of his beloved community. But he did leave behind a key for them - his belief that each person is sacred, free and equal to all to others,” says Long, also author of the upcoming “Keeping it straight? Martin Luther King, Jr., Homosexuality, and Gay Rights.”
Did King’s dream include gay people?
One person close to King, though, would disagree.
Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. She was joined by Bishop Eddie Long, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Church in Georgia, where she served as an elder at the time. Long, who recently settled out of court with four young men who filed lawsuits claiming he coerced them into sexual relationships, publicly condemned homosexuality.
King did not answer an interview request, but she has spoken publicly about her views.
During a speech at a church meeting in New Zealand, she said her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”
Yet her mother, Coretta Scott King, was a vocal supporter of gay rights. One of her closest aides was gay. She also invoked her husband’s dream.
Ravi Perry, a political science professor at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, said King’s widow once said in a public speech that everyone who believed in her husband’s dream should “make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
There is no private or public record of King condemning gay people, Perry says. Even the FBI’s surveillance of King’s private phone conversations didn’t turn up any moment where King disparaged gay people, she says.
“If Dr. King were anti-gay, there would likely be a sermon, a speech, a recording of some kind indicating such,” she says. “And knowing how closely his phones were tapped; surely there would be a record of such statements.”
Those who say King did not condemn gays and would have supported gay rights today point to King’s theology.
Though King was a Christian minister, he didn’t embrace a literal reading of the Bible that condemns homosexuality, some historians say. King’s vision of the Beloved Community – his biblical-rooted vision of humanity transcending its racial and religious differences – expanded people’s rights, not restricted them, they say.
Rev. C.T. Vivian, who worked with King at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, says King would have championed gay rights today.
“Martin was a theologian,” Vivian says. “Martin starts with the fact that God loves everybody, and all men and all women were created by God. He based his whole philosophy on God’s love for all people.”
King’s relationship with ‘Brother Bayard’
Those who say King would have championed gay rights also point to King’s treatment of one of the movement’s most important leaders, Bayard Rustin.
Rustin was an openly gay civil rights leader who is widely credited with organizing the 1963 March on Washington. He was an organizational genius, the man who insisted that King speak last on the program, giving his “I Have a Dream” speech the resonance it would not have had otherwise, says Jerald Podair, author of “Bayard Rustin: American Dreamer.”
“He was the kind of guy who could tell you how many portable toilets you needed for 250,000 people in a demonstration," Podair says. “He was a details guy. King needed him for that march.”
But Rustin could do more than arrange a demonstration. He was also a formidable thinker and debater. He was born to a 15-year-old single mother and never graduated from college.
The movement was led by intellectual heavyweights like King, but even among them, Rustin stood out, Podair says. He read everything and was a visionary. One aide to President Lyndon Johnson described him as one of the five smartest men in America, says Podair, a history professor at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin.
“People who heard him speak were transfixed,” Podair says.
Rustin became one of the movement’s most eloquent defenders of its nonviolent philosophy, says Saladin Ambar, a political scientist at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.
“He was one of the few individuals not afraid to debate with Malcolm X in public,” Ambar says. “Rustin more than held his own and really challenged Malcolm to push his thinking.”
Rustin was a special assistant to King and once headed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. During the planning of the March on Washington, King resisted calls to jettison Rustin because he was gay, Podair says.
King, though, didn’t speak out on behalf of gay rights because he was doing all he could to hold the movement together, historians say.
He had to constantly fend off rumors that the movement was infiltrated by communists. He was also criticized for expanding the movement to take on poverty and oppose the Vietnam War.
“The movement superseded any discussion of gay rights,” Ambar says. “King was dedicated to the cause at hand.”
With all that was going on, King couldn’t afford to wage a public campaign defending Rustin’s homosexuality, says Vivian, a SCLC colleague of King’s.
“Any employee that would employ a gay person at the time who was outwardly gay would have problems,” Vivian says. “I don’t care if you were the president of the Untied Sates, you would have trouble doing that.”
After the 1963 March on Washington, Rustin remained as King’s adviser. The two, however, drifted apart when King became more radical during the last three years of his life, says Adair, Rustin’s biographer.
When Rustin died in 1987, he was starting to receive attention from gay and lesbian activists who linked civil rights with gay rights, Podair says.
Rustin was a late convert to their cause.
“He never put it [homosexuality] front and center,” Podair says. “He never politicized it until the end of his life. He didn’t want to make a big deal out of it.”
It’s no longer unusual today for gay and lesbian activists to draw parallels between their struggles and King’s legacy. Vivian, King’s SCLC colleague, says the comparison is apt.
“There was a time when black people were afraid to be themselves among white people,” he says. “You had to fit a stereotype in order to be accepted. They’re going through the same thing but now they feel better about themselves.”
Vivian says the movement shouldn’t be limited to race.
“As we were freeing up black people, we’re freeing up the whole society.”
Long, author of the upcoming books on King and Rustin, says King’s vision transcended his personal limitations. Maybe he could have said more to that anonymous boy who wrote him at Ebony. But he did leave him a key to the Beloved Community– even if he didn’t realize it at the time, Long says.
Now, Long says, it’s up to those who claim King today to use that key.
“A turn of that key and a gentle push on the gate, swinging it wide open so everyone can enter into the Beloved Community,” he says. “That’s the best way to advance the legacy of Martin Luther King.”
Society, in general, was less tolerant of Gays during King's lifetime and especially in the church. I think most people's thinking has evolved since then to accept different lifestyles and live and let-live. There are much more important things to worry about.
Accepting alternative lifestyles is not evolution. It's all been done before by many a pagans in the past. I would call that regression.
Of course you would call it regression because you've already "been there, done that". I'm surprised you can keep your knuckles from dragging!
As in "light as a "
There is power and salvation in gay and lebian celib@te relationships! Gay celib@te
and loving it...a battle cry for freedom!
Your name isn't Douglas; it's Stu. Stu Pid.
If celibate relationships are so great then why not promote hetero celibacy?
Reganzo is a twit.
That is a major insult to twits everywhere. Apologize now!
Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
In ga y mar riage, inc est is okay. There is no concept of mut ants that is possible when blo od rela tives proc reate.
Were you trying to write in English? I recognized the words, but they made no sense in the jumble you created.
Perhaps you can explain where you get this information?
Incest is two people who are related engaging in s.e.xual intercourse.
Gay marriage is two people who are not related, but of the same gender, getting married and living together.
Nothing similar there at all.
Inc est is a concern where you have male & female cells that can merge, where said male & female persons are related. The result is potentially a mut ant.
In gay mar riage, all you have is male/male cells or female/female cells. Therefore, there is no possibility of producing a mutant. Therefore, there is no reason to disallow inc est. What possible reason would you have for disallowing inc est in a gay mar riage other than big otry ? If reli gion is not a valid reason, if "love" is the only valid reason, then inc est is ok in gay marri age.
Standard trick is to claim that MLK was g a y.
When folks protest, call em bi gots.
Gets em everytime
Challenge yourself. Google First Scandal.
“If Dr. King were anti-gay, there would likely be a sermon, a speech, a recording of some kind indicating such,” she says. “And knowing how closely his phones were tapped; surely there would be a record of such statements.” Maybe he just wasn't ready for that battle yet.
Putting the final kibosh on all religions:
• There was probably no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• There was probably no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
A quick Google, Bing or Yahoo search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
so everything on the internet is true? and you call a believer in Christ ignorant? And you have all the answers from the internedt? Hmmmmmmmk!
Religion is all about politics and control, spirituality is the process of knowing God. Religion is based on inaccurate and implausible dogma. Spirituality is based on personal experience with the divine.
Speaking for God about gays, family planning, or any other political topic is the height of arrogance. God is not a vain, petty, genocidal, judgmental figure. Please. God does not choose or play favorites. Please.
@Gvill T: Anyone who cannot differentiate between spiritual Truths that are common across all great religion, and the dogma that divides them, yes, is ignorant. Who did Jesus hate? Who did Jesus bomb? Who did Jesus appoint as the first Pope?
put the final kibosh on reality hit report abuse on all reality repeat bull sh it
Really Reality? Your lack of support for nearly every one of those claims cannot produce such an objective truth. You are completely dumb.
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.
New Torah For Modern Minds
“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."
"Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary (Hardcover) $58.00
~ David L. Lieber (Editor), Jules Harlow (Editor), United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (Corporate Author), The Rabbinical Assembly (Corporate Author)
4.7 out of 5 stars (15 customer reviews)
"The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ) is the primary organization of synagogues practicing Conservative Judaism in North America. It closely works with the Rabbinical Assembly, the international body of Conservative rabbis, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies."
They are called the Infamous Angelic Cons:
Joe Smith had his Moroni.
"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).
Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
Some added references to "tink-erbells".
"The belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and As-syrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an As-syrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."
Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallu-cinating:
"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."
And tin-ker- bells go way, way back:
"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel called Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."
"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hitti-tes and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "
"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "
Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/Disease:
From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.
From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "
"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.
Of course, we all know that angels are really mythical "pretty wingie talking thingies".
With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
p.168. by Ted Peters:
Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "
So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
An Introduction to Taoism
Dr. Meredith Sprunger
"This docu-ment contains a brief overview of Taoism and a description of basic Taoist beliefs. "
The facts are clear. Mr Reality is unable to list his beliefs for fear that they can be proven false quite easily. He is not recognized by millions of people as credible. He has not shown that he nor his beliefs are of any use to the world. He is not able to show that he has provided the world anything good or useful. He is useless to the world.
In the meantime, folks like mother teresa, while supposedly following a false belief, are able to help thousands of mankind. Millions of people believe she is credible. The world benefited from her beliefs and actions.
blah blah blah. Mr Reality is all talk talk talk. utterly use less
You sir......are a complete moron. Religion can never be proven nor dis-proven, it is based upon faith.
Only for the "newbies":
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher man would do or say?
The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
(references used for the update are available upon request)
I like to eat man sausage. That is certainly not a perversion.
what a sad desperate lonely person would steal a name on an anonymous blog
it tastes better if you dip it first in sh t sauce.
Lewis Keseberg, is that you?
Mawtin loved the USSR and they philosiphy. He fool all yall ass with his talk bout being a reverend.
Just like most everyone else, what was thought 40 years ago would be somewhat different today.... Who cares what he thought about gays? At the end of the day, it's irrelevant and meaningless.....
MLK was a doodee eater.
I'd say MLK hated gays as much as he hated white people. Which is significantly. After all, he would hire blonde white h-o-o-k-e-r-s to beat the crap out of and then use while he was on his coke binges. He also taunted his college by plaigerizing his doctoral thesis. the "man" wasn't a dr at all, nor was he a good person. If he had been shot years earlier, none of the mess we're in now would have happened.
lol what mess are you referring too? Equality for all people?
You call Affirmative Action "equal rights?" You call the NAACP "equal rights?" You call not being allowed to disagree with a n-e-g-r-o about anything without being called a racist as "equal rights?" No stupid, n-e-g-r-o-s have been given superior rights. We cannot have all white neighborhoods like we need anymore, we have to allow n-e-g-r-o-s in. We cannot have clean schools anymore, we have to allow n-e-g-r-o-s. No stupid, it's not "equal rights."
Amazing! At least they're fair. CNN won't let you type ne*gro or white*y.
But you can type nig ger and honkee
Regardless of MLK's personal life, his contributions to black society and culture are important and I can honestly say I think my life (as an African-American) has been improved by his actions. I have access to better education, better jobs and an overall better reception from a predominantly white society.
And I will have to disagree with you 'Stormfront'. I think that while Affirmative Action is a controversial subject, it definitely levels the playing field in a world that is filled with white privilege. I think that you are completely able to disagree with an African-American and NOT be labeled a racist because our society should have moved past that by now and when you disagree with me, I want you to disagree with my idea's, not my race. I think that having an integrated neighborhood is a beautiful thing because it shows how we have progressed, as a country, past the superficial boundaries of race. I think that having a "clean school" does not mean an all-white school and that African Americans can be, and are, positive contributions to American schools everywhere.
I disagree with you Stormfront, not because of your race, not because I am black, but because I believe that black people, and all people, are completely equal. I do not believe in the superiority of blacks or any race for that matter and I think that it's the individual who we should be thinking about, not only their private lives but also their contributions to those around them.
MLK was human. He made mistakes and he wasn't perfect. But his legacy is undeniable, and for that, I am grateful.
The world has changed a lot since 1968. Conventional wisdom back then was that it was a psychiatric disorder. I believe that were MLK alive today as progressive a thinker as he was that he would be at the forefront of GLBT rights.
I doubt it considering his strong religious background.
"Conventional wisdom back then was that it was a psychiatric disorder." ,,, What do you mean, "Back then?". It still is a psychiatric disorder even if it's not Politically correct to say so. Sorry if the truth hurts.
@Guest: No, Al's statement is correct. You're just a garden-variety bigot.
Where are you psychiatric degrees and controlled studies to back up your claim? Oh that's right you don't have any, probably because you're just a hateful, pitiful excuse for a human being.
I love MLGay Day
Prayer changes things
Prayer changes things
You're stupidity on constantly posting this crap shows how dense you are and that your prayers aren't working.
It also confirms Im a gay doodee wad.
I don't recall any prayers not being answered, i don't think anyone was praying specifically for you, why don't you ask?
When you wish upon a star
Your dreams come true
It is written...
Did you hear the one about the cricket and the steamroller?
I heard the one about you being a boring douch.e on every article you post on – can we hear that story instead?
You are powerless to stop it. It will go on and on for page after page every day everywhere you post until you can't stand it anymore.
And then some.
Observer: You are so right. I'm already at that point. I think I'll leave now while I still can. Good luck to you in surviving this insipid stupidity!
He seems like he would have been open-minded. He would have supported gay rights.
Not a chance, he knew the difference between human dignity and perversion.
Well awl i gotz to say is WAYZ DUH WHITE WOMINZ!!!
"Not a chance, he knew the difference between human dignity and perversion."
LMAO – you just showed the world you were to lazy to do your homework since the major world organization disagree with you. LOL! They've gone on record stating being gay is not a choice, it's not a mental illness and it can't be voluntarily changed.
You can lie till you are blue in the face. You can quote lies from any pansy rag you want, facts do not change. Perversion it is and perversion it has been throughout history.
Ronald, why are you such a b!tch? No one cares what you think. You likely already have plenty of 'perversions'. We've seen you watching your neighbor's a.ss while he mows the lawn. It's okay to have these feelings. Don't get so angry just because you feel guilty about the tickly feeling in your bathing suit area.
To the perverse all things are perverse, you cannot understand normal.
I agree with you. I mean if you believe the bible literally, you would believe that slavery is fine and accept it , but then again the bible speaks against it. Also you wouldn't eat shellfish and many other absurd things. You have to use your brain and decide where you are coming from, a place of love and acceptance and let god sort it out or are you judge and jury and surpass his actual judgement (if that is what you believe). I believe we know what he says about that. ....he who is without sin ...etc
What makes being gay a perversion?
"gay" is a stolen word that masks the sins of unnatural acts.
Reganzo the Minibrain:"He knew the difference...."
Do you? Doesn't look like it.
yep pansies are sick twisted perverts would that be you and you tom tom?
Good stuff, James! Thank you for posting that. I'm thinking I'm gonna have to pick me up a copy of that DVD.
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.